![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Batman Begins
Best Batman movie yet.
Which is, realistically, damning it with faint praise, as the last three* blew. But this one was damned good in its own right.
But this one captured the feel of Batman, getting his motivations right (something Burton missed by a long shot), getting his interactions with the villains down, and throwing in tons of stuff for the comic geeks (some of whom will whine that the villains and supporting characters aren't the same as in the comics, but they miss the point as much as the folks who griped about Spidey's organic webshooters did). Just a solid superhero movie, one that focuses on what makes Bats unique. Katie Holmes does suck some life out of the movie in her early scenes, but even she manages to find her footing by the latter half of the film. And since the rest of the cast includes people like Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and (of course) Christian Bale, well, we've all seen what Nolan can do with genuinely talented actors. No hamming it up -- not even by Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow -- which is a major plus.
There are a few minor plot complaints (which I'll avoid for spoiler purposes), but nothing that prevented me from having a good time. My only other minor complaint is the implication that Gotham is in the South (mentioned in a one-off comment). It's not. Otherwise, they captured the feel of Gotham nicely, and of Batman near-perfectly.
*Yes, three -- unless your tongue is stuck three inches up Tim Burton's ass, it's hard to ignore the fact that Batman Returns is just a pair of plastic nipples and a good Michelle Pfeiffer performance away from sucking as much as Schumacher's movies.
Which is, realistically, damning it with faint praise, as the last three* blew. But this one was damned good in its own right.
But this one captured the feel of Batman, getting his motivations right (something Burton missed by a long shot), getting his interactions with the villains down, and throwing in tons of stuff for the comic geeks (some of whom will whine that the villains and supporting characters aren't the same as in the comics, but they miss the point as much as the folks who griped about Spidey's organic webshooters did). Just a solid superhero movie, one that focuses on what makes Bats unique. Katie Holmes does suck some life out of the movie in her early scenes, but even she manages to find her footing by the latter half of the film. And since the rest of the cast includes people like Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and (of course) Christian Bale, well, we've all seen what Nolan can do with genuinely talented actors. No hamming it up -- not even by Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow -- which is a major plus.
There are a few minor plot complaints (which I'll avoid for spoiler purposes), but nothing that prevented me from having a good time. My only other minor complaint is the implication that Gotham is in the South (mentioned in a one-off comment). It's not. Otherwise, they captured the feel of Gotham nicely, and of Batman near-perfectly.
*Yes, three -- unless your tongue is stuck three inches up Tim Burton's ass, it's hard to ignore the fact that Batman Returns is just a pair of plastic nipples and a good Michelle Pfeiffer performance away from sucking as much as Schumacher's movies.
no subject
What point is being missed by hating Spidey's organic webshooters?
no subject
There's also the secondary fact that, if Parker was that good a scientist in high school, he'd be able to sell the webbing (or another equally amazing invention) to the police and retire at age 19.
no subject
Verisimilitude.
no subject
That said, like I said above, this is secondary to the fact that the origin of the webshooters doesn't change who Peter is.
no subject
It's only in the movie so Raimie (and Cameron before him) can do his lamely-blatant "puberty" riff.
I'm not a fan of the Spider-Man movie -- can you tell? ;)
no subject
Which always seemed really silly to me, when compared with everything else going on in the movie.
no subject
no subject
(Actually, the scene that specifically references the ears is pretty realistic).
As for Burton, the exploration of themes is undoubtedly correct, but I only find that acceptable in a licensed product when you still remember what the license itself is about. It's the reason I'm so concerned about his take on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
And as for Nolan, having seen all of his movies, I'm not sure if he's even got one vision. He's the sort of director who grows and morphs each time, and I've yet to be disappointed.
no subject
We've got extremely high hopes for this one because it looks really promising. We're going to go see it Saturday night. *squirm*
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Then again, considering the size of the woodie that I've developed for Keaton over the years, I'm biased. But any guy that can do Johnny Dangerously and then turn around and give the most heartwrenching portrayal of a dying man in 'My Life' should damn fucking well get an oscar! *sigh*)
(Yes, little known factoids about me- I have a heart-on for Keaton.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And that I thought Keaton did FABULOUS as Wayne. Loner. Brilliant. Strange-but-not-mentally-ill.
But yeah. Something was off in the Burton films. For one, he killed the Joker, which seemed odd to me. I'm all about freely adapting the comics for another medium. But it seemed like it didn't fit.
And, as a franchise, too much hinges on the Joker, you know?
no subject
But Catwoman's 'death' and the Joker's really bothered me.
no subject
I don't know how substantial that rumor is, but I'm absolutely giddy because he was fantastic as the voice of the joker on the cartoon.
*dies*
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh no! Pardon me; I'm not Jewish but I could still do without all that ham.
no subject
Plus, he could grab Katie Holmes's character and shout, "I love this woman!"
no subject
I think it could be excellent.
no subject
I've been begging someone to do that for years. I always joke that if I ever saw Hamill at a 'con, everyone else would be yelling "That's Luke Skywalker," and I'd be yelling "That's the Joker!" He has the perfect voice, and it would be wonderful to see him in the part.
no subject
Someone passes around the weaponized hallucinogens...
I think you misunderstood. I took Alfred's remark to mean that Gotham was the northern end of the "Underground Railroad" that freed slaves were brought to by Bruce's ancestor.
I liked this movie very much, even though it wasn't all that I was counting on. There were too many pointless 'splosions, for example. Knowing Darren Aronofsky had been attached to this project, and then that Christopher Nolan had gotten the nod, I was expecting sort of a cross between Memento and Pi: a gritty, paranoid, small-on-effects thinker of a movie.
We got a lot of that, but we also got the aforementioned 'splosions and car chases and villains with ill-defined motives. And Christian Bale's face looks chubby in the cowl.
Still, the casting was perfect, and...hang on. I'm going to spin off this comment into the post in my own journal I was about to make anyway.
Re: Someone passes around the weaponized hallucinogens...
So, where's your post?
no subject
Like I've nothing else to do today...
no subject
Oh, and the fact that it's Christian Bale has nothing at all to do with the anticipation **whistles innocently**
no subject
Not that there weren't any, of course, I'm just wondering what problems you had with it.
no subject
Christian Bale
Re: Christian Bale
Re: Christian Bale
I can't think that it was an easy part to play - having such a small range of expression you're allowed to show, and such a large range of emotion that you need to convey. The *bad* guy had an easier time of it, and I think did a horrid job of it. He was supposed to be on the same drug as the rest of them, but he should've been turned in as a sense offender far earlier - the *glee* in his eyes when threatening Bale's character was far too obvious. The Top bad guy was much, much better at hiding his feelings.
no subject
Not that this would be any reason for me to complain, but I'm just curious about this.....
no subject
no subject
Metropolis was always a little bit TOO clean in order for me to buy that it was really supposed to be NYC. But it always FELT like NYC in that it seemed to be the biggest city imaginable. The center of it all.....
Plus, Lex Luthor was mostly a business criminal (as opposed to mobster) and that felt very New York to me, with Wall Street and all that.
Gotham always felt like Detroit to me. Run down. Past it's prime. Run down industrial. When I think of New York, I think CORPORATE, but not industrial, you know? I had the impression that Gotham had way too many abandoned factories to be NYC. But I've never spent much time in either city, so that's all based on what's in my head, not the real cities.
Also, the organized crime in Gotham felt like Chicago. Sure, NYC is heavy with the organized crime, but Chicago seemed to be defined by it.
Just the thoughts of someone that isn't very versed in either these comics OR the cities they involve...
Thanks for the insight. =)
no subject
It's also been described as, Metropolis is Uptown New York (think Central Park and the Upper West Side), while Gotham is Downtown (think of Hell's Kitchen before it was cleaned up, or some of the formerly-dangerous warrens of streets in the Village).
no subject
Thanks. =)
no subject
Both heroes discovered their unique skills and methods were next to useless against the crime in their counterpart's normal milieu.
It was a cool story; a nice reminder that Gotham and Metropolis are just as much characters in Batman and Superman's worlds as the people are.
no subject
no subject