Batman Rocks!
Jun. 17th, 2005 05:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxOne of the nice things about my current job is that I get every other Friday off. Today was my day off and I decided to go see Batman. Now, taking into account that tastes vary by the individual and realizing that this is just my opinion, I have to say:
Batman rocks!
As the tagline implies, I really enjoyed this one. It's fun, it's scary, it's interesting.
It's probably not for anyone who is into realism because no one ever actually talks the way that these characters talk. On the other hand it's not the special effects set piece of Burton's construction either. It's way more realistic than Burton. It's just sort of a heightened realism. It could probably co-exist in the same universe as AtS. Gotham looks very much like a real city and yet not. It's got it's own gothic homages, and certainly its depression era slums aren't modern by any means. But it's real enough, as are the characters, as are the gadgets. No, it's not real, but it's real enough to buy into.
Physically, you can buy into Christian Bale as Batman. He appears on screen as broad shouldered and muscled--strong--and it's not just (Michael Keaton-like) just the suit (kudos to whatever trainer got him into that size and shape after he had done The Machinist) He appears vigorous enough and big enough to take the copious amounts of abuse that this Batman takes. He is a fallible Batman who gets bruised and cut and harmed. The fighting has weight. There are no superpowers in this one. Batman has no superpowers and neither do the villains -- which isn't to say that they are realistic either. Just that they are hyper-reality.
The heart of the film is facing one's own fears, what is justice versus what is vengeance, and largely it's a fight for Bruce Wayne's soul. There are a plethora of father figures in the movie from Bruce's actual father, to Alfred the Butler, to Lucius Fox, to Liam Neeson's Henri Ducard. The pivotal tug of war is Bruce's father's legacy of idealism and compassion versus Ducard's belief in an eye for an eye. Do you choose to redeem and save people, or do you punish and condemn them for their crimes? The struggle is internal in Bruce with different father figures voicing various points of view with Bruce's father's (repeated question) of "Why do we fall?... So we can get back up again." A full fledged belief in redemption. To Alfred telling Bruce "You're becoming lost in the monster you've created." To Ducard asking Bruce whether he felt guilty for his parents death with Bruce answering that anger had consumed the guilt long ago. Ducard warns that the anger eats away at you until you are filled with pain and when you've endured the pain long enough you begin to hate the thing you loved because loving it brought that pain. All in all it's a very satisfying heoric journey for Bruce Wayne as he struggles with his own fears and failings.
Michael Cain is an awesome Alfred. Funny, compassionate, stalwartly moral, and even a bit heroic in his own right. Bruce: "You haven't given up on me?" Alfred: "Never." Yay, Alfred.
Morgan Freeman as a knowing conspirator with Wayne (He's Bruce Wayne's Q creating all those gadgets that make Batman Batman).
Gary Oldman is also a reassuringly good Seargent Gordon (Not commissioner yet).
The Scarecrow is also creepy as hell, but, like this Batman, he is a man and not a mutant, and not endowed with superpowers.
Liam Neeson has a far more interesting role here than he had in Star Wars Episode I.
And it's fun that like Revenge of the Sith the movie ends at the beginning (Look! It's a bat signal! And another little delightful homage I won't give away). And some definite nods to "Night of the Living Dead."
The weak link is in the so-called "romance" which... well... there is NO romantic chemistry between Holmes and Bale. Just, none. The truth is, she may as well have been Bruce Wayne's sister and it would have worked just as well. In fact she sort of comes off as a sister figure in the movie. It doesn't sink the movie because the romance is so very beside the fact it's virtually non-existent. It in no way depends on the romance working. It depends on Bruce's internal struggle with the teachings of his father figures and which "father" really fuels his soul. Is it his father's belief in idealism or Ducard's concept of vengeance? And the chemistry between young Bruce and his father, adult Bruce and Alfred, Lucius, and Ducard all works.
All in all it's fun, interesting, exciting, and just a darn good comic book hero movie.
Batman rocks!
As the tagline implies, I really enjoyed this one. It's fun, it's scary, it's interesting.
It's probably not for anyone who is into realism because no one ever actually talks the way that these characters talk. On the other hand it's not the special effects set piece of Burton's construction either. It's way more realistic than Burton. It's just sort of a heightened realism. It could probably co-exist in the same universe as AtS. Gotham looks very much like a real city and yet not. It's got it's own gothic homages, and certainly its depression era slums aren't modern by any means. But it's real enough, as are the characters, as are the gadgets. No, it's not real, but it's real enough to buy into.
Physically, you can buy into Christian Bale as Batman. He appears on screen as broad shouldered and muscled--strong--and it's not just (Michael Keaton-like) just the suit (kudos to whatever trainer got him into that size and shape after he had done The Machinist) He appears vigorous enough and big enough to take the copious amounts of abuse that this Batman takes. He is a fallible Batman who gets bruised and cut and harmed. The fighting has weight. There are no superpowers in this one. Batman has no superpowers and neither do the villains -- which isn't to say that they are realistic either. Just that they are hyper-reality.
The heart of the film is facing one's own fears, what is justice versus what is vengeance, and largely it's a fight for Bruce Wayne's soul. There are a plethora of father figures in the movie from Bruce's actual father, to Alfred the Butler, to Lucius Fox, to Liam Neeson's Henri Ducard. The pivotal tug of war is Bruce's father's legacy of idealism and compassion versus Ducard's belief in an eye for an eye. Do you choose to redeem and save people, or do you punish and condemn them for their crimes? The struggle is internal in Bruce with different father figures voicing various points of view with Bruce's father's (repeated question) of "Why do we fall?... So we can get back up again." A full fledged belief in redemption. To Alfred telling Bruce "You're becoming lost in the monster you've created." To Ducard asking Bruce whether he felt guilty for his parents death with Bruce answering that anger had consumed the guilt long ago. Ducard warns that the anger eats away at you until you are filled with pain and when you've endured the pain long enough you begin to hate the thing you loved because loving it brought that pain. All in all it's a very satisfying heoric journey for Bruce Wayne as he struggles with his own fears and failings.
Michael Cain is an awesome Alfred. Funny, compassionate, stalwartly moral, and even a bit heroic in his own right. Bruce: "You haven't given up on me?" Alfred: "Never." Yay, Alfred.
Morgan Freeman as a knowing conspirator with Wayne (He's Bruce Wayne's Q creating all those gadgets that make Batman Batman).
Gary Oldman is also a reassuringly good Seargent Gordon (Not commissioner yet).
The Scarecrow is also creepy as hell, but, like this Batman, he is a man and not a mutant, and not endowed with superpowers.
Liam Neeson has a far more interesting role here than he had in Star Wars Episode I.
And it's fun that like Revenge of the Sith the movie ends at the beginning (Look! It's a bat signal! And another little delightful homage I won't give away). And some definite nods to "Night of the Living Dead."
The weak link is in the so-called "romance" which... well... there is NO romantic chemistry between Holmes and Bale. Just, none. The truth is, she may as well have been Bruce Wayne's sister and it would have worked just as well. In fact she sort of comes off as a sister figure in the movie. It doesn't sink the movie because the romance is so very beside the fact it's virtually non-existent. It in no way depends on the romance working. It depends on Bruce's internal struggle with the teachings of his father figures and which "father" really fuels his soul. Is it his father's belief in idealism or Ducard's concept of vengeance? And the chemistry between young Bruce and his father, adult Bruce and Alfred, Lucius, and Ducard all works.
All in all it's fun, interesting, exciting, and just a darn good comic book hero movie.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 10:35 pm (UTC)Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 03:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 11:36 pm (UTC)Having said that, Reign of Fire is one of my most favorite guilty pleasure movies ever so yes, I'll probably see Batman. It's a really excellent cast.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 03:22 am (UTC)I still wonder why Katie was even cast in this movie for whenever I see her in the promos now it is she who looks like she doesn't belong there.
No I haven't seen the movie yet but that is how my opinion has been after watching the promos. It was like some casting director said who lets stick her in here she has a pretty face are something not worrying if she fits the script are not.
Which by the way did she fit the script are is she really out of place all of the way through the movie? Who wants a sister if it is suppose to be romance?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 03:55 am (UTC)It doesn't really harm the story because the two of them aren't given romantic scenes, really. Had she been someone with whom Bale had romantic chemistry, then maybe that would have come across in their scenes. As it was she just came across as an earnest, moral friend who was trying to keep Bruce Wayne from self destructing. It just didn't seem romantic at all. So, she does okay. It would have been better with someone who had chemistry with him. But, she does okay as a childhood friend who really should have JUST been a friend.
I would be interested in their casting someone in a sequel to play Catwoman, because I think the way they worked out this Batman with all his own internal demons would make a really interesting foil/hot relationship with an equally conflicted Catwoman.
Truthfully, Holmes's character feels dispensible. If there's a next movie, you fully expect to see Batman, Alfred, Gordon, and Lucius Fox again because they seemed to be established. Holmes's character wouldn't even be missed.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 04:29 am (UTC)Plus didn't he have chemistry with Catwoman? I want to think that he did so there should be chemistry between Batman/Catwoman when she is onscreen.
Sarah