I watched a lot of kids movies when I’d rather have watched something more adult — but that’s part of the job description… I also think it’s why PPV was invented.

There are anti-Bush zealots and there are pro-Bush zealots, and they both obscure the truth of the matter.

Will: I would argue that the sequel postulates that that the Joker might be a reaction to Batman, but that this fact simply doesn’t matter. Regardless of his origin (or lack thereof), he needs to be dealt with, and sometimes the methods of dealing with such a man are distasteful. And, as I mention in my review, there’s a very real examination of whether it’s “possible for the two [Batman and Dent] to work in tandem without the dark corrupting the light?”

And I agree that it’s politicizing movies is, generally, a lose-lose proposition. But this is an EXPLICITLY political film.

I think there are elements of the film (and the larger “Batman” mythos) that could be plausibly interpreted as criticism of an overly aggressive approach to terrorism.

Two things spring to mind:

1.) In the first film, the Joker’s emergence is EXPLICITLY described as a reaction to Batman’s heavy-handed tactics.

2.) I haven’t seen the second film yet, but from what I’ve gleaned from the reviews, the story arc implies the forces of good (Batman and Dent) are to some extent morally compromised by their responses to the Joker. Could Dent’s transformation be interpreted as an allegory for the way the War on Terror has compromised civil liberties, moral clarity etc.? Like I said, I haven’t seem the film yet, but that sounds like a fairly plausible interpretation to me.

In general, however, I think attempts to politicize movies that aren’t overtly political generally fail. We’re too prone to read our own biases into the script.

But most of all the political commentary is so expertly woven into the story it’s hard to complain no matter where you stand.