Cephyran

I read the graphic novel before seeing the film. In turn I went into the film knowing what I was about to see - a living embodiment of the story with an ending I already knew. In doing so I immediately found myself asking these questions upon the start and ultimately the entire way through the film: Will the narrative of the film respect the narrative my mind constructed as I read the novel? Will the shots structurally reflect the same visual craftsmanship of the novel in it's move from page to screen? To answer this, we have to grasp that the way your mind reads a book and watches a movie are two vastly different faculties. With a book - in this case, the graphic novel - your mind constructs the voices, the tone, the choreography and the pacing as a response to the static visual narrative. In films it's all done for you. Ultimately, I found myself able to recall the novel page for page as each scene progressed. Very little of the narrative is rearranged, and those elements that have been shuffled are structured in a way so as to make the character development happen smoothly for an audience that has not read the book. I think the cleanest and simplest way I can describe it is that everything necessary to the telling of this story has been included and everything unnecessary has been left out without damaging the final product. As far as capturing the true visual of the novel, I think the film was completely successful. It is one of those works where the novel itself would have been literally used as the story-boarding. Speaking strictly from the perspective of a comic book fan, one of our greatest desires in film adaptations is seeing how successfully the cast matches the look and feel of the characters. This is also near-flawless. If there is one difference it is in the women, but this is to be expected because from my experience women in comics are never drawn realistically - figures are too toned, too elongated, faces are sharper, and they almost always are overtly sexualized. Obviously, the genre demands it. And the film manages to capture that, the combination of grace, sexuality and strength in a real body and real costumes. Rorshach comes out exactly as I picture him in the novel - a gruff, Punisher-like force of violent vengeance, willing to go right to the edge to prove the ends never justify the means. The back story of his mask is not explained in the film, and it is one of those elements I would argue is it's own compelling detail in the novel, but is peripherally unnecessary in the film translation.

I don't believe you have to read the novel prior to seeing the film. Nothing structurally critical in the novel is lost on-screen. The establishing of the political climate and the superhero generations is done perfectly fine. What you get from the novel is the understanding of the minor details - characters you see momentarily in the film whose lives are fleshed out in subtle asides throughout the novel. The characters of the young man reading the comic by the news vendor, the vendor himself, the heroine Silhouette, and so forth - to the unknowing audience these are inconsequential elements resolved in a manner that balances their introduction; to the book-first audience, it's almost a little feeling of satisfaction, knowing more than what's shown, as if the character was played by a close friend, allowing you to lean over and say, "See that police-man? That's my cousin." Most importantly, what you take from the novel is knowing how it ends. This is one area of the narrative that was modified for the film. To have taken the ending exactly as it was written creates two problems. First, the literal ending would require greater extrapolation into all of those minor characters and side stories (the majority of which are in true essence erased from the film's script), thus creating a longer movie. Secondly, the literal ending I believe would have been an imbalance in the narrative - in the greater context of the film it would be asking too much for the suspension of the audience's disbelief.

I have to address the common observation of "You have to read the book to appreciate the film." What they're really saying is you have to know the details to appreciate the details left in and left out. I say appreciation must take two paths here: If you watch the movie first, you're likely to choose to appreciate the film simply for the cinematic art it is, and rank it next to others of the genre; if you read the book first you're more likely to appreciate it as an adaptation of a rich layered story, and draw the lines of comparison between the page and the screen. Taking these two perspectives I present my opinion. As a film, it is visually stunning, fairly well acted, and long in the same fashion that Dark Knight was long - you weren't watching the clock, you were watching the movie. As an adaptation, I feel it succeeded. I feel the filmmakers did everything in their power to respect the material at its core and it is successful for their doing so. Ultimately the biggest question is one nobody can answer due to the uncertainty paradox - does reading the book first in any way diminish the impact of the movie more-so than the inverse of this query? I can't answer this. No one can. What I can tell you is you need to make your own decision on the matter. Do not listen to the critics, just go see it and make up your own mind.

For those of us who are the die-hard Batman fans, we all watched the first and thought, "Well, here's hoping they move forward with an even better sequel." I bet most of us were expecting a Spider-Man 2, and instead we got an Empire Strikes Back.

Pure cinematic excellence. If anyone ever doubted Nolan's talent before, they better be believers now. I'm aware credit doesn't fall solely to him, but a strong director can mean a strong movie. The decision to shoot a lot of the film in Imax cameras gives it such a vast, impressive feel, particularly the first scene. You knew after those first six minutes that the movie was only going to get better.

The acting was nothing short of superb. Christian Bale is Batman. He owns the role. He's brought together everything about both sides of the personality that the previous franchise couldn't entirely grasp. Bale has Kilmer and Clooney's clean-cut good looks and honest smile that make him flawless as Bruce Wayne, and at the same time he can cast an unnerving cold darkness that Michael Keaton brought so well to Batman.

Michael Caine is one of those guys who wasn't really in the scope of us younger fans before, but he has been a top-notch actor for decades and now it is my generation that has a chance to see the subtle beauty of his talent, ever the vigilant butler with a wise word to aid Bruce in the darkest hours.

In my mind Maggie Gyllenhaal creates a conundrum. What she poignantly brings to the film is acting talent, able to instantly make us forget about Holmes' performance in the first. And yet Holmes is much more attractive than Gyllenhaal, purely for the youthfulness of her looks. In the end I'm thankful they found someone new for the role, someone who actually made you care about Rachel Dawes as a person and not just as a pretty face.

And Heath Ledger - what can I say about him that hasn't already been said? A dark, twisted, disquieting, edgy performance and flawless from start to finish. the character was so well fleshed-out, I never even saw Ledger in that face. There was only the Joker.

The musical score always plays a big part for me, and this franchise has two of the best at the wheel of the orchestra. James Newton Howard combining forces with Hans Zimmer is one of best decisions Hollywood will ever make. The soundtrack is dark and moody where it needs to be, and grandiose and swelling when the action kicks up. Just listening to the music by itself feels like watching the movie.

Even if you know nothing about Batman and his universe you will enjoy this movie. The story is an addictive journey, one that will keep you in your seat the entire way through. It's very much like Casino Royale - a long movie but you won't know where the time went, because virtually every minute has kept your attention squarely fixed on the screen. There is one word to describe a film of this caliber - epic. It deserves nothing less than a permanent seat in the Top 10 of all time. Now only one problem exists for the filmmakers - how do they go uphill from this?

For those adult film enthusiasts who prefer the lesbian niche, this film is guaranteed to deliver. Belladonna is a woman who has made a very distinct mark in this industry. She takes her performance to a new level entirely, bringing to life a lot of the rougher, almost violent fetishes that can make adult film both taboo and exciting. The true excellence in this film can be found in two key scenes. The first is her performance with Katsumi. Together they are gonzo come to life. Their unbridled energy for actions most women might find alarming is nothing short of amazing. The second is her scene with Sasha Grey. In a unique fashion the scene is presented in a different edit. By doing so we get to see the relationship between the two women 'off-stage' as it were, before getting into the actual performance. this scene stands to tell the conservative blinded critics that woman who star in adult film do not think they are being degraded or just used as sex toys. These women enjoy their performances, Belladonna especially. They bring a talent for the sexually bizarre and combine it with their own passion for sexual activity that translates into effective and successful pornography. In terms of the production, the camera work is steady and when there is music, it's used sparingly. These are the signs of a studio that knows what irritates the audience - overused music, rapid angle-changing shots - and has learned how to eliminate that from their product. Ultimately, the final word is that Belladonna is the woman to watch.