Okay, let's talk.

Initially, as I walked out of the cinema, I had the same vibe I got from Pirates of the Caribbean 3 - namely: "I couldn't keep track of all the shit that was supposed to be going on." Too many (from both sides) and so I was thinking "this was dense enough to be a novel - it wasn't some three-act-structure thing with a big climax, but a complex story with lots of climaxes and twists and turns and stuff." I wanted to watch it again so I could figure it out.

Then, once I got home, I thought about it some more, and I decided that the anarchy was part of the effect. Just like how Batman was climbing his way up that building, reassessing his objective at every level, having to fight off the SWAT teams who were pointing guns at the wrong guys, there was a sense of chaos and realising that there was no understanding this threat - it wasn't about a specific aim, and the plan had no resolution besides just causing mayhem. All we (and Batman) could do was try to fight against the target directly ahead and hope the next plot wouldn't claim too many lives. Afterwards, you don't really know what The Joker did; you just know it sucked for everyone else, and that the only thing Batman (and Gotham) could claim was a phyrric victory.

That last point touched on another thing too. Did anyone else feel like Batman wasn't the main character? You all think I'm going to say The Joker was instead, but I actually mean that the whole film felt like an ensemble piece rather than a story about a hero fighting a villain. If not for the fact that it was obviously part of the existing Batman franchise, you could have easily built the marketing around Dent. That's kind of the point though I think - that Batman has changed the playing field, and caused all these weird knock-on effects, the most disturbing of which is the appearance of The Joker.

Things I really liked:

- No coherent origin story for The Joker. It's as it should be, and a nice Killing Joke reference.
- Another Killing Joke nod: Dent's character arc reflects the "one bad day" concept.
- Nolan wasn't afraid to make it complicated. I specifically went into this film with the intent to compare it to Iron Man, but I couldn't - Iron Man was a colourful showcase of awesomeness to kick off a franchise, but this was someone asking how far they could push an existing one into the realms of an actual worthwhile story.
- Ledger's performance, but everyone knows that. Obviously The Joker is a psychotic clown, but they (and he) got the balance exactly right: less clown, more psycho. It's so easy to treat him like the rest of Batman's themed Rogues Gallery ("he's a criminal who's also a clown!") and have him use squirty flowers and pistols with a 'BANG!' banner when you shoot them, and miss the whole point of him dressing like a clown: it's because it's weird, and perfectly sums up his warped psyche.

Things I didn't like so much:

- Maggie Gyllenhaal is not attractive. Now, I don't actually care about this - Hollywood's obsession with beauty is disturbing enough, but I dislike that a woman who obviously isn't amazing looking still has to be treated as such to be believable as a romantic lead. The scene where Joker approached her at the party (rearranging his hair even as he waved a knife) seemed forced. I call it the "Sarah Jessica-Parker Effect", wherein a female lead who may well be charismatic, funny, intelligent, an excellent actress and therefore possess any number of skills that make her suitable for a role has to be touted as gorgeous in order for the audience to believe men will desire her. Bruce Wayne can still be in love with a plain girl, you know - he's obviously a smart, deep guy if he can do even half the stuff he does in the movie.
- Two-Face's deformity was kind of cheesy. I wanted to be freaked by it. I wanted to not be able to look at the screen. I guess Tim Burton's twisted version of Gotham and its denizens which traumatised a generation of pre-pubescent Batman fans has left its scars - the film makers won't take that step and make anything too grotesque for fear of alienating parents again.
- By the same token, I'd rather have seen some more of Joker's violence. Cutting away every single time without seeing a single thing was a bit of a cop-out. They could have just shown the knife drawing blood as he pushed it into the guy's mouth or something. I was left with the impression that it was an adult film that Warner Brothers knew would also draw in kids and families, so they insisted on sanitising a lot of stuff. Amusingly, this movie has the same rating as The Golden Compass though - which one would you let a kid see?

So yeah. Great movie. I like it more now than I did when I left the cinema, which is probably a good sign.

Might throw in my .02 in here...can't get a word in edge wise over my husband.

We went last Friday and I have to say that while I was looking forward to it as the last Batman installment was good, I'm not by any means a cine-file. I have a tendency to over think movies and have a different sense of humor than just about anyone else on the planet.

I had read a lot about there being too much going on to really figure out what was going on. Films seem to have a tendency to do that over the last year or so (Pirates, X3, Spidey 3). But you're right Thommy, there was no real plot. The whole thing was well woven around the themes of chaos and anarchy and that was what made it work and that was what made films like the previous three not work. What I really liked about TDK was that it had more to say than what was on the surface and it didn't come right out and explain it all like the target audience had just gone to see Meet the Spartans.

This version of the Joker is perfect. Psycho > clown. I'm willing to bet that case studies could be made about when the audience laughed with or at the Joker . The way he kept making up stories about his scars...anything the man did was just a case study in sociopaths. And I have to say that not having an explanation of WHY he was like he was is just what the film (or any film with a terrifying villain) needed - it fed into the unpredictability and the films themes. So yeah, Ledger > anyone. That hospital scene was awesome, apparently that malfunction wasn't planned, even better.

Hell, even Bale was great, I saw an interview with him talking about how Batman is as multi-faceted as the Joker and I hadn't even thought about that - he really does have 3 sides...which is why, I think, Bruce Wayne could never really publicly love Rachael

Your point about the main character is an interesting one, particularly concerning Dent. You can easily look at the film as an ensemble piece (I do) but I think, and this might sound weird, that because it is an ensemble piece and because of the large yet minimal role that Harvey Dent plays in it, you could say that Gotham itself is the main character. I think it just depends on how you define 'main character,' whether it's presence or just impact.

I have to say I'm glad I never saw any attempt to make Maggie Gyllenhaal attractive, not that I saw anything wrong with her but that tendency to sexualize smart, charismatic women like they have no good qualities pisses me off in general.

I did love how she died though - abrupt and horrible, worked so well with the writing.

My only complaint was that, and this is very trivial but nevertheless, Batman needs a lozenge.

Oooh Harley Quinn! Imagine this, if you will: Batman has already spawned imitators, why not Joker? What if one of them's a woman and just as creepy. How fucked up would that be?

I think complete and utter lunatics are the best villains. The kind you can't predict, because they have no plan, no logic, just complete insanity. So anything even remotely similar to the Joker will be a trip. And if it's her, maybe kinda hot?

Hot, but also creepy. Like the Borg Queen.

And when you add Poison Ivy, you get all that delicious lady on lady innuendo.