Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: Batman Begins: The Post-Dark Knight Review
Last Christmas... Santa gave me a Spider-Man trilogy film set.
This Christmas... Santa gave me the Christopher Nolan Batman films! And hark, the Boy Wonder was glad, for this gave him the chance to re-visit Batman Begins, a film not seen since his trek to the cinema in the Summer of 2005 whereupon, in addition to a cracking Batman film, he discovered the cute ass of the girl sat in front of him! Still, following my gushing review of The Dark Knight this past summer, I thought it might be ideal to re-review Batman Begins properly and restart the debate of what film may be better (which will later carry my re-review of The Dark Knight, time permitting).
Batman Begins
The Nineties were somewhat tumultuous for our beleagured Batman. Following the success of Tim Burton's self-titled Batman in 1989, the follow-up, the somewhat amusingly titled Batman Returns (which begs the question of where Batman returned from), continued to meet its audience's expectations. Joel Schumacher took control of the franchise from then on, and despite a decent offering in Batman Forever, he then plunged a dagger deep into the character's heart with Batman & Robin (although, finally, a decent title).
After this, the franchise floundered. There was talk of Batman 5 (featuring The Scarecrow) and, later, talk of Superman vs. Batman (an interesting idea, although one that was knocked after Warner came to the obvious conclusion that they would make far more money by making two films, one for each individual character). From that moment forward, an idea of adapting Frank Miller's Batman: Year One came to the fore, and very nearly could have been with Darren Aronofsky onboard (thankfully, that one didn't come to pass - Alfred would have been a mechanic, for starters).
Christoper Nolan stepped up to the plate after that and offered a very different vision from the various pitches that preceded it; one that took Batman to the root of his character and, of course, back to basics. So began Batman Begins. And so began the filmic re-inventing of a true comic book legend.
Batman Begins is a thunderously powerful comic book film; one that remains utterly faithful to its source, yet also one that offers a broad appeal to the mainstream audience. Nolan's direction is masterful as he sweeps the film powerfully forward from its humble opening to grand crescendo. The film is dark and brooding, but also one filled with hope. We see a desperately despondent Gotham City, one where crime rules; however, the flicker of hope is never too far away, one that is epitomised no better than with Sgt. Gordon, Gotham's last 'good cop'.
You probably expected me to say 'Bruce Wayne'; however, Christian Bale's superb performance allows us to look in on him and empathise with him without letting us get too close. All of which works the better when we witness his transformation into the Dark Knight. It's the warmer characters surrounding Wayne that pull us into his world: Sgt. Gordon, Rachel and his ever-faithful Alfred. And that is really how it should be.
Alfred has never been better characterised than by Michael Caine, a casting choice I remember snorting at when I first heard of the news (still thinking of the 'my name is Michael Payne... and I am a nosy neighbour' sketch from Paul Whitehouse, I think). Yet, Caine brings a warmth and dry humour to the role that his predecessors lacked. I also thoroughly enjoyed Katie Holmes' portrayal of Rachel; however, I never felt her vulnerable performace gave credence to her position of a lawyer. I certainly couldn't see Holmes command the courtroom; however, her scenes with Bruce are handled well and she plays vulnerable particularly well (probably why Tom Cruise converted her so easily, I guess).
Christian Bale gives us a powerfully brooding performance as both Bruce Wayne and Batman; surely, his Batman is the most convincing.
So far, this sounds like a typically gushing review and one that wouldn't have read as out of place three years ago... well, let's correct that one then.
I hadn't realised Liam Neeson was actually playing the role of Ra's Al Ghul. I'd always seen him as playing the role of 'Ducard'; however, this is no more than a misconception as his true identity is boldly revealed at the end of Act 2 after Bruce comes face-to-face with a very different Ra's than the one he combated earlier in the film. This is a very clever twist and I wonder if I was the only one who missed this from before. It certainly elevated the threat level, and Neeson's own performance for me.
Second time around though, I was far less impressed with The Scarecrow (name of the actor escapes me right now). I really felt he hadn't been given enough screen time and, come the climax, was nothing more than a petty throwaway villain; something I found particularly disappointing after the excellent build with the character.
The story was a grand one and served its characters well; however... there is one gaping flaw in the entire film. I appreciate the fact the clue is in the film's name; however, it takes 40 minutes for the main plot to start! And this then is the downside to any superhero origin film; the hero must have his origin told and the main plot must then be crammed into whatever time remains.
I really wanted to see more of the criminals seizing control of Gotham in Act 3. I wanted The Scarecrow to enjoy more screen-time. I wanted to see more of Arkham Asylum. I wanted to see more of Falcone; a figure built into such an immovable figure of criminality that it actually comes as a bit of a surprise that he's taken down so easily by Batman in the drug heist sequence. If anything, the problem with Gotham lies with its Police force if Falcone can be so easily sidelined. Even then, he's conveniently moved to Arkham within the story rather than returned to the streets he rules so mercilessly within a matter of hours.
The largest let-down here was with Neeson's Ra's. Consider that Ra's Al Ghul is the primary villain in the film and then consider he turns up for the very end of Act 2 to burn down Wayne Manor and to serve a climax. Sure, he's an ever-present in Act 1 but we have nowhere near enough time to enjoy the character after he's revealed. He re-appears, plays the grand villain... and then dies.
If anything then, the film needed another 20 minutes.
Otherwise, we're treated to a fantastic car chase sequence with the GPD, a powerfully brooding Batman and a supporting cast who very nearly steal the show. We also have a powerful story, one that is swept forward with the excellently portrayed characters on offer. And, more importantly, I can forgive its flaws.
Verdict: *****
But is it better than The Dark Knight...?
Let the debate re-commence! _________________ With Great Power, Comes Great... Potential to ROB BANKS!!! HAHAH! THAT'S HOW TO BEAT THE RECESSION!!!
[/quote]If anything then, the film needed another 20 minutes.[quote]
And the Dark Knight needed about 20 minutes less
But i do disagree, i thought the fact that Ra's Al Ghul didn't show his true colours until near the end was a stroke of genius, and taught the dark knight detective a very valuable lesson.
Just because it seems like cheese, it doesnt mean to say it is cheese. _________________
I don't disagree that Ra's revealed deception was a stroke of genius but that isn't what I'm commenting on in my review.
The fact that, following this reveal, Ra's then runs through the stereotypical villain's motions in the final Act takes some of the shine away from the film and, also, Neeson's own performance. Neeson came across as far more... sinister (anyone fancy applying a better word, here?)... in the scenes where he wasn't trying to beat the shit out of Batman. He basically turns up, implements the threat, fights Batman... and dies.
Ra's deserved so much more than that in the final film... but, please don't think I'm mistaking the revealed deception as anything other than genius. Believe me, I found that moment deliciously delightful (as evidenced in the review).
What were your thoughts on The Scarecrow on a repeat viewing...?
And what's this obsession with cheese not being cheese...? Have you been smelling your wife's feet again...? _________________ With Great Power, Comes Great... Potential to ROB BANKS!!! HAHAH! THAT'S HOW TO BEAT THE RECESSION!!!
What were your thoughts on The Scarecrow on a repeat viewing...?
Fucking Awesome, the scarecrow in this movie was and remains one of the best depictions of that character.
The bit where Batman gives him a taste of his own medicine was brilliant, and showed that he was nothing more than a coward and a Curr, hiding behind his own fear.
and who else would understand the power of fear more than someone who feels it the most.
And just to add its really nice to be agreeing with you... for a change
Happy new year to both you Ann and offspring... that's three isn't it? _________________
Is this a sign of things to come in 2009 or is this merely the calm before the storm...? Time will tell, yes...
And yes, that was three!
Anyone else really looking forward to seeing what CatFang disagrees with...? I know I am! _________________ With Great Power, Comes Great... Potential to ROB BANKS!!! HAHAH! THAT'S HOW TO BEAT THE RECESSION!!!
Anyone else really looking forward to seeing what CatFang disagrees with...? I know I am!
What could there be to disagree with? we are right, everyone else is wrong, simple really
Well I'm right, your nearly right, but I'm righter than you so I'm the rightest of the right...right
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
