BEFORE: Peter Sarsgaard carries over from "Human Capital", and a superhero movie is like an Oscar-nominated movie, if I have the chance to work it in, I probably should. My problem over the last year is that I just haven't had much chance, not since "The Suicide Squad" and "The New Mutants", anyway - so I've fallen behind, I missed out on "The Eternals" and "Venom: Let There Be Carnage", all because I wanted to watch horror movies in October and a couple Christmas movies in December. To everything, there is a season, I suppose - but if possible, let it please be superhero season now.
Actually, this was supposed to be the slot for "The Lost Daughter", I worked a screening of that film last - November? December? - where director Maggie Gyllenhaal spoke on a panel with her husband, Peter Sarsgaard, and also Dakota Johnson. That film was Oscar-nominated for a few things, so I programmed it in as soon as possible, which turned out to be now, but since then I've realized that film is going to serve a crucial purpose, leading in to my Father's Day films. So, that's been rescheduled, it's no longer part of this week's Peter Sarsgaard-related programming, it's needed elsewhere. So, "The Batman" is stepping in to fill the slot, which is fine.
Expectations are high, because in watching almost 4,100 films, I've only given out two perfect scores, for "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight Rises". I've heard good things about "The Batman", but I've also tried not to learn too much, because I want to enjoy whatever surprises might still be coming my way. Will this be a perfect film? Unlikely, but let's find out in a special Tuesday afternoon "Bat-inee" on my day off.
THE PLOT: When the Riddler, a sadistic serial killer, begins murdering key political figures in Gotham, Batman is forced to investigate the city's hidden corruption and question his family's involvement.
AFTER: Standard SPOILER ALERT applies - this is a film in current release, so turn back now if you don't want to read something you'd rather learn by watching the film.
For today's film, I returned to the scene of the crime - the AMC Theater where I worked last summer, and failed to see many of last year's releases, except for "Black Widow". I'm still playing catch-up on those films that I COULD have seen for free, many are now available on cable or streaming, like "Free Guy", "In the Heights" and "Reminiscence", and I'm waiting on a few others, like "Respect". Much has changed at the AMC, like the soda machines are all working now, and there's a sign in the elevator that tells customers which theaters are on which floor - I'd only been back once in January to see "Spider-Man: No Way Home", but my last week there was so crazy, with a power outage at the theater and then a flood and power outage at home. But today I saw a couple of the managers I used to work for, and my buddy Joseph was working the reception stand. I paid for real movie-theater popcorn (full price, I no longer get the concessions discount) and a Coke (not a Mello Purple, but people there are still talking about my soda machine freestyle concoction) but since I attended the matinee, and I'm still a member of the rewards program, my admission price was only $6 - that's a real bargain! But of course I blew any savings on popcorn, Coke and a box of nachos to bring home for the missus.
This most recent Bat-Flick clocks in with nearly a three-hour running time, that's a long time to go without a bathroom break, but clearly it had a lot of ground to cover, what with a corrupt police force, the Gotham mob, a serial killer on the loose, and a budding relationship with Catwoman. I've come to accept that every few years DC is going to dismantle their franchises, both in the cinema and in the comic books, and then jumble up the pieces and then ask a new crop of writers to put the pieces back together again, only in a different way than before. That's just life at this point, and when I count up, my movie history has contained five different Batman actors (only counting live-action films), and during the same time three Supermans, three Spider-Mans, and two Fantastic Fours.
Here they've done it again, they've deconstructed the Batman story and put it back together again, with an attempt to "modernize" it once again. Just keep rebooting him until the end of time, look, it's kept his comic book published for over 80 years. (It's been six years since the last Batman movie reboot, and about as long since DC Comics "Rebirth", which was the last relaunch of their characters.) There's talk now of a new comic book reboot, but as for the movie reboot, it's already here, at least for Batman. Ben Affleck is out, which I think is a bit of a shame, I didn't have any problem with him as the character. What's a bit confusing, however, is that "The Batman" was preceded by a preview of the other DC films coming out this year, like "Black Adam" and "The Flash" and "Aquaman 2", and none of those are reboots, they're the same actors from the "Justice League" movies and "Black Adam" is a sequel to "Shazam", so why are they rebooting Batman but not the other characters? Is this part of the most recent DC movie universe, or the start of a new one?
I can't be concerned with all that right now, I just want to focus on "The Batman" (which borrows the same trick from "The Suicide Squad", just stick a "The" in front of your previous titles, and pretend it's a whole new ball game, you can then do whatever you want.). But today's film is actually a pretty good take on Batman - there's a real focus on detective work, and Batman is often called "The World's Greatest Detective". He's appeared in "Detective Comics" for over 80 years, also. But a number of films just depict him being a superhero and some tend to forget the other part of him, the detective part. In this film we see Batman go undercover several times, he's seen riding a motorcycle out of costume while trailing someone for example. That big black cape does tend to stand out, you know. Also, sometimes he appears in public as Bruce Wayne, and in many ways that's a disguise, too - because Batman is the true persona and the spoiled millionaire playboy is just a character he can play when needed. AND the film acknowledges this, which is for sure a step in the right direction.
There's also a new take on The Riddler - he's not that goofy guy wearing a green leotard covered in question marks, which has always been very silly. In the comic books, sometimes he wears a nice suit and hat, while on the "Gotham" TV show he just wore normal clothes, so there are different takes on him. But here he dresses kind of like The Gimp from "Pulp Fiction", which is creepy enough right there - in addition to riddles he also deals in cipher codes like the Zodiac Killer, he also puts people in mechanical traps like Jigsaw, and he disguises his voice like he's on "The Masked Singer". Also, he's a social media influencer with like 500 followers, that doesn't seem like much but man, those 500 followers are REALLY committed to the cause.
This story is set back during Year Two of Batman's time in Gotham, and thus it borrows a bit from the landmark comic "Batman: Year One", namely mob characters like Carmine Falcone. There were a few runs of Batman comic books that tried to follow in the footsteps of "Year One", but many were of little consequence, and aren't anything like the story seen here in "The Batman". But the setting is important, because it establishes that Batman's working with James Gordon and is basically at odds with the rest of the G.C.P.D., and he's just starting to transition from taking down mob criminals to battling psychotic super-villains like the Joker - and thus the argument that maybe the worst criminals came around after Batman's debut, and this makes some people say that without the Batman, there would be no Joker or Riddler or Mr. Freeze. Discussion point, I suppose.
The weird thing about the Riddler is, why does he feel compelled to leave riddles for Batman, as clues to his activities? Well, because he's an insane madman, his actions don't need to make sense, that's one possible answer. Another answer is that the riddles are a test, a game of wits, but honestly, after a while, it starts to feel like maybe, unconsciously, the Riddler WANTS to be caught. Another discussion point. "The Batman" puts a nice twist on this, though, suggesting that his notes for Batman, complete with riddles, are partially because he feels like Batman is a fellow collaborator, his riddles are meant to point Batman in a certain direction, and Batman's resulting actions as a part of his investigation are intended to have a certain effect, so in one sense, Riddler feels that he and Batman are sort of working together. They're just not, as far as Batman is concerned, but it's an interesting sign of Riddler's psychosis that he believes this. He literally would need to be a genius to be this insane, though, or vice versa, and that's a tough contradiction no matter how you slice it.
But the riddles or puzzles, well, they'd better be good. I didn't want anything too cartoony, like the old Adam West "Batman" TV series, where Frank Gorshin as the Riddler was basically using the same riddles you knew from grade school - the audience for that show was mostly kids, I think, plus a bunch of older people who forgot to grow up. I'm very glad that they didn't revert him here to using riddles like "What's black and white and DEAD all over?" or similarly child-like things. It's always a fine line, perhaps - if the riddles are too simple, then I feel cheated, and if they're too difficult to explain, then they're over my head and I'm lest interested in the process. But I think this film got this very difficult tone almost right (?) and of course I don't want to discuss this further, because spoilers.
Along with the Riddler, the Penguin is a major player here - but he's not all cartoonish, either, like he was on the 1960's TV show or when played by Danny Devito in "Batman Returns". Colin Farrell just plays him straight, like a regular mobster, only with a scarred face, and he doesn't walk or squawk like a penguin, nor is he shaped like a penguin, no tuxedo either. So, them, umm, how did he get that name? I'm not seeing the connection to the Antarctic bird. And he's got a pair of TWINS working for him, so NITPICK POINT, isn't that Two-Face's thing? Why are the twins here, they feel like they don't belong, they're in the wrong movie.
A lot is also borrowed here from "The Dark Knight Rises", which I believe is a perfect film and I think I'm definitely over due for a re-watch. Not Bane of course, or the other villain, but Catwoman (or a different version of Catwoman) was in both that film and this one. And there's a physical threat to the entire city of Gotham, which is a little bit like the one in "Dark Knight Rises" and also different at the same time. The one in "Dark Knight Rises" referenced Batman storylines like "No Man's Land", and the threat in "The Batman" somehow feels both original, and at the same time, like a copy of that other movie, but they just changed a couple things. Wow, I'm hard pressed to think of a word that means both original and a copy of something at the same time, if such a word existed I could definitely use it here. Both conventional and unconventional? Both formulaic and innovative? I need a contronym here, a word like "butcher" or "oversight" that also means its own opposite - like "butcher" means to cut mean expertly, but if a butcher did a bad job cutting meat, you could also say he "butchered" it.
I expect a Batman story, even one that's a reboot, to adhere to a certain key principles of the story, namely that Batman's parents were find, decent, sane and upstanding members of the community, Thomas was a doctor and Martha was a loving mother and they both did a lot of charity work and philanthropy, before they were murdered in a random mugging incident in Crime Alley. The TV shows "Gotham" and "Pennyworth" did their best to chip away at this story, though - "Pennyworth" depicted them as secret agents working in the U.K. before Bruce was born. And now along comes "The Batman" that tells me that Thomas Wayne was running for mayor of Gotham, and Martha spent some time in a mental institution (her maiden name is now apparently "Arkham", like the name of the asylum), and chip, chip, chip, we're continuing to dismantle the essence of Batman's origin in the name of keeping things "fresh", and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Then there are suggestions here that Thomas might also have had ties to the mob, or at least he saved the life of one key mob boss - well, he was a doctor, after all, but if you start to believe anything worse about him, then you're messing with a "sacred cow" of the Batman story.
One key question - who the hell wants to be mayor of Gotham? The life expectancy of a Gotham mayor is about a week and a half, between the threats from mob bosses and then Batman's super-villains. I wish I had a nickel for every time the Gotham mayor got kidnapped or killed in the comic books, and they rang that bell a few too many times on the "Gotham" show also. I think by the last season they were even making fun of how often this happened, and you'd think there must be an emergency replacement election to replace a dead mayor about every other week, right?
I won't even get into making James Gordon and Catwoman black, it's a controversial subject for sure, I've expressed my feelings before on multi-culti casting for its own benefit. I've come to terms with it because, sure, it better represents the world today, but I think also I see the other side of it, it should be done only when there's a reason to do it. Anyway, I was fine with both Gary Oldman and J.K. Simmons as James Gordon, but making the character black is messing with another "sacred cow" in the Batman story. We had Lucius Fox, wasn't that enough? Just don't tell me that you're doing "blind" racial casting when clearly you're not, you're doing it to show how "woke" you are, and I see right through that. Zoe Kravitz was also on record as complaining about being turned down as Catwoman before for being too "urban", and clearly she feels that was code for "you're not the right color". I see her point, but she's GOT the part now, so why is she still complaining about it? Also, haven't two other actresses of color previously taken on that role?
Here's some more good news: Andy Serkis is FINE as Alfred, I could believe that he's an older version of Sean Pertwee from "Gotham", though neither of them look like an older version of Jack Bannon from "Pennyworth". But this leads me to another NITPICK POINT - we know that Alfred used to be a former British soldier and the head of a security company, possibly even a secret agent - so yes, it makes sense that he would know something about codes and ciphers. But then WHY doesn't he have any security system in place for properly checking the mail that comes in addressed to Bruce Wayne? How can he be so dumb on just this one point?
And then we come to Batman himself, now played by Robert Pattinson - when he's in the costume, he's also FINE, basically any one of a whole host of actors can wear that suit, and then part of the time it's stuntmen, too, probably. But can that same actor pull off Bruce Wayne, who's now some kind of mopey millennial, who rides around on his motorcycle to emo music, wears way too much eye make-up and never bothers to brush away the hair hanging down over his face when it's wet. Ugh, I don't know, this is not MY Bruce Wayne, that's for sure - maybe this is YOUR new Bruce Wayne but again, I just got myself used to Ben Affleck instead of Christian Bale. I know they need to keep updating this character to appeal to a new audience every few years, and in some ways he's OK, but I just wish some things could just be the way they've always been, starting with Batman. But as soon as I say this, I realize how ridiculous it sounds, because Batman's never been just one thing, even in the comics he's been portrayed slightly differently by each writer, and then vastly different after every re-boot, such is the way of things.
Ultimately, my final verdict is that this is a great effort, just way too long with its three-hour running time. Are you going to tell me that there was simply NO WAY to trim maybe 30 minutes from this film? I find that hard to believe. You could just cut a fair number of shots a little bit quicker, and you'd excise 10 minutes for sure. Then it's a matter of saying, "Do we REALLY need THIS bit?" a few more times and you could bring this puppy in at two and a half hours.
What's next for Batman, in both the movies and the comic books? The comics also revived the romance between Batman and Catwoman, and they came THIS close to getting married, only it was all a huge fake-out, they didn't go through with it BUT they sold a whole bunch of comics that way, it would have been a very innovative step for both characters, but it wasn't meant to be. Alfred's been DEAD for a few years now in the comics, I think either Bane killed him or the Thomas Wayne from an alternate universe where HE is Batman, not Bruce. But this could change, there have been rumblings from the "Robin" comics that Damian Wayne may try to bring him back using the Lazarus pits of his grandfather, Ra's Al Ghul. And Batman's been off in Europe, fighting a new villain named Abyss and teaming up with Lex Luthor? Probably another dodge - while all Batman's friends, like Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwoman and Huntress, were supposed to watch over Gotham in his absence, and everything went crazy (no pun intended) at the new Arkham Tower, which was the replacement for Arkham Asylum. Boy, is Batman going to be mad when he gets back in town...
I'd love to see a really great comic book storyline get incorporated into the next "The Batman" movie - "The Long Halloween" is one, but it features a villain who's probably not movie-worthy. They could maybe do something with Two-Face, especially if it's the SECOND movie set in the new rebooted Gotham City. The Joker's probably played out, but it's another way to go - but then so is Mr. Freeze, or Scarecrow or Poison Ivy or Killer Croc - really, there are hundreds of Batman villains, the trick is picking the right one, someone that's not too ridiculous but also not too over-used. I would say that the villain named Hush is ripe for the picking, but they kind of mixed in elements of his origin into the Riddler's back-story here, so that might be somewhat repetitive.
Also starring Robert Pattinson (last seen in "Tenet"), Zoe Kravitz (last seen in "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald"), Jeffrey Wright (last seen in "The French Dispatch"), Colin Farrell (last seen in "The Killing of a Sacred Deer"), Paul Dano (last seen in "Okja") John Turturro (last seen in "Margot at the Wedding"), Andy Serkis (last seen in "13 Going on 30"), Jayme Lawson, Gil Perez-Abraham (last seen in "The Farewell"), Peter McDonald, Con O'Neill, Alex Ferns, Rupert Penry-Jones (last seen in "A Little Chaos"), Kosha Engler (last seen in "Wonder Woman 1984"), Archie Barnes, Janine Harouni, Hana Hrzic, Luke Roberts, Stella Stocker (last seen in "The Good Liar"), Oscar Novak, Sandra Dickinson (last seen in "Ready Player One"), Jack Bennett, Andre Nightingale, Lorraine Tai, Joseph Balderrama (last seen in "The Current War: DIrector's Cut"), Angela Yeoh, Douglas Russell, Charlie Carver (last seen in "Fist Fight"), Max Carver (ditto), Mark Killeen (last seen in "Risen"), with a cameo from Barry Keoghan (also last seen in "The Killing of a Sacred Deer").
RATING: 8 out of 10 jack-knifed tractor-trailer trucks
No comments:
Post a Comment