BATMAN BEGINS in-depth review and analysis
Jun. 9th, 2005 07:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerI saw it last night. I'm not planning on going into spoilers, and there are especially two particular twists that I will not divulge because I don't want anyone to be robbed of the geek joy that was robbed from me (damn you spoilery reviews!), but for the sake of those who want to be absolutely safe,
Okay. First of all, let's get to the gripes. Let's get the complaints out of the way.
The biggest complaint I have, the one major factor that keeps this from being my favorite comic book movie of all time, is one that may not bother everybody else as much as it does me. Katie Holmes. The actress, but not her character. She's a lovely girl, and may be just fine for young people relationship stuff, but in this kind of movie she was just wayyy out of place. She was also rather annoying, between her shrill voice, her constant half-smile that make look like she had a stroke, and her vibrating head that could out-Hepburn Hepburn. No, her character served a lot bigger purpose than the love interest angle I was dreading; she was actually the moral heart (well, there are a couple, since this story has several themes, which I will get to later) of the story, and the actual "love" part was kept thankfully low-key, at least until the end.
Here's the thing, though. She's playing an assistant D.A., one of the few uncorrupted people in Gotham, friend to Jim Gordon, and childhood friend of Bruce Wayne. Does this sound familiar to anybody else? That's my problem here- Rachel Dawes is basically Harvey Dent. Considering that Harvey's going to be in parts 2 and 3 (they're courting Liev Schreiber for the role, which I approve of), I'm just thinking, Jesus, it would have been so perfect for them to have used Dent here! But no, they went for the romantic subplot, a failing of every single previous Batman movie, and just like with them it's what weakens this one. It's what, more than anything else, keeps this from being a flawless movie.
That, and Batman's scary voice. Which is not all that scary, unfortunately, especially when he's interrogating the corrupt cop Flass. It was actually kind of cringe-inducing. I saw what they were going for, and it failed spectacularly. That will likely earn some chuckles from the peanut gallery, I fear.
Aside from that... dude. Dude.
This... is fucking Batman. This is motherfucking Batman.
I mean, ok, we all agree that Joel Schumacher's films sucked, but there seem to be a lot of people who loved the Burton ones. Some think the first is a brilliant film. Over the years, I've come to a number of responses to this. First of all, no, I don't think it is a brilliant film. I think it's aged terribly. I think it's cheezy as heck. I think Jack Nicholson is brilliant in his role, but let's face it, he's fantastic as old-school Joker, as Jack playing the Joker. He's not The Killing Joke Joker. He's not a nice, normal guy who got fucked over. There's no tragedy with Jack's Joker. He's a bad guy who became an insane bad guy. And he is not, NOT the guy who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. And also, that just wasn't Batman in either of those films. Batman doesn't ever kill. Ever.
The other problems with the depiction of Batman in those films are more subtle and would require another few viewings of the films, but trust me, that's not Batman. Nor were those Batman films. They were Tim Burton films, and fine ones as Tim Burton films, but they were not Batman movies. Hell, even in the first, the focus has ALWAYS been on the villains. Now I love the villains, as you know. Batman has the best adversaries in all comics, maybe in all modern storytelling. But as Raimi realized with Spider-Man, the story should be about the most complex, fascinating character of them all- the hero. And what BATMAN BEGINS understands completely, better than Burton's films, is that "hero" doesn't always completely apply to the character.
BATMAN BEGINS is about Bruce Wayne. It's about a boy growing into not just one man, but several, all because of the demons within him that he has to face. His guilt, his fear, his anger, all these shape and fuel him. They threaten to corrupt him, destroy him, lead him down the past of self-destruction or make him just as bad as those he would fight. There is some real character development going on here, not some simple pulp action movie "I'll put a mask on and fight crime!" Writers like Frank Miller, Paul Dini, and Denny O'Neill understood this. They knew that Bruce Wayne was the mask, and that Batman was the real face. Christopher Nolan (MEMEMNTO) and David Goyer (writer of the BLADE movies and plotter of the JSA comics) understand this central and important characteristic, and as such, BATMAN BEGINS is not an action movie, but a human and psychological drama. In fact, a couple of the scenes like the car chase feel a bit tacked on, like Nolan said, "shit, we need a car chase!" I was sitting there thinking, "geez, we could be having more character development here!"
This is also a movie of themes and ideas. The most central theme is that of fear, and I feel some could argue that it's beaten over our heads, but I didn't think so. Bruce's own fears, how he confronts them and uses fear against his enemies. His enemies, who use fear to run rampant and keep control, such as the mobsters like Carmine Falcone (pronounced here as Falcone-ay, which doesn't sound quite as menacing or Italian... well, consider he's played with italian gangster style by Englisman Tom Wilkinson, perhaps it makes sense), as well as the more overt fear from the Scarecrow. There are a LOT of characters in this film, and after seeing it, they were all chosen very carefully for very specific reasons. Each has their integral part to play, but thankfully they all also get enough development to stand on their own as characters rather than stock figures to further the plot. I think some, like Jim Gordon, were still a teeny bit malnourished, but that's where the sequels will come in, of course.
Let's discuss the cast now. First and foremost, this is Bruce Wayne's story, no one else's, and Christian Bale is the best Wayne/Batman ever put to film, save the animated incarnation voiced by Kevin Conroy (he has the better Batman voice too). He projects a wonderful dark intensity that the role(s) require, and his body language in some scenes speaks volumes (watch his posture as he switches between aspects, for example... it's just like what Wayne himself does). Fans have been saying he should be Batman for years now, and it seems those fans were very right. Much credit also goes for how well he controls the film, especially considering the absolutely fucking amazing cast that surrounds him.
Next, we have Liam Neeson. The thing about Neeson for me is that I always forget just how awesome he is. I mean, I know he's great, but I never quite remember just how kick-ass he is until I see him in action. The man fucking rules. Even when he's dangerous or evil, he still projects a soft-spoken dignity and grace that is heavenly to watch. Seeing him here made me with all the more that he had been Bill's main adversary in GANGS OF NEW YORK, not Leo. In this movie, Neeson takes the old Obi-Wan mentor aspect and tweaks it just a little bit, and the result is a chilling, fascinating character.
When my mother first saw the trailer, her reaction was, "Wait a minute, Michael Caine as Alfred?? Alfred's not cockney!!!" Bear in mind, she's not a fan of the comics by any stretch, but she made an excellent point I hadn't considered before. Alfred is NOT cockney. He's the very picture of stiff upper lip Englishman, more "I say, sir," than "Gor blimey, lov!" I mean, in that sense, Michael Gough from the previous films is widely considered THE Alfred for good reason. That said, after seeing this movie I can say right now that I don't think Gough could have played this Alfred. This is not just Alfred, the loyal, dry, father figure with the occasional witty remark. This is an Alfred who loved the Waynes dearly, who was there to see them ripped away and was left with only a huge mansion and a miserable, broken boy. This is an Alfred of quiet suffering and quiet strength, the only one who can see all the aspects of Bruce Wayne, aspects Bruce himself can't even see, and who will call Bruce on his bullshit. At first, I thought it was odd that Alfred didn't protest Bruce's decision to start the Batman crusade, but thinking about it now, it makes perfect sense. Alfred understands completely because he's BEEN there. Hell, he'd probably don the mask himself if he could. Caine is always, always a joy to watch, and he is perfect in this role.
The rest are smaller, but featured, roles. Gary Oldman is chameleonlike once again and completely disappears into Jim Gordon so wonderfully that I really hope he's given more to work with in the next two movies. Gordon is one of the greatest, richest characters in Batman history, and with Wayne himself is the only character who has been around since the very beginning, and Oldman deserves the chance to do him even greater justice.
Tom Wilkinson is fun to watch, if only to give me SCARFACE vibes of pasty Englismen putting on accents and trying to act like a different ethnicity. It's not quite as jarring as F. Murray Abraham trying to be cuban, but it's a bit shocking at first to see the guy from THE FULL MONTY doing a Fat Tony accent. He doesn't overplay it though, because Wilkinson is the man.
I'd heard a lot about Ken Watanabe from THE LAST SAMURAI, and I'd like to have seen a bit more of him than we saw here. His character is in the shadows more than anything else, and isn't given much to work with, but he serves his purpose well.
And let me just say right now that I'm getting a kind of giddy glee that the general public will now soon be exposed to the likes of Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and even a cameo by Mr. Zsasz (when you see the inmate with the scars on his neck? Yeah, in the comics, those are ALL OVER HIS BODY. He makes one cut for every person he kills. Man, how I wish we saw them all, but still, a nice little in-joke). These are characters well known to any reader of DC Comics, but who the hell else knows who they are? I mean, Ra's was brought to silkly englisman life in the animated series by that man-god David "I could make you come reading the phone book" Warner, and the Scarecrow by Jeffery "Re-Animator and psycho FBI agent from The Frighteners" Combs. Great villains, the both of them, and wow, they're going to actually get public exposure. That's just amazing.
Which reminds me, Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow/Dr. Crane. Let me say right now that even though Scarecrow's one of the fan-favorite Batman villains, I've always hated him. He's a bully, a sadist. He gets off on tormenting others to make himself feel big. Murphy plays Crane every bit as slimy and hateful as the comic character demands, and is a really unnerving character. I used to think he'd look stupid wearing just a burlap mask with a suit rather than a whole scarecrow costume, but when his fear gas takes effect, man, it works. I got chills with his line, "Would you like to see my mask?"
Morgan Freeman's depiction of Lucius Fox is not the businessman head of Waynetech that he is in the comics, but is here played more like Q, dispensing toys and wit like they were candy. He looks like he's having a hell of a lot of fun in the role.
And while we're in Waynetech, there's Rutger Hauer. I am so glad that between this and SIN CITY he's still making an impact in mainstream films. The man rules. His performance in BLADE RUNNER is one for the ages. The man deserves to be seen more, even if he's gotten rather leathery.
The thing I'm a bit concerned about is how the public at large is going to react to this. This is a very serious, dark film. This is not a fun movie. A lot of people seem to have the preconception that superhero movies have to be fun, an assumption that turned a lot of people against the HULK movie. In fact, the snooty and pretentous reviewer from The New Yorker (snooty and pretentous New Yorker reviewer?? Perish the thought!) disliked it, asking "where's the fun?" People like him will miss the point completely. Batman is not a fun character. For people like us, now, we SEE the fun in the charcter, the fun in the darkness and tragedy and theatrics, but for the public at large with their preconcieved notions and expectations of what an "action" and "superhero" movie should be, many will be left cold. Yesterday, one woman walked out afterwards who clearly didn't enjoy it, and said to her boyfriend in a tone to try to excuse her dislike for it, "Well, I liked SPIDER-MAN!"
Those people will not enjoy this movie. This is not light summer entertainment. This is an actual film, with an actual story, with actual themes and characters and issues. If you see it, be receptive, be open, and don't just go in thinking this is just going to be another superhero movie. People who don't read superheroes feel like they're all the same, and those people are fools because they never take the time to explore the characters in greater detail.
Thinking about the movie now, I'm put in mind of the first X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN movies, how they were good and all, but had their flaws and felt like they were just "set-ups" for their superior sequels. While there is a lot to be set up with BATMAN BEGINS, it actually stands very, very well on its own. It's a powerful film, a moving film, and if it can follow suit as laid out by the big Marvel films, this could be the best comic book trilogy of them all. But that's the thing that makes this movie all the more remarkable, it doesn't feel like a superhero movie. It is one, but it does the remarkable feat of avoiding feeling like it's going through the origin motions and, as a result, feels as different from SUPERMAN and SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN as they feel to each other.
Simply put, this is the best Batman movie ever and right up there with the best comic movies ever.
Okay. First of all, let's get to the gripes. Let's get the complaints out of the way.
The biggest complaint I have, the one major factor that keeps this from being my favorite comic book movie of all time, is one that may not bother everybody else as much as it does me. Katie Holmes. The actress, but not her character. She's a lovely girl, and may be just fine for young people relationship stuff, but in this kind of movie she was just wayyy out of place. She was also rather annoying, between her shrill voice, her constant half-smile that make look like she had a stroke, and her vibrating head that could out-Hepburn Hepburn. No, her character served a lot bigger purpose than the love interest angle I was dreading; she was actually the moral heart (well, there are a couple, since this story has several themes, which I will get to later) of the story, and the actual "love" part was kept thankfully low-key, at least until the end.
Here's the thing, though. She's playing an assistant D.A., one of the few uncorrupted people in Gotham, friend to Jim Gordon, and childhood friend of Bruce Wayne. Does this sound familiar to anybody else? That's my problem here- Rachel Dawes is basically Harvey Dent. Considering that Harvey's going to be in parts 2 and 3 (they're courting Liev Schreiber for the role, which I approve of), I'm just thinking, Jesus, it would have been so perfect for them to have used Dent here! But no, they went for the romantic subplot, a failing of every single previous Batman movie, and just like with them it's what weakens this one. It's what, more than anything else, keeps this from being a flawless movie.
That, and Batman's scary voice. Which is not all that scary, unfortunately, especially when he's interrogating the corrupt cop Flass. It was actually kind of cringe-inducing. I saw what they were going for, and it failed spectacularly. That will likely earn some chuckles from the peanut gallery, I fear.
Aside from that... dude. Dude.
This... is fucking Batman. This is motherfucking Batman.
I mean, ok, we all agree that Joel Schumacher's films sucked, but there seem to be a lot of people who loved the Burton ones. Some think the first is a brilliant film. Over the years, I've come to a number of responses to this. First of all, no, I don't think it is a brilliant film. I think it's aged terribly. I think it's cheezy as heck. I think Jack Nicholson is brilliant in his role, but let's face it, he's fantastic as old-school Joker, as Jack playing the Joker. He's not The Killing Joke Joker. He's not a nice, normal guy who got fucked over. There's no tragedy with Jack's Joker. He's a bad guy who became an insane bad guy. And he is not, NOT the guy who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. And also, that just wasn't Batman in either of those films. Batman doesn't ever kill. Ever.
The other problems with the depiction of Batman in those films are more subtle and would require another few viewings of the films, but trust me, that's not Batman. Nor were those Batman films. They were Tim Burton films, and fine ones as Tim Burton films, but they were not Batman movies. Hell, even in the first, the focus has ALWAYS been on the villains. Now I love the villains, as you know. Batman has the best adversaries in all comics, maybe in all modern storytelling. But as Raimi realized with Spider-Man, the story should be about the most complex, fascinating character of them all- the hero. And what BATMAN BEGINS understands completely, better than Burton's films, is that "hero" doesn't always completely apply to the character.
BATMAN BEGINS is about Bruce Wayne. It's about a boy growing into not just one man, but several, all because of the demons within him that he has to face. His guilt, his fear, his anger, all these shape and fuel him. They threaten to corrupt him, destroy him, lead him down the past of self-destruction or make him just as bad as those he would fight. There is some real character development going on here, not some simple pulp action movie "I'll put a mask on and fight crime!" Writers like Frank Miller, Paul Dini, and Denny O'Neill understood this. They knew that Bruce Wayne was the mask, and that Batman was the real face. Christopher Nolan (MEMEMNTO) and David Goyer (writer of the BLADE movies and plotter of the JSA comics) understand this central and important characteristic, and as such, BATMAN BEGINS is not an action movie, but a human and psychological drama. In fact, a couple of the scenes like the car chase feel a bit tacked on, like Nolan said, "shit, we need a car chase!" I was sitting there thinking, "geez, we could be having more character development here!"
This is also a movie of themes and ideas. The most central theme is that of fear, and I feel some could argue that it's beaten over our heads, but I didn't think so. Bruce's own fears, how he confronts them and uses fear against his enemies. His enemies, who use fear to run rampant and keep control, such as the mobsters like Carmine Falcone (pronounced here as Falcone-ay, which doesn't sound quite as menacing or Italian... well, consider he's played with italian gangster style by Englisman Tom Wilkinson, perhaps it makes sense), as well as the more overt fear from the Scarecrow. There are a LOT of characters in this film, and after seeing it, they were all chosen very carefully for very specific reasons. Each has their integral part to play, but thankfully they all also get enough development to stand on their own as characters rather than stock figures to further the plot. I think some, like Jim Gordon, were still a teeny bit malnourished, but that's where the sequels will come in, of course.
Let's discuss the cast now. First and foremost, this is Bruce Wayne's story, no one else's, and Christian Bale is the best Wayne/Batman ever put to film, save the animated incarnation voiced by Kevin Conroy (he has the better Batman voice too). He projects a wonderful dark intensity that the role(s) require, and his body language in some scenes speaks volumes (watch his posture as he switches between aspects, for example... it's just like what Wayne himself does). Fans have been saying he should be Batman for years now, and it seems those fans were very right. Much credit also goes for how well he controls the film, especially considering the absolutely fucking amazing cast that surrounds him.
Next, we have Liam Neeson. The thing about Neeson for me is that I always forget just how awesome he is. I mean, I know he's great, but I never quite remember just how kick-ass he is until I see him in action. The man fucking rules. Even when he's dangerous or evil, he still projects a soft-spoken dignity and grace that is heavenly to watch. Seeing him here made me with all the more that he had been Bill's main adversary in GANGS OF NEW YORK, not Leo. In this movie, Neeson takes the old Obi-Wan mentor aspect and tweaks it just a little bit, and the result is a chilling, fascinating character.
When my mother first saw the trailer, her reaction was, "Wait a minute, Michael Caine as Alfred?? Alfred's not cockney!!!" Bear in mind, she's not a fan of the comics by any stretch, but she made an excellent point I hadn't considered before. Alfred is NOT cockney. He's the very picture of stiff upper lip Englishman, more "I say, sir," than "Gor blimey, lov!" I mean, in that sense, Michael Gough from the previous films is widely considered THE Alfred for good reason. That said, after seeing this movie I can say right now that I don't think Gough could have played this Alfred. This is not just Alfred, the loyal, dry, father figure with the occasional witty remark. This is an Alfred who loved the Waynes dearly, who was there to see them ripped away and was left with only a huge mansion and a miserable, broken boy. This is an Alfred of quiet suffering and quiet strength, the only one who can see all the aspects of Bruce Wayne, aspects Bruce himself can't even see, and who will call Bruce on his bullshit. At first, I thought it was odd that Alfred didn't protest Bruce's decision to start the Batman crusade, but thinking about it now, it makes perfect sense. Alfred understands completely because he's BEEN there. Hell, he'd probably don the mask himself if he could. Caine is always, always a joy to watch, and he is perfect in this role.
The rest are smaller, but featured, roles. Gary Oldman is chameleonlike once again and completely disappears into Jim Gordon so wonderfully that I really hope he's given more to work with in the next two movies. Gordon is one of the greatest, richest characters in Batman history, and with Wayne himself is the only character who has been around since the very beginning, and Oldman deserves the chance to do him even greater justice.
Tom Wilkinson is fun to watch, if only to give me SCARFACE vibes of pasty Englismen putting on accents and trying to act like a different ethnicity. It's not quite as jarring as F. Murray Abraham trying to be cuban, but it's a bit shocking at first to see the guy from THE FULL MONTY doing a Fat Tony accent. He doesn't overplay it though, because Wilkinson is the man.
I'd heard a lot about Ken Watanabe from THE LAST SAMURAI, and I'd like to have seen a bit more of him than we saw here. His character is in the shadows more than anything else, and isn't given much to work with, but he serves his purpose well.
And let me just say right now that I'm getting a kind of giddy glee that the general public will now soon be exposed to the likes of Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, and even a cameo by Mr. Zsasz (when you see the inmate with the scars on his neck? Yeah, in the comics, those are ALL OVER HIS BODY. He makes one cut for every person he kills. Man, how I wish we saw them all, but still, a nice little in-joke). These are characters well known to any reader of DC Comics, but who the hell else knows who they are? I mean, Ra's was brought to silkly englisman life in the animated series by that man-god David "I could make you come reading the phone book" Warner, and the Scarecrow by Jeffery "Re-Animator and psycho FBI agent from The Frighteners" Combs. Great villains, the both of them, and wow, they're going to actually get public exposure. That's just amazing.
Which reminds me, Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow/Dr. Crane. Let me say right now that even though Scarecrow's one of the fan-favorite Batman villains, I've always hated him. He's a bully, a sadist. He gets off on tormenting others to make himself feel big. Murphy plays Crane every bit as slimy and hateful as the comic character demands, and is a really unnerving character. I used to think he'd look stupid wearing just a burlap mask with a suit rather than a whole scarecrow costume, but when his fear gas takes effect, man, it works. I got chills with his line, "Would you like to see my mask?"
Morgan Freeman's depiction of Lucius Fox is not the businessman head of Waynetech that he is in the comics, but is here played more like Q, dispensing toys and wit like they were candy. He looks like he's having a hell of a lot of fun in the role.
And while we're in Waynetech, there's Rutger Hauer. I am so glad that between this and SIN CITY he's still making an impact in mainstream films. The man rules. His performance in BLADE RUNNER is one for the ages. The man deserves to be seen more, even if he's gotten rather leathery.
The thing I'm a bit concerned about is how the public at large is going to react to this. This is a very serious, dark film. This is not a fun movie. A lot of people seem to have the preconception that superhero movies have to be fun, an assumption that turned a lot of people against the HULK movie. In fact, the snooty and pretentous reviewer from The New Yorker (snooty and pretentous New Yorker reviewer?? Perish the thought!) disliked it, asking "where's the fun?" People like him will miss the point completely. Batman is not a fun character. For people like us, now, we SEE the fun in the charcter, the fun in the darkness and tragedy and theatrics, but for the public at large with their preconcieved notions and expectations of what an "action" and "superhero" movie should be, many will be left cold. Yesterday, one woman walked out afterwards who clearly didn't enjoy it, and said to her boyfriend in a tone to try to excuse her dislike for it, "Well, I liked SPIDER-MAN!"
Those people will not enjoy this movie. This is not light summer entertainment. This is an actual film, with an actual story, with actual themes and characters and issues. If you see it, be receptive, be open, and don't just go in thinking this is just going to be another superhero movie. People who don't read superheroes feel like they're all the same, and those people are fools because they never take the time to explore the characters in greater detail.
Thinking about the movie now, I'm put in mind of the first X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN movies, how they were good and all, but had their flaws and felt like they were just "set-ups" for their superior sequels. While there is a lot to be set up with BATMAN BEGINS, it actually stands very, very well on its own. It's a powerful film, a moving film, and if it can follow suit as laid out by the big Marvel films, this could be the best comic book trilogy of them all. But that's the thing that makes this movie all the more remarkable, it doesn't feel like a superhero movie. It is one, but it does the remarkable feat of avoiding feeling like it's going through the origin motions and, as a result, feels as different from SUPERMAN and SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN as they feel to each other.
Simply put, this is the best Batman movie ever and right up there with the best comic movies ever.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 08:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 08:37 am (UTC)BAT-SHARK REPELLANT.
and also, isn't it sorta bad ass that Micheal Caine's career has now come full circle? He started it playing Alfie, and now he plays Alfred. that's sorta great.