Unlike Mauer, who practices his anti-blockbuster sneer in front of a mirror every May, in preparation for quick scornful dismissals in every conversation he has all Summer, I actually continue to dream the dream of the grand great Hollywood extravaganza. I get suckered in every year, or, rather than suckered, I willingly suspend my scorn thinking–well, at least one of these previews has to portend something marvelous. And, of course, like Saturday morning cartoons and burritos at Taco Bell, the preview hype and expectation is almost always better than real life.
This film isn’t the holy grail. It is, though, what a blockbuster ought to be, could be: generally exciting, often surprisingly moving, smartly executed. Fun.
Caveats first: I can’t make heads or tails–or, rather, I can only make heads and tails–out of the fight scenes. Close-in camerawork makes every punch feel nauseating, but not for the right reasons. But there aren’t that many fights. And, yeah, the last half-hour kind of descends into actionpalooza, forgoing most of the more subtle pleasures the film’s laid out for big-budget pyrotechnics. I yawned, ‘though they were reasonably well-done for this sort of thing.
But the strengths: Actors act in this film. Bale, particularly as the drunken lout Bruce Wayne, never seems to have less than two focused emotions warring on his features for any given scene. He’s marvelous. Neeson, Caine, Freeman, Oldman are all fine. Cillian Murphy–as Scarecrow–is a fucking hoot.
But not ‘hoot’ in the Burton sense; this film is profoundly disinterested in the comedy of these grotesques, opting instead for something nearly horrific in tone. The best moments of the movie are, in fact, shot and edited–and as effective–as a good scary movie. By shifting the focus away from the comic, but also avoiding the dull quasi-epic solemnizing of Frank Miller (or mostly avoiding), Nolan’s film does something unexpected: he reimagines the horror at the heart of the superhero story.
And, in fact, one of the most effective scenes is the death of Wayne’s parents–despite the fact that I know this from any hundred recountings or repetitions. Nolan gets to the flashback with economy, but never sacrificing emotional set-up; we get just enough of the family dynamics, the kid playing young Bruce is given just the right cues and hits just the right marks, so that we’re kind of quickly sucked into the personal dimensions of what could be merely quasi-mythic in the Batman narrative.
One last opinion: the film slightly reimagines the Wayne corporation, exploits the utility of having a fantastically wealthy protagonist but nonetheless implicates money in the corruption and crime of the city. (And takes pains to make Wayne’s rich public face an abhorrent decadent playboy, rather than the soft-spoken do-gooder we’ve seen in other incarnations.) Throughout, the film grounds its vision of crime in social corruption… and critiques the stark judgments of those who see merely evil in criminal activity. I think there’s a subtle but unmistakable political commentary running through the film, around the implications of economics in evildoing, and against the easy moral code of the revenger.
(Now, of course I wish the film had been great. But it was pretty darn good.)
I’ve been waiting a week for someone to post about Batman because, like Mike, summer isn’t summer if I can’t sneak off to watch midweek matinees of at least a handful of $100m-plus action movies. So, given all positive reviews and the cast, I went the afternoon it opened with high hopes.
I don’t know. It didn’t quite work for me. The acting was generally superb (though getting Gary Oldman to utter the words “I gotta get me one of these†while driving the Batmobile must have been humiliating for him), and I will gladly hand over $5 (this is rural Ohio remember) to see Rutger Hauer in even the smallest role. I had read that there were shades of Bladerunner in this Batman, but Hauer was the only echo I detected.
As Mike notes, the fight scenes were cut so dizzyingly fast that you had no idea what was going on. That style worked very effectively in the first Bourne movie because it conveyed the absolute superiority of Damon over everyone he fought; the speed of the cut illustrated how fast he got the better of his opponents. But in extended fight sequences, it’s just irritating.
OK, but that does not explain why it just didn’t cohere for me. The movie seemed jerky, shifting mood rapidly rather than building up a consistent mood (whereas the first Michael Keaton Batman found the mood early and sustained it through the whole movie). Michael Caine was employed for comic relief at moments when comedy seemed to mess up the flow of the movie. The connections between Bale’s time wandering the globe learning about evil, and learning from Neeson, and his later persona as Batman were implied, but I don’t think they actually worked. Perhaps it was because when Bale spoke as Batman, rather than Bruce Wayne, he seemed to be dubbed by Michael Keaton, so that the voices of the two personas didn’t connect.
Maybe I just had overly high expectations. I watched Blade Trinity last night and thought it the perfect B action movie: crazy plot, no real acting, superb fight scenes, and not an ounce of pretension. Of course, that may just be a woman’s perspective.
I see that had I posted after I saw the movie, I would have been first. Instead, I had to wait for Pete to go back to the office so I could have the laptop back. I forgot most of what I wanted to say, and of course, some of it has already been said.
I enjoyed it, afterall for several years Arnab made us attend every summer blockbuster. (And I’ll never forgive him for The Saint.) I do have to say, though, that the early Neeson scenes had me worried that it might be too reactionary for words.
I liked the consistency in the Batman role, what Chris calls “dubbed by Michael Keaton.” To me, the sameness of Batman (versus the “difference” of Bruce Wayne that Mike delineates) plays so well with the notion of the comic book–the hero is always exactly the same.
I was so astonished to realize that Gary Oldman was in this film. Finally, I see that the man can act. It’s not all mania and supermania.
Yeah, I’ve been growing weary of slouching off to the local cinema by myself to be disappointed, once again, by a potential summer blockbuster. I liked Batman Begins. It was dark (pushing the limits of a PG-13 film) and sobering and genuinely engaging. I must admit that the whole League of Shadows/Ra’s al Ghul subplot was really silly (but I suspect I’ve neglected to read some very important comic book–probably written by Frank Miller–and am, therefore, missing the significance of this clandestine ninja army). I am, however, all for putting more hallucinagenics in the water supply. Tom Wilkinson was great fun. I was less impressed with Gary Oldman (doing his best William H. Macy impersonation and saddled with a couple of the film’s worst zingers as Chris has noted above). Cillian Murphy certainly has presence but he looks only a few years older than the kid who played the young Bruce Wayne and, therefore, it was hard to take him too seriously (dreamy as he may be). I kept looking at Katie Holmes waiting for something interesting to happen, but all I could see was a big bushy beard so I lost interest. What I did like and would have liked more of was the playboy “mask” Bruce Wayne displayed to his society friends (I suspect there is more of this sitting on the cutting room floor in order to make room for more chop-suey hijinx in the Himalayans). Anyway . . . my 2 cents.
will be seeing this soon. the last thing i saw bale in was “equilibrium” so he’ll have to really be good to make up for that. does tom cruise rush out at any point, grab holmes in a too-tight grip and jump up and down? no? rats!
and nikki, you loved “the saint”. but even in revisionist mode you have to admit there was one good scene in that movie: the bit where elizabeth “made out of wood” shue runs to the american embassy, chased by the russian mob. i still remember pete and i trying to drag you back down when you got up on your seat and started chanting “USA! USA!”
I’ve yet to see this, and it’s dumb of me to post, but I want to point out a couple of things I’ve noticed in the reviews of Batman Begins.
First, many reviewers tend to write off the Tim Burton Batman movies as campy and not too far removed from even the 60s TV show, which is patently unfair. Worse, other reviewers lump the whole bunch of those films together, and that’s insane. Joel Schumacher and Tim Burton couldn’t be further apart in style and tone. Batman Forever was awful then, and even worse looking now. I assume that Batman & Robin was even worse, but hell if I know. It was, I remember reading, the (literally) gayest of all Batman films.
Tim Burton’s first Batman suffered from necessary origin story weight, and I always throught Nicholson was an awful choice for Joker. The look of the film hasn’t aged particularly well, but I think that owes to Burton trying to retain a comic book vividness amongst the dark landscapes, which led to silly bright costumes and big hair, but Burton’s fine surreal sensibilities are great, and even better in Batman Returns. It’s one of Walken’s best comic performances, and Burton does some of his best Fractured Fairytale work here with putting the hideous child in the river, a dead girl brought back to life by cats, and of course the scene of the marching penguins with rockets strapped to their backs. It’s breathtaking stuff.
One last point: Reynolds brings up that I hate blockbusters, and it’s true. After watching about 60 consecutively disappointing big summer films, I decided to stop going. They always suck. I’ve made exceptions for LOTR films, and almost nothing else.
I might see Nolan’s film this weekend, against my better judgment, unless Romero’s Zombie flick is closer. I just hate to see Burton’s films tossed off so lightly in the press, and linked to Shumacher’s.
went to see “batman begins” today. me likey. sunhee even more than me. it seemed to end very quickly, and that’s pretty much my main criterion for judging a summer movie. what didn’t end quickly was our search for affordable parking in westwood. we eventually gave up and drove to century city.
re the quick-cut fight scenes–i’ll suggest that this may be in its own way a strategy for de-emphasizing those parts of the genre. i thought the movie in general wasn’t very interested in the “gee, how did they do that?” factor. compare the train crash scenes in this and “spiderman 2” for instance.
I saw Batman Begins this afternoon. Why do I often feel slightly wrung out after a movie like this? Perhaps it’s because every blockbuster now runs about 15-20 minutes too long, as though competent editors no longer exist and every baby auteur can’t bear to work under two hours. Plus I had to deal with “The Twenty” [where I had an informative look at The Closer and learned about Kyra Sedgewick’s thoughts on interrogation techniques] and about 8 previews beforehand.
In any case, “fun” doesn’t spring to mind for this film, and it made me miss the lighter sense of style from Tim Burton’s Batman movies. This movie is relentlessly humorless except for a few remarks by Michael Caine (who I thought had gone beyond this kind of sidekick role. He’s just a guy who can’t say NO)who plays a kind of sick-making part as the faithful retainer who goes on and on about the rich man’s great legacy and how the house has held six generations of Wayne’s etc. etc. You just can’t get that kind of self-effacing help any more! Is that Bale speaking from under the Batman mask? Why does he talk in that portentious whisper? does Morgan Freeman get tired of embodying amiable Goodness–with a nice cardigan, he’s about ready for the black re-make of My Three Sons. Regarding Katie Holmes, how does a 14 year old get a position as a DA? I could have used some more juicy scenes at Arkham Asylum and less info on the chemical make-up of the bat cape.
As several of you already pointed out,it’s interesting that Bruce Wayne’s public persona is a drunken selfish playboy, rather than an upright public citizen–however, I don’t know if that twist does much to overcome the film’s rather clumsy politics–which it seems to strive to make overt rather than just leaving them in comic-book vagueness: Good Aristocrats must defeat Bad Aristocrats. Bruce’s father is a nice guy because, though he has tons of cash, he works at a hospital rather than Wayne Towers, where people who are “more interested” in money than he is actually do the dirty work. The League of Shadows wanted to destroy the city economically but didn’t count on people like “Bruce’s parents” who kept it alive–which begs the question of how they made so much money in such a corrupt and inequitable environment. And what’s up with the League of Shadows–they go from a subtle policy of economic sabotage to airborne hallucinogens and microwave transmitters? Does anybody live in Gotham City except for that kid who has total faith in Batman rescuing him? “I knew he would come.” Jeez, the last movie blockbuster I saw was also a humorless epic about Good Aristocrats (Obi Wan) vs. Bad Aristocrats (Anakin/Darth Vader). makes me miss a bit the apocalyptic populism of some of the older blockbusters–Robocop, Blade Runner and Road Warrior (where they leave the “hero/savior” by the side of the road).
And would it have killed them to include at least one “old chum” or “Holy Hallucinogens”?
Okay-
A rock-solid dismantling of the film. I did, however, think it was fun–but fun in terms of the horror of its vision, rather than the comic or grotesque visions Burton was so good at. (Mauer called the second film a sort of Fractured Fairy tale–that’s perfect; “Returns” was also my favorite, for those reasons he enumerated.) That said, I really like horror movies, and this movie was surprisingly freaky in its thrills. (Before falling into the conventions of slambang action, “Begins” builds tension through shadows, quick flashes of fearful and fear-ridden faces, etc.) I, too, would like more Arkham–but if it’s not just Bruce Wayne’s origin film but Nolan’s also, his attempt to define his ownership (a la Burton in film one) and give him carte blanche for the next round, can’t we look forward to an even more aggressively savage Joker in his next shot at the story, an even darker and more challenging “action” film?
And you’re right: the politics is pretty much good v bad rich people. That said, the portrayal of Bruce Wayne is a shift from earlier versions–and, unlike Obi-Wan, he’s not respected and revered in his society. We may know he’s the good guy, but nobody else does; that seems to me at least worth examining as a narrative shift with some possible political undertones… even if they’re remarkably muted, and not so far afield from the typical plot you note.
For apocalyptic populism, we have to turn to “Land of the Dead.” Not the second coming, as some reviewers seem to note, but still: a film with an almost 1930s-style sense of politics and how to convey such politics in fiction, if writers like Mike Gold ever used zombies in his novels. (No wonder they have that antiquated Universal logo in the opening; it’s odd to call a futuristic apocalypse old-fashioned, but…) I mean this entirely as a positive: the film doesn’t dazzle with its subtleties, instead it’s an entertaining genre picture with Sam Fuller’s keen if extravagant sense of social critique. Rich=bad. Poor also equals bad, but it’s an understandable bad. Hell, dead also is an understandable bad.
John Leguizamo is outstanding. Why the hell doesn’t this guy get better roles than “The Honeymooners”?
Well, I didn’t want to walk out in the middle of it, as I do with most of these kinds of films.
My biggest problem was that, despite some nice shots of ice fields and mountains, I don’t need to see the Batman orgiin story again. Whose parents here HAVEN’T been gunned down, huh? Anyone? I didn’t think so.
Urban dystopia, rampant corruption, crazy-ass plan to ruin city, way too earnest Katie Holmes… She made me pine for the nuance and complexities of Kim Bassinger’s Vicki Vale. (Would it have hurt Katie Holmes to tease her hair into a big 1980s sculpture? just a little??)
I think man-hole covers shooting 25 feet into the air would cause more death and chaos than the drugs – to say nothing of the evaporation of the entire city’s water supply. Plus, how many hundreds of innocent people must have been killed by the train collapsing into buildings, knocking down everything for whole city blocks? At least there was no Prince music in it, or whatever the 2005 equivalent of Prince is… like a 50 Cent soundtrack to the movie?
Five minutes after it was over I couldn’t really look back on it with any kind of appreciation.
And Frisoli – your misuse of the phrase “begs the question” in your comment was obviously a sly reference to its similar misuse by a character in the film, probably Michael Caine. Well done in bringing that up. A film filled with proper Queen’s English speakers shouldn’t resort to such grammatical foolishness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass
I fail to see how good rich people vs bad rich people is any different than what goes on in this country every four years. In who’s world do the rest of us matter?
And anyone commenting on my grammar can kiss my big fat white ass.
Reynolds said: “That said, the portrayal of Bruce Wayne is a shift from earlier versions–and, unlike Obi-Wan…”
Interesting: Bale was soberly playing a drunk, whle Ewen MacGregor, playing a very sober Obi-Wan, was in fact, drunk. http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_1452444.html
he would have had to be drunk so say most of that twaddle..
So it’s about seven minutes too long and one is thankful that Ben Stiller doesn’t make an appearance, but The Wedding Crashers is damn funny. I only wish I had been in a full theatre (and I hate being in a full theatre). The opening scene (with Dwight Yoakam and Rebecca De Mornay) sets just the right tone and mood, and while the film suffers from a necessity to honor certain generic conventions, it is very pleasing. And Vince Vaughn . . . VINCE VAUGHN! He’s like the Orson Welles of the new millennium rat-pack. He can do no wrong.
The Chumscrubber. Why did I go see this movie? Why??? Damn you Moriarity!!! This Donnie Darko wannabe (and, really, isn’t DD a pretty mediocre film) is pretentious, strained, painful to watch . . . it should have gone straight to Showtime, but I suffered through it. Yikes.
Hmm. I quite like Donnie Darko. Have seen both cuts and was impressed both times.
so, did anyone see “stealth”? that sentient plane looked like a real badass in the previews and i’m worried that jamie foxx coming off his oscar high might not be able to take it down.
i watched “the interpreter” this afternoon for some reason. was that a summer movie? and have we discussed it?
I believe it was a Spring flick and no we haven’t. I, on the other hand would like to throw out some positive vibes for Arnaud Desplechin’s Kings and Queen, a sprawling French epic about selfish yet likable characters who wrestle with mental disease, death, betrayal, selfishness, nobility and grace. It’s my third French film this week (yes, my wife and child are visiting family in England and I’m a lonely academic wanker) and while its narrative histrionically veers all over the place, Desplechin manages to achieve some kind of beautiful harmony (how, I do not know but I was in awe of the film’s grandiosity). Worth seeing if its in your local rep house (its not even on Landmark Cinemas’ TBA list so good luck). Next up, the somber French zombie flick They Came Back.
The Scrubchummer? The HumScrabbler? The Scracbaggler? where is Perini Sclerosa when you need her?
French zombies? I’m skeptical, given the French horror I’ve seen. better to leave zombies to the Italians and Americans? let us know how it is, Jeff.
They Came Back was a little creepy (divorced couple trying to come to terms with the return of their six-year-old son who died three or four years earlier among other narrative threads), but ultimately it was very French. I forwarded through a lot of it. The undead return but they are not able to generate new memories so they basically learn to function by adapting without moving forward (emotionally and intellectually) and eventually all of the dead try to escape the bureaucratic rules that attempts to contain them. The fellow you wrote Time Out (L’Emploi du Temps) wrote and directed this film. I liked Time Out (about a man who is fired from his job but doesn’t let anyone in his family or close circle of friends know), but this film seemed a bit misguided. Chumscrubber . . . I don’t know what they hell that was about except Rita Wilson was in it and Tom Hanks owns Hollywood.
Apart from “Herbie: Fully Loaded,” this was a lousy summer. But that’s the way it crumbles, cookie-wise.
The top 5 summer movies of my life:
1. E.T. (saw it 3 times in 2 weeks)
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark (had to leave the theater when Karen Allen was swarmed by skeletons)
3. Ghostbusters (when I first read that this film was coming out, I creamed my Ops).
4. Stripes (it was the peak of my SCTV fanaticism)
5. Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back (a tie)
And speaking of Pirini, heads up SCTV fans: Volume 4 is due out September 13. “Canoe i-tarac-ow nee too the lotow?”