|
After I've read several newspaper reviews from
across the country online, and reading maybe three
times as many reviews on message boards and
Live Journals, I've come to the conclusion that
everyone has their own specific views on what a
Batman movie should have. One newspaper critic
complained that the villains were unfamiliar.
Online fans took the movie to task for the
pronunciation of Ra's al Ghul (here pronounced
"rahs," not "raish") to the nit picky: Bruce's
father didn't have a moustache or his parents were
shot after leaving an opera, not the movie "The
Mask of Zorro."
Right.
I attended an opening midnight screening. There
was a full house, but I didn't feel that
"electricity" in the crowd beforehand. The mood
changed by the end of the film, especially at the
sight of a Joker playing card signaling a sequel.
The story was interesting, plausible and went
"full circle." By that I mean, we see cop Jim
Gordon consoling a young Bruce; there was a
recurring scene with a bum and a coat; and the
recurring phrases, "Why do we fall? So we can pick
ourselves back up again." and "Oh? You didn't get
the memo on that?"
The look of the Batmobile grew on me. I loved
Batman using a device on a boot heel to attract a
lot of bats.
There was a scene with Batman standing on some
steeple that looking VERY Jim Lee-ish from the
"Hush" storyline. Another nice touch was using
the Zsasz serial killer character from the comics
appearing here.
The story has a "twist" of sorts (the Liam
Neeson/Drucard character was Ra's al Ghul all
Along, apparently). Most of the folks seemed to
buy it; I did not. I've followed the Ra's
character practically since he's been introduced.
With his ego and strong presence, Ra's has never
impressed me as to stooping to use a double in any
scenario. (Plus, I think it cheapened and wasted
Ken Watanabe's performance.)
My only other problem about the film: I would
NEVER imagine Bruce Wayne thinking to take a gun
and use it on Joe Chill (the killer of the elder
Waynes). Revenge or not, did he not have ANY moral
cloth beforehand?
Admittedly, I had not seen any of Christian Bale's
acting prior to this. I thought he did a very
good job. I thought his Batman had the right
amount of broodiness; his Bruce Wayne had the
right amount of angst and playboy persona.
The supporting cast did a fine job too. Everyone
had their own little moments to shine, but did not
steal the show. Michael (Alfred) Caine and
Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) were top-notch. I was
especially impressed with Gary Oldham as James
Gordon.
Many print and online critics had a problem with
Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Some thought she
looked too young or did a poor acting job. I
didn't have a problem with Holmes, myself. I
thought she held her own with the lines she was
given. And, as some have complained that Holmes
looks like she's 14, I say, well then Cilian
Murphy loooks like he's 8. I also pictured
Jonathan Crane as extremely tall, gangly, and with
glasses. Well, at least Murphy had the glasses,
though his frames distracted me for some reason.
But, I didn't have an issue with Murphy's
performance. I thought he brought to the table the balance of
creepiness and insanity to the role.
As far as the Batman movies go, I may have to rank
this one as the best. While I liked the first two
films, I don't know if I enjoyed them on the level
of this movie. The level of "darkness" was tinted
just enough here for my taste.
One last thought: I thought of all the Batman
movies to date, this Gotham City at least somewhat
LOOKED real. Past movies had shown impressive
looking structures and architecture. But to me,
they just didn't seem possible they could exist.
Here, the city had a plausible feel to it. (But
then call me biased. Many of the scenes were shot
in Chicago -- my current stomping grounds.)
|