Another comic book movie has come out, so it's time for me to make another post in this thread.
DC Comics is owned by AOL-Time Warner.
AOL, font of all evil on the internet. Strike One.
DC Comics are the "establishment" comics that everyone knows from, at this point, four generations of constant media exposure. Everyone recognizes Superman (and, for that matter, his ENTIRE cast of supporting characters) and Green Lantern and Wonder Woman, but decades of bland, terrible writing have left a continuity filled with
SuperDickery and characterization so bland that the dad from "The Brady Bunch" looks like a Hell's Angel in comparison. Strike Two.
My earliest exposure to DC comics - thanks to a cousin whose adult life has been spent as a purveyor of the finest in 4-color newsprint - was late-60s-era comics with writing so putrescent that, at age five, I knew enough not to like them (of course, being trapped in a farm town with no TV reception and allergies to "outside", I read hundreds of 'em anyway). I've never been able to wash that stink off, and I've never been able to enjoy a DC Super-Hero Comic book. I suppose that makes Strike three.
Heck, I can even tell you able Strike Four: DC Heroes have a little problem with super-power inflation. SuperMan might as well be God - there's just nothing he can't do. Another DC character, the Spectre, is written as the personification of the Wrath of God (note those capital letters). The Flash started as a guy who could run fast. Now he can selectively alter the vibration of his body and change the flow of time. What kind of interesting story do you tell about characters like that? The answer, if you are DC Comics, is that you DON'T tell interesting stories. Period.
I wish I could say that I had some kind of selective respect for Batman. I didn't. I can't. He was lumped in with all the rest, in part due to a comic-fan cliche: "If Batman and _____________" got in a fight, who would win?"
The joke, to comic fans (we don't get out much) is the answer - no matter
who, be it Godzilla or Darth Vader or the Archangel Gabriel and all the Host of Heaven, goes in the blank: "Batman, if he has time to prepare."
But, I support comic-book characters in all media. So earlier this year I bought two volumes of the mid-90s-era "Batman: The Animated Series" on DVD, just because.
And not too long ago, while recovering from bronchitis, I actually watched them. And they were
good. Dark and brooding stylish and surprisingly adult (even the voice acting was surprising, in that there were a couple recognizable celebrities in every episode). A million miles away from the DC comics I'd read 25 years ago.
Of course, then I sought out the late-80s/early-90s Batman Films, and reverted to my previous opinion. They were as awful as the Adam West crapfests I saw a few times when I was a little kid.
So I went to see "Batman Begins" tonight, vaguely hoping I'd see something more like the cool-as-hell cartoon than nipples-on-the-batsuit-and-Jim-Carrey-as-the-Riddler movies.
Gotta say, Batman doesn't tickle me the way Marvel Heroes do - I grin when I see the Hulk or Daredevil or Spiderman on a big screen - but I walked out impressed, and fully convinced that I'd gotten my $6 and 150 minutes' worth.
Batman Begins was filmed in Chicago and the location was used to
marvelous effect in the movie. Batman's Gotham City is gritty and subterranean. It's up close and
personal, not a giant set-piece like the old movies. Somewhere along the line, someone - someone brilliant - decided that the world Batman lives in should be an indecipherable mix of worn art-deco and Blade Runner-esque neon futurism. Man, does that look great on film.
Batman in this go-round is played by Christian Bale, who, the year prior to "Batman", lost something like 80lbs. for a role in "The Machinist". Dedicated guy. He looks good here, and he does a more-or-less note-perfect Bruce Wayne. This is the first media *I* have seen that really explores the character's drive for human perfection, the first portrayal of a character who could live up to the comic book cliche. Kilmer and Clooney, in the older films, managed to get the Playboy right, but never got past "Brooding" with the cowl on. Bale manages a deeper, scratchy voice as Batman, and for the first time, film audiences will be able to see that it is Batman who is the real person, with Bruce Wayne as the facade. This is something very important about the character that comic fans have known for a long time.
One complaint? Batman is a man with a square jaw. Bale's is just... not. He did excellent work in the role but, the words and the costume and the voice just did not go with that face. Comic fans are nit-picky, too.
Katie Holmes? Meh. Didn't care.
She's not even that hot. They should've picked a different hot young brunette (Anyone seen Jennifer Love Hewitt lately?). One who hasn't been seen in public with both Tom Cruise and herpes sores. One nice thing: Her headlights are always on, so to speak. Every scene, every outfit, you know exactly what her nipples are doing. Homage to the Batsuit in "Batman and Robin", perhaps?
In nearly every other portrayal of Batman, Alfred and Commisioner Gordon are small, throw away roles. We know the names, of course - decades of radio shows, TV shows, movies and cartoons have made them minor but important characters in the mythology (I confess Ephraim Zimbalist Jr., in the Alfred role, in the cartoon, is one of its key charms). Here, Michael Caine gives Alfred a low-borne but dignified turn (a Michael Caine staple, I think. We've seen it in several other films) and some very important lines. Gary Oldman handles Gordon, and in a surprising turn, he's genuinely important to the plot of the movie!
The action is acceptable. Batman Begins falls into the common trick of Zero-attention-span editing of fight sequences (Bourne Supremacy and Daredevil are two other recent movies with this problem). It's annoying to not be able to tell what's going on, but it's also nice that the action sequences were done with human beings rather than CG. Big thanks that there wasn't any obvious Matrix-style wire-work or "bullet time".
Better than action in this case: Batman Begins manages some pretty good drama. This movie digs at Batman's psychology and motivations in ways that haven't been shown before, outside the comic (Detective Comics, the original Batman series, is somewhere around its 850th issue. That's 70 years of monkeys banging on typewriters, folks). Of course, the writer basically has to hit the audience over the head with a hammer, but comic book movie-goers aren't normally what you'd call critical thinkers, either.
The scoring is weak at best. Batman's theme might've been an attempt at minimalist classical music. It's not. It's a 3-note bass line in a crescendo. Very disappointing compared to the themes on the cartoon (Alice Walker) and the older movies (Danny Elfman). On the other hand, I didn't hear any popular music, no "Prince" theme song. Maybe I should be happy music wasn't a priority.
Obviously, I liked the movie. I liked that the movie managed a kid-unfriendly PG-13 rating. I liked the focus on building up Bruce Wayne as a character. I liked the non-obvious villains, the art direction and the cinematography. I liked what Bale did in the lead role (he just needs to fix his face!). It might not take my breath away in the way that seeing Spiderman swing through New York does, but it was a big step forward for my estimation of a DC Comics character.