Batman Begins: The Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1171 of them)
RETURN OF NO MAN'S LAND!

Ha, I guess you're right! I know that much about the varying stories at least.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link

wait wait wait RUTGER HAUER is in this movie!?! I have to see this even more urgently now...

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:22 (eighteen years ago) link

He was easily the best character I could enjoy seeing a separate movie about, an alternate approach where it's Gordon's story with Batman to the side. - ned there's a comic called gotham central you should read, it's basically a really good cop show set in gotham with batman as this odd/scary/nearly criminal peripheral figure. it's pretty great.

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:32 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost - Relatively minor role, not an action one! But he does an okay job, it's just that there's not much to be done with it.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Noted, Mr. Blount.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link

Another observation -- so the secretary for the Wayne Enterprises board was hired just to hug and give close personal golf lessons to? By anyone?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:37 (eighteen years ago) link

This is the summation graph from my review:

The Batman myth presists and matters because it affirms that some insults don’t heal with time—nor does the struggle not to use past scarring as rationale for present bad behavior. Burton understood this, but romanticized his hero’s suffering, glamming it up in freakshow goth. In a final paradox, Nolan, who name-checks Jung to affirm his awareness of archetypes, strips his incredibly inventive film of any character-distancing fancy. In this finest iteration of the partially destroyed child-man legend, Nolan makes us feel protective of both his literally bipolar hero and the extraordinary movie he inhabits.

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:42 (eighteen years ago) link

(In the body copy I re-define 'bipolar' for my own use.

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:44 (eighteen years ago) link

In some ways, though, Ian, I'd almost have enjoyed it if *that scene* ie 'the parents get offed' part wasn't included this time around. It would have been interesting to have all the scenes around it, but not the scene itself.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 20:48 (eighteen years ago) link

I can see your point, but Nolan really needs something visceral to make his point in the movie as a stand-alone piece.

Thing is, the more I play the movie back in my head, the more really impressive things come to me. (Something I might expect from an Ozu film, say, but not Nolan, who I really was sort of distnatly interested in before this.) I'm seeing it again this weekend. Paying, even!

I just read somewhere that Sarah Michelle Geller was up for the role visited by Cruise's new cover story. Hmm.

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:04 (eighteen years ago) link

Jeez--that was a bit bitchy.

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:06 (eighteen years ago) link

No, it wasn't bitchy enough!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:10 (eighteen years ago) link

About both SMG *and* Cruise!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:11 (eighteen years ago) link

I can see your point, but Nolan really needs something visceral to make his point in the movie as a stand-alone piece.

I'll grant ya that, but it's definitely one of the most "DO YOU SEE?" moments in modern creative lit -- perhaps by default and perhaps because that's what the medium/story would have allowed/demanded at the time. As Huk notes this isn't an auteurist film, despite many trappings (I haven't even talked much about the beginning of the film yet!) -- something that would have made it more so might have been pulling the 'what you don't see gets more horrible in your imagination' trick, which in respects is much of the rest of the film.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:13 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe it could have been two hours of blank stares from bale and oldman, punctuated by flash-frames of shaky camera movement and loud thumping noises?

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:14 (eighteen years ago) link

My Dinner With Lt. Gordon

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:15 (eighteen years ago) link

I think Nolan might have been more oblique about it--as it is, it's sort like a gotta-do-this-plotpoint thing.

I could argue that, with his otherwise pretty rigorous psych approach, it would have been more powerful if Wayne's memory of the event had been more fragmented, more open to multiple takes on the memory, as it would in real life.

Not the highlight of the film, for certain. But so much other good stuff.

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:19 (eighteen years ago) link

Yay the good stuff!

They should have John Malkovich as a villian in the next one and then Glenn Close in a role in the one after that and then huzzah! All of Dangerous Liaisons would have been in a Batman movie one way or another. Except for Keanu. Good thing too.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:23 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh, and I was right, I really do think this *is* Nolan's best film so far.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Batman's dad had a bit of the 'molestor' vibe about him.

Chuck Maris, Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:32 (eighteen years ago) link

Glenn Close as The Joker!

Ian in Brooklyn, Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:37 (eighteen years ago) link

There's a vision!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:42 (eighteen years ago) link

What opera were the Waynes watching anyway? I assumed it was Die Fledermaus but I'm not familiar with it so I couldn't be sure.

mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 16 June 2005 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link

It would sorta have to be, wouldn't it. Imagine if he had been watching The Barber of Seville instead.

"I'm THE BARBER."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link

This was a shitload of fun.

SPOILER:


THE BIT WHERE HE SUMMONS BATS

M Annoyman (Ferg), Thursday, 16 June 2005 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Hehehe. I did like that.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 June 2005 23:27 (eighteen years ago) link

I liked how when he did that all the SWAT team badasses went apeshit while Commissioner Gordon the nerd was like 'nigga pleaze'

fcuss3n, Thursday, 16 June 2005 23:33 (eighteen years ago) link

Loved it, just loved it. It takes itself very seriously, which is exactly the right thing to do with Batman, I believe -- the tone here is 180 degrees away from Schumacher. Edelstein complained about the Batmobile not being "sexy." I think this is a useless criticism. It's not sexy, it fucking kicks ass. We did "sexy" already. It came off as silly, remember?

using Chicago as the base for the city itself was a nice variant on using NYC, say

It was very well done, and the "this city's whole goverment is rotten and everything's run by gangsters" angle fits Chicago very well. I loved the Board of Trade building as the Wayne Building. Some of the helicopter shots of the city were unretouched, I noticed -- just shots of Chicago. Nice.

BUT there's one overriding reason that Gotham cannot be New York City, and has to be Chicago: Chicago has alleys. You have got to have alleys. That's where the bad crime happens, and where the bats drop from fire escapes in the rain. Do you see?

Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Friday, 17 June 2005 03:04 (eighteen years ago) link

Edelstein complained about the Batmobile not being "sexy." I think this is a useless criticism. It's not sexy, it fucking kicks ass. We did "sexy" already. It came off as silly, remember?

Hay guys let's remake knight rider except instead of a super gay 80s corvette we can make him a busted up Hummer with rocket launchers

fcuss3n, Friday, 17 June 2005 03:58 (eighteen years ago) link

I liked the Batmobile. It was beautifully unlikely. I mean, who designed that? What was that whole jazz where it puts you into the floorboard? What's the advantage of that? And what's with all these crazy exterior panels that cannot and will never be explained? What the fucking fuck?!

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/batmobilerollingstone.jpg

Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Friday, 17 June 2005 04:14 (eighteen years ago) link

I believe I am going to have to buy the toy. That's just too much insanity not to have one of my own.

Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Friday, 17 June 2005 04:24 (eighteen years ago) link

A big disappointment. Nolan edits the fight sequences like he's got Michael Bay envy. Caine does a better job of suggesting torment and indecision than the affable Bale (the supporting cast, with the exception of Tom Wilkinson, who seems to be channelling Frank Sinatra, is uniformly excellent). The portentious Fu Manchu speeches in the first third really slowed the pace.

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Friday, 17 June 2005 12:29 (eighteen years ago) link

"Remember the working title of this was originally Batman: Intimidation Game, and it's a giant-budget franchise movie owned by one of the world's biggest entertainment conglomerates. Auters need not apply. "

do people who write this kind of thing know what 'auteur' means, where the idea comes from? as it happens howard hawks and alfred hitchcock worked once in a while with the world's biggest entertainment conglomerates.

N_RQ, Friday, 17 June 2005 13:05 (eighteen years ago) link

I didn't mind the portent at the beginning but the faceoff in the manor, like I mumbled above, dragged a hell of a lot. But yeah, those fight scenes...I liked the chaos at the waterfront faceoff because the unclarity was part of the effect, but the monorail sequence, forget it.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:07 (eighteen years ago) link

Did, what specifically did you not like about the parents' death scene? Just that it exists? I thought it was very well played, personally.

And my memory is a little hazy, but didn't Burton's movie limit that scene to shadowy flashbacks (a hand holding a gun, etc.)? I think it was already done the way you suggest, and given the increased time spent on Wayne's childhood and parents, it would have been a copout not to actually show the shooting.

Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:27 (eighteen years ago) link

Ha - DID.

I was gonna ask the same question as Jordan re: the death scene, but was gonna be really rude about it, as is my wont. From what I recall (and don't mind me if I remember things a bit slanted):

Burton - slow-mo echoed horsecrap, almost pantomimed, leering sinister crooks, and OF COURSE that crook becomes the Joker (oh the pathos!)

Nolan - in real-time, actual interaction between the criminal and the victim, actual TENSION (cf. when the wallet drops), crook as lost befuddled desperate soul driven to such depths (apparent even w/out all the depression discussion), actual Bruce-parent interaction prior to that so viewers give a crap when the parents get popped, the insertion of Bruce's guilt into the scenario (cf. wanting to leave the opera house), and the lack of romanticized foofah when the gun goes off (tho, in hindsight, Mr. Wayne getting off that one line is a bit hokey, but, @ the same time, it dovetails nicely w/ what preceded it).

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh and BEWARE SPOILERS FOR FUG'S SAKE!

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Um, Did = Ned. Somehow. Don't ask, I'm just getting my fucking coffee now, okay? Fuckers.

Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:40 (eighteen years ago) link

do people who write this kind of thing know what 'auteur' means, where the idea comes from? as it happens howard hawks and alfred hitchcock worked once in a while with the world's biggest entertainment conglomerates.

Yeah, yeah, but maybe I didn't put fine enough a point on it. Batman is not just any filmic property, he's a fucking brand, and a pretty big one. For the last 20 years, Batman has been the biggest (and nearly ONLY at times) moneymaker from DC Comics. On the one hand, yeah, Batman is a modern myth, an operatic iteration of the post-Depression urbanization, but on the other hand, Batman is Ronald McDonald.

Huk-L, Friday, 17 June 2005 13:55 (eighteen years ago) link

ERGO: Studio/Corporate brass be hands-on all the fucking way.

Huk-L, Friday, 17 June 2005 13:56 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually, the Joker is Ronald McDonald. Batman is the Hamburglar.

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 17 June 2005 13:56 (eighteen years ago) link

Is that why he always calls out, "Robin, Robin"

Huk-L, Friday, 17 June 2005 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Good ol' Did. Never thought he'd get far.

I admit I actually liked the creepy sense of slow motion/unsettled music in the Burton depiction, at least as the scene begins. With this version, I suspect part of me may well have just been *impatient* -- like a, "Look, we know, okay?" Which for those that don't know is admittedly unfair. But also I thought the conclusion of the scene -- kid slumped to his knees, folks sprawling out on either side -- was a little too self-consciously staged in a movie where most such scenes are done with plot-derived intent (the multiple ninja scene in the monastery, for instance, or Falcone spreadeagled on the searchlight).

Also, frankly, I was a bit dulled by the young Bruce's reaction to it all. I suppose it's really hard to convey near instant shock and make it seem like something as compelling as "I've got a splinter in my foot. Ouch. I think I'll vaguely sniffle." The fact that it's immediately followed by Oldman's first appearance trying to figure out *how* to convey sympathy/assistance to young Bruce -- you can sense him trying to find the right words/attitude/etc., like you suspect just about anyone else would in that situation -- kicks the acting up a notch and has more of an impact in my mind.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:04 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh, you two.

xpost

Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, that kid is no Jake Lloyd.

Huk-L, Friday, 17 June 2005 14:06 (eighteen years ago) link

Hahaha.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:10 (eighteen years ago) link

zing!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Huk-L, I kiss you.

I guess I can see where Burton's self-aware staging of the event is less cloying than Nolan's "less artistic" attempt at verisimilitude, but at the same time, Ned, you're on crack, and you like Star Wars, so SHAVE THOSE SIDEBURNS HIPPY!

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Wait, wait, you're asking me to *shave* my sideburns? You don't really know me that well, do you?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:27 (eighteen years ago) link

SHAVE HIPPY!

David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 17 June 2005 14:28 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.