Sunday, June 19, 2005
Batman's Benign
This review/commentary on Batman Begins contains some spoilers: proceed at your own risk.
It is definitely the best Batman movie yet. That isn't saying a whole lot, though, and there's still some definite room for improvement. I was surprised to find that I agreed almost 100% with Scott Kurtz on this movie. (Go to his PVP Online page and scroll down to find his review.)
What's good about this movie is mostly the cast. My wife says that Michael Caine stole the show as Alfred, and I can see her point. But Morgan Freeman is great as Lucius Fox, and I liked what'shisname as Batman/Bruce Wayne. For me, it helps having an actor I don't really know in that role--I don't get distracted by his being so familiar.
I've heard several people object to Katie Holmes. I'm not sure her performance is bad, but she is poorly cast, and in any case her role makes no sense in the movie. She's too petite and young-looking, lacks presence both physically and psychically to stand up alongside the intensity of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Plus, the movie wants to have it both ways--wants her to be the outsider character who shows him what it's going to cost to have a dual identity (she is obviously turned off by his "billionaire playboy" actions), but also wants her (for no reason) to be a love interest that he reveals his identity to. And this Batman isn't going to last very long when he reveals his identity to the first person who asks.
"Welcome to super-hero training school. Lesson one: if someone asks your secret identity, don't tell them!"
"Oooh, I'd better write that down."
Really, all the movie's problems stem from trying to fit the blockbuster summer movie formula. They think there has to be a love interest so they force a character who doesn't fit and pretend that these two are attracted when for most of the movie they just seem like childhood friends who've grown apart. There are far too many explosions, fireballs, and general property damage. Batman doesn't look heroic when he destroys buildings and police cars--he looks desperate and clumsy. But I know they don't think they can make a thrilling chase without lots of pursuing police cars being wrecked. Alfred, watching TV coverage of the chase: "It's a miracle no one was killed." Me: "Yeah. Good thing the writers threw that comment in or we might believe our eyes."
Where I disagree with Scott Kurtz (other than in his continued love of the X-Men movies (?!?)) is in his statement that the fight scenes are too unclear. I actually liked that here, though I've complained about it elsewhere. Batman is a creature of the shadows, and I don't think we should see him too clearly or know exactly what he's doing most of the time. Maybe the climactic showdown fight could have been clearer. Otherwise I just think the fights should have been shorter. Either that, or we need to have more sense that Batman's really struggling to win the fights because he's new to this.
But at least we corrected some of the worst problems of the previous films:
1) The actors are professionals who take their roles seriously.
2) The script has some structure and development and several nice reversals/re-used lines with irony. Even if I could see pretty much all of the surprises coming, it's a better script than we've seen in a Batman movie in a long time.
3) The villains have their own creepy personalities rather than just being the Joker over and over. I mean, I never like Jim Carrey, but I could gladly spit on whoever decided he should play the Riddler like that.
4) We don't kill villains, because Batman doesn't kill. Okay, some people probably died in the temple fire, and despite Alfred's reassurance, there's some dead cops in that chase. But he doesn't set out to kill. Well, Ras al Ghul, kind of. But Ras will be back, no worries. Ok, um, we have less completely killed off bad guys than in previous films, which allows for the possibility of seeing these villains again, which is a key part of the standard super-hero genre.
Best feature of the film: the creepiness. Batman should be scary, and with the Scarecrow as a key villain, it should be a creepy movie. At times, it really is.
Worst feature: the cave-in to formulaic "thrills" whether they make sense / fit with the character or not.
Overall, it's definitely worth seeing. Unfortunately, it's not even the best film I saw yesterday, because that I-can't-believe-Disney-made-this gem Lilo and Stitch was on TV last night. But more about the wonderfulness of L&S another time.
It is definitely the best Batman movie yet. That isn't saying a whole lot, though, and there's still some definite room for improvement. I was surprised to find that I agreed almost 100% with Scott Kurtz on this movie. (Go to his PVP Online page and scroll down to find his review.)
What's good about this movie is mostly the cast. My wife says that Michael Caine stole the show as Alfred, and I can see her point. But Morgan Freeman is great as Lucius Fox, and I liked what'shisname as Batman/Bruce Wayne. For me, it helps having an actor I don't really know in that role--I don't get distracted by his being so familiar.
I've heard several people object to Katie Holmes. I'm not sure her performance is bad, but she is poorly cast, and in any case her role makes no sense in the movie. She's too petite and young-looking, lacks presence both physically and psychically to stand up alongside the intensity of Bruce Wayne/Batman. Plus, the movie wants to have it both ways--wants her to be the outsider character who shows him what it's going to cost to have a dual identity (she is obviously turned off by his "billionaire playboy" actions), but also wants her (for no reason) to be a love interest that he reveals his identity to. And this Batman isn't going to last very long when he reveals his identity to the first person who asks.
"Welcome to super-hero training school. Lesson one: if someone asks your secret identity, don't tell them!"
"Oooh, I'd better write that down."
Really, all the movie's problems stem from trying to fit the blockbuster summer movie formula. They think there has to be a love interest so they force a character who doesn't fit and pretend that these two are attracted when for most of the movie they just seem like childhood friends who've grown apart. There are far too many explosions, fireballs, and general property damage. Batman doesn't look heroic when he destroys buildings and police cars--he looks desperate and clumsy. But I know they don't think they can make a thrilling chase without lots of pursuing police cars being wrecked. Alfred, watching TV coverage of the chase: "It's a miracle no one was killed." Me: "Yeah. Good thing the writers threw that comment in or we might believe our eyes."
Where I disagree with Scott Kurtz (other than in his continued love of the X-Men movies (?!?)) is in his statement that the fight scenes are too unclear. I actually liked that here, though I've complained about it elsewhere. Batman is a creature of the shadows, and I don't think we should see him too clearly or know exactly what he's doing most of the time. Maybe the climactic showdown fight could have been clearer. Otherwise I just think the fights should have been shorter. Either that, or we need to have more sense that Batman's really struggling to win the fights because he's new to this.
But at least we corrected some of the worst problems of the previous films:
1) The actors are professionals who take their roles seriously.
2) The script has some structure and development and several nice reversals/re-used lines with irony. Even if I could see pretty much all of the surprises coming, it's a better script than we've seen in a Batman movie in a long time.
3) The villains have their own creepy personalities rather than just being the Joker over and over. I mean, I never like Jim Carrey, but I could gladly spit on whoever decided he should play the Riddler like that.
4) We don't kill villains, because Batman doesn't kill. Okay, some people probably died in the temple fire, and despite Alfred's reassurance, there's some dead cops in that chase. But he doesn't set out to kill. Well, Ras al Ghul, kind of. But Ras will be back, no worries. Ok, um, we have less completely killed off bad guys than in previous films, which allows for the possibility of seeing these villains again, which is a key part of the standard super-hero genre.
Best feature of the film: the creepiness. Batman should be scary, and with the Scarecrow as a key villain, it should be a creepy movie. At times, it really is.
Worst feature: the cave-in to formulaic "thrills" whether they make sense / fit with the character or not.
Overall, it's definitely worth seeing. Unfortunately, it's not even the best film I saw yesterday, because that I-can't-believe-Disney-made-this gem Lilo and Stitch was on TV last night. But more about the wonderfulness of L&S another time.
Comments:
<< Home
I pretty much enjoyed the movie. I agree with PVP guy about the microwave thingey. I was definitely asking myself "WTF?" when I realized that they were worried about the chemical and not about the fact that it would vaporize the water in our bodies as well.
On the other hand, the other stuff didn't bother me. I didn't mind that there wasn't a strong female at the time; although, now that I think about it, the casting is very similar to Star Wars (i.e. one speaking female in SW vs. two speaking females in Batman). I thought Katie Holmes getting angry and half feeling in love was convincing because I've had that experience with childhood friends (before you know what you mean to each other after you've grown up) and I did think it was weird that he tells her his ID and then she just kind of leaves, but eh. Not enough to dislike what had been done in the rest of the movie.
On the whole, I enjoyed. I hated XMen (who are, in fact, my favorite superheros. Never really cared for Batman or Superman to be honest), and I like Spiderman 2 way better than the first. I've seen some of the other Batman movies in passing as I channel surf, and they've never been able to hold my attention past the part where the lead opens his mouth. One of the things I've also always hated about all his girls are that they are, for lack of a better word, harlots. They try to hard to be sexy and end up looking like weird Barbies with funny lipstick and too much crude attitude.
The rumor is that they are going to make more of these and that this is not actually a pre-quel to the series that is already out there. And that would make me very happy.
Lo
Post a Comment
On the other hand, the other stuff didn't bother me. I didn't mind that there wasn't a strong female at the time; although, now that I think about it, the casting is very similar to Star Wars (i.e. one speaking female in SW vs. two speaking females in Batman). I thought Katie Holmes getting angry and half feeling in love was convincing because I've had that experience with childhood friends (before you know what you mean to each other after you've grown up) and I did think it was weird that he tells her his ID and then she just kind of leaves, but eh. Not enough to dislike what had been done in the rest of the movie.
On the whole, I enjoyed. I hated XMen (who are, in fact, my favorite superheros. Never really cared for Batman or Superman to be honest), and I like Spiderman 2 way better than the first. I've seen some of the other Batman movies in passing as I channel surf, and they've never been able to hold my attention past the part where the lead opens his mouth. One of the things I've also always hated about all his girls are that they are, for lack of a better word, harlots. They try to hard to be sexy and end up looking like weird Barbies with funny lipstick and too much crude attitude.
The rumor is that they are going to make more of these and that this is not actually a pre-quel to the series that is already out there. And that would make me very happy.
Lo
# posted by 
: 6:06 AM
: 6:06 AM << Home
