CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Liam Lacey, Globe & Mail, 6/14/05: "This Batman dosen't fly"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liam Lacey, Globe & Mail, 6/14/05: "This Batman dosen't fly"

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
The first negative review of Batman Begins, and its from a Canadian critic:
=================================================
Batman Begins **½

This Batman doesn't fly

By LIAM LACEY

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 Updated at 2:26 AM EDT

From Tuesday's Globe

Batman Begins

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer
Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Katie Holmes and Liam Neeson
Classification: PG
Rating: **½


Oh, what will it take to make Batman fly again? The Warner Bros. Batman movie franchise started with an intoxicating, mad, gothic bang with Tim Burton's Batman (1989) and then went downhill with three subsequent movies, including Burton's Batman Returns and two bloated, campy Joel Schumacher sequels (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin).

Now, eight years after the superhero's last appearance, the franchise has been handed to 34-year-old Christopher Nolan to create a prequel.

The film is obviously intended to hark back to Burton's first film to emphasize the Caped Crusader's shadowy beginnings, before he donned the pointy ears and the winged decal on his chest.

Nolan is a director known more for intellect than action, which caused some stir of excitement when it was first announced he had signed on for the Batman Begins project. Fans of Nolan's earlier films know he likes protagonists whose heroism consists of overcompensation for psychological impairment. In Nolan's breakthrough film, Memento, Guy Pierce starred as an amnesiac trying to discover his past; his English-language remake of Insomnia featured Al Pacino as an insomniac racing against exhaustion to stop a serial killer. This time, Nolan has cast Christian Bale as a chiropteraphobiac, someone with an irrational fear of bats.

After the initial swirl of batwings during the opening credits, the movie starts with the traumatizing childhood moment: A little Bruce Wayne is chasing a little girl, Rachel (soon to grow up into Katie Holmes) when little Bruce falls down a carelessly uncovered hidden well and finds himself swarmed by the winged rodents.

Fans of the comics and the first movie may remember that young Bruce already had a sizable childhood trauma to contend with: He witnessed his parents gunned-down. Now that episode has batty associations as well: Young Bruce was spooked during a production of Die Fledermaus and asked his parents to leave the opera, when they were subsequently shot, thus causing young Bruce to associate his bat fear with his parents' death.

Cut, not to a psychiatrist's couch, but to a central Asian prison, where a now-grown Bruce (Christian Bale) has ended up after dropping out of Princeton and going out in the world to understand the nature of the criminal mind. One typical morning, he beats up a half-dozen thugs and is sent back to his cell where a mysterious stranger called Ducard (Liam Neeson in a wispy white beard) appears unto him and whisks him away to a Himalayan camp, part monastery, part ninja-terrorist training centre.


Ducard is sort of a Jedi Knight (like Neeson's role in Star Wars: Episode 1), only this time it's by way of Al-Qaeda. He belongs to a secret moralistic organization of killjoy ninjas called The League of Shadows that takes credit for every decadence-purging historical event from the sack of Rome to the Great Plague. He also evokes Uma Thurman's mentor in the Kill Bill movies, as he beats the stuffing out of young Bruce Wayne to help build his character.

"To conquer fear you must become fear," he advises, which is the audience's first glimmer of hope in the movie's 40 minutes that we might actually get to see Bruce Wayne dress up as a bat.

Sure enough, Bruce soon parts ways, not amicably, with his mentor and heads back to Gotham, to Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine) and to Rachel the childhood sweetheart who is now an assistant district attorney (Holmes). He discovers that Wayne Enterprises, the source of his multibillion-dollar fortune, is now in the hands of a shady board chairman (Rutger Hauer).

Gotham is a monumental dump, in much the same state of rubbled confusion it was in Tim Burton's Batman 17 years ago. This feels outdated. Gotham, we know, is a stand-in for New York, and the idea of New York as a ruined city, from Escape from New York (1981) to Batman (1989), is an anachronism. It has little to do with the shopping-mall sterility of today's Times Square. More disappointing, Nolan never makes Gotham dangerous and exciting, just vast and glum.

To get to business and to start crime fighting, Bruce gets a job back at the family company and enlists the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), a Wayne Enterprises scientist who provides military prototype equipment that can easily be modified as Batman costumes and Batmobiles. Not too long after, he finds Gotham's last honest cop (Gary Oldman, disguised to the point of invisibility as usual) to assist him in his fight against way too many villains.

There's the Italian mobster running the town, called Falcone (played by Tom Wilkinson). Trolling through back issues of the comic book, the writers found the villain called Scarecrow, an effete psychiatrist called Dr. Jonathan Crane (a snidely simpering Cillian Murphy) who puts a burlap bag over his head and sprays a powder in people's faces which causes them to hallucinate their worst fears.

But neither of these small-time evil-doers are the real enemy: The conflict goes apocalyptic when we learn that, somewhere out in the ocean, terrorists have absconded with the Wayne Enterprises device that can cause the panic powder to be spread everywhere and bring Gotham to its end. All of this is a competently acted and directed demonstration of paint-by-numbers, blockbuster movie-making, but who really gives a bat's ass?

All of the story is so absurdly humourless that it is dramatically inert, as if Nolan had decided the only way to make the Batman character more substantial was to put weights on his wings. Genuine opportunities to explore a political context — the obvious post-Sept. 11 references to white powder, terrorist attacks and the political manipulation of fear — are wasted. Stylistically, the movie is similarly disappointing. Where are the dizzying perspective shots that made the first Spider-Man movie so much fun?

Here, the action sequences feel like generic studio product, frantically and confusingly edited, and the lengthy Batmobile chase scene feels like a good opportunity to take the kids to the bat-room.

There's something piquant in casting Christian Bale as the split personality Bruce Wayne. The similarity between his role as the playboy-by-day, avenger-by-night and his turn as Patrick Bateman, stockbroker-by-day, serial-killer-by-night, in Mary Harron's American Psycho is provocative, even if unintentional. Unfortunately, Bale's Bruce Wayne doesn't seem crazy, just wooden.

His romantic encounters with Katie Holmes are stilted. He's worse when he's in the Batman costume, when he juts out his chin and alters his voice to sound as though he has a nasty three-pack-a-day habit. Now, that would be something to suggest a smouldering dark side. Are we ready for: Batman: Episode 2: The Smoker Vs. The Joker?

This Batman doesn't fly
=================================================
post #2 of 14
He's Canuckistani. Are you actually surprised?

Take, for example, the wargames often held between the US and Canada. I seem to recall that U.S. troops usually won the wargames -- if the U.S. had at least a 5-to-1 advantage (and, in one instance, were allowed to call for a tactical nuke in a do-over, " 'cause the Canadians cheated, sir!!").

Turns out, the Canadians *did* cheat. They insisted on using real clubs, and due to their blood alcohol content, were impossible to convince they'd been killed by simulated fire. It was like watching a batch of five-year-olds playing "Cowboys and Indians." ("You're dead!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are! I shot you!" "No you didn't! You MISSED me!" "Did not!" "Did so!!")

The 5-to-1 personnel ratio was necessitated by the fact that it took one American to hold each arm and leg, and one to hang on to the club, while holding the Canuck down until he sobered up; with typical Canadian obtusity, the Canadian troops had shown they weren't real clear on the concept of "game" (one source insists that the language barrier was the root cause of this problem...after all, many Canadian troops are monolingual speakers of French, and not yet accustomed to the idea of shoes or indoor plumbing), and were engaging in actual combat.

Fortunately, their own officers were more scared of them than we were, and had not issued them live ammunition. Many of the prisoners were then herded toward an airlock, but the US troops didn't have to shove. We just tossed a six-pack of Molson's into the airlock, pointed, and said "Regardez!!"

...and the Canucks stampeded in like frat boys stuffing a phone booth.
post #3 of 14
Does this thread make sense to anyone else?
post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man
Does this thread make sense to anyone else?
No. No it doesn't. And does anybody else get the feeling that Leto II was just waiting for a thread to mention Canada so he could whip out that highly dubious story? Because it sure as hell has nothing to do with the topic.
post #5 of 14
Leto's parents were gunned down by a Canadian outside of a theater when he was a boy. Cut him some slack.
post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
No. No it doesn't. And does anybody else get the feeling that Leto II was just waiting for a thread to mention Canada so he could whip out that highly dubious story? Because it sure as hell has nothing to do with the topic.
Obviously a man who's never experienced the stark terror of being in a U.S. shopping mall on a day when the Canadians have managed to remember which way is south long enough to find an American city...
post #7 of 14
I get leery of any review where a writer accepts their own overreaching analogies as actual truth (i.e. Revenge of the Sith as anti-Bush diatribe) or tries to apply a sociopolitical agenda onto the film.
Quote:
Gotham, we know, is a stand-in for New York, and the idea of New York as a ruined city, from Escape from New York (1981) to Batman (1989), is an anachronism. It has little to do with the shopping-mall sterility of today's Times Square.
This is the example of the overreaching analogy. Because the writer has assumed that Gotham City is supposed to be New York City, then he concludes that it is false for Gotham City to be portrayed as it is in the film because it is nothing like the post-Guiliani New York City.

The problem with this is that Gotham City isn't specifically New York City. Gotham City is an archetypal large metropolis, most likely modeled after New York City or Chicago (where some sequences were filmed), but it's not New York City. It is incorrect to try to comment on the accuracy of the fictional location to the real location that it parallels. And if Gotham City is supposed to be NYC, then what is Metropolis supposed to be?

Quote:
Genuine opportunities to explore a political context — the obvious post-Sept. 11 references to white powder, terrorist attacks and the political manipulation of fear — are wasted.
Here we have a mix of the sociopolitical agenda and the overreaching analogy. The writer wants the film to comment on issues relevant to the real world whether or not it's relevant to the story at hand and whether or not anyone else would really care if it was there or not. The overreaching analogies here are the supposed post-Sept 11 references (I don't know how overt they are since I have yet to see the movie).

Other than that, the review is a perfectly valid report of the writer's emotional and psychological response to the movie. If he was not moved by it, then he was not moved by it.
post #8 of 14
Gotham City and Metropolis are both New York. When they were created there wasn't a shared universe of DC
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by patbuddha
I get leery of any review where a writer accepts their own overreaching analogies as actual truth (i.e. Revenge of the Sith as anti-Bush diatribe) or tries to apply a sociopolitical agenda onto the film.

This is the example of the overreaching analogy. Because the writer has assumed that Gotham City is supposed to be New York City, then he concludes that it is false for Gotham City to be portrayed as it is in the film because it is nothing like the post-Guiliani New York City.

The problem with this is that Gotham City isn't specifically New York City. Gotham City is an archetypal large metropolis, most likely modeled after New York City or Chicago (where some sequences were filmed), but it's not New York City. It is incorrect to try to comment on the accuracy of the fictional location to the real location that it parallels. And if Gotham City is supposed to be NYC, then what is Metropolis supposed to be?


Here we have a mix of the sociopolitical agenda and the overreaching analogy. The writer wants the film to comment on issues relevant to the real world whether or not it's relevant to the story at hand and whether or not anyone else would really care if it was there or not. The overreaching analogies here are the supposed post-Sept 11 references (I don't know how overt they are since I have yet to see the movie).

Other than that, the review is a perfectly valid report of the writer's emotional and psychological response to the movie. If he was not moved by it, then he was not moved by it.

No, it's the typical snobby indie/foreign cinegeek's response to a movie that he dosen't really care for, like most of these guys & gals. That, along with the misenterpetations of the meanings in the recent Star Wars trilogy is one of the reasons (one exception; Ebert & Roper) I've stopped listening to movie critics like Mr. Lacey. If these assholes can't get past their bias of SF&F movies and just review the damm thing honestly & fairly, I say fuck them and the mothers that gave them birth. Of course, they wern't moved by Batman Begins: all they care about is their Sundance films anyway, and it shows.
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Gotham City and Metropolis are both New York. When they were created there wasn't a shared universe of DC
I forgot who said it, but one of the artists for Superman a bit back said that DC saw Metropolis as New York in the day and Gotham City as New York at night.

For the life of me, I can't remember who said it though. Dark haired dude, heavy set, it was about 2 years ago in an interview.
post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.G. JackONeill
I forgot who said it, but one of the artists for Superman a bit back said that DC saw Metropolis as New York in the day and Gotham City as New York at night.

For the life of me, I can't remember who said it though. Dark haired dude, heavy set, it was about 2 years ago in an interview.
I've heard another version of that. I can't remember what the cutoff street was (maybe if I'd ever been to New York, I would), but a couple of writers were saying that Metropolis was New York above this street, and Gotham was New York below that street.
post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Gotham City and Metropolis are both New York. When they were created there wasn't a shared universe of DC
Great point. Early issues of Detective Comics explicitly state that Batman is a New York based superhero, Gotham was an afterthought.
post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I've heard another version of that. I can't remember what the cutoff street was (maybe if I'd ever been to New York, I would), but a couple of writers were saying that Metropolis was New York above this street, and Gotham was New York below that street.
Frank Miller said Metropolis is New York at day, Gotham is NY at Night. Denny O'Neill, however, had this great quote (which I can't find) where he says that Gotham is New York below Fourteenth Street on the coldest, darkest night of the year (and Metropolis is everything above Fourteenth).
post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I've heard another version of that. I can't remember what the cutoff street was (maybe if I'd ever been to New York, I would), but a couple of writers were saying that Metropolis was New York above this street, and Gotham was New York below that street.
I've heard that one too, I think maybe it was Broadway or something. But, the night/day thing is something I've heard recently.

EDIT: And if I read the rest of the threads after yours, then I would have seen the answer to this. lol

EDIT 2: And technically, for Mr. Lacey, Batman doesn't fly, he glides. Get your facts straight, ya hoser.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Liam Lacey, Globe & Mail, 6/14/05: "This Batman dosen't fly"