Image by Abhishek Kashyap from Pixabay Over a year into blogging on a (mostly) weekly, I’ve given my thoughts on so many different superhero franchises. From 20th Century Fox’s X-Men series and the DC Extended Universe to Marvel Studios’ “Infinity Saga” and Sony Pictures’ Spider-Man flicks, there have been so many great, okay, mediocre, and utterly awful depictions of superheroes on the big screen over the course of several decades. But none may be more iconic than the “Caped Crusader” himself…
BATMAN. As I’ve mentioned in several blogs prior, I only grew up with a cinematic version of Spider-Man to admire. Whether it be Tim Burton’s foundational take on the character or Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight Trilogy,” I had never seen any of Batman’s big-screen interpretations until pretty recently. Beyond that, Batman’s persona as a hero just never appealed to me. He seemed either too edgy or too cartoonish to hold his own in either a zany comic book movie like Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy or in a more grounded approach to superheroes like Logan. But, like so many other notable franchises, I have spent the last several years soaking in much of Batman’s history on the big screen and want to delve into the both the exceptional and the incredibly overrated versions of the character leading up to the newest take that premieres this weekend: Matt Reeves’ The Batman. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! [NOTE: I did not watch the 1966 Batman movie or the Schumacher films Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. I just couldn’t subject myself to them. ☹] Batman (1989) Although I wasn’t alive back in 1989, my understanding is that Tim Burton’s Batman starring Michael Keaton in the title role was a cultural phenomenon when it came out. Considering it made over 400 million dollars during its original run (making it the fifth-highest-grossing film at the time), it doesn’t surprise me. Even Burton himself once referred to the movie as “boring” even though he “liked parts of it.” And yet, its aesthetic and style have stood the test of time as a foundational film of the comic book genre. Is that enough to make it a good movie? … No. No it isn’t. To be clear, I don’t hate Tim Burton’s Batman. I just find it boring and don’t get why it was such a hit when it first came out. Sure, it’s stylish and undeniably inspired the gritty ambience of future superhero flicks (including Nolan’s own trilogy). But virtually everything else in the movie is either uninspired, tonally confused, or outright bizarre and not in a good way. To start, the plot of the movie has always baffled me with how scattershot it is. The struggle that plays out between Keaton’s Batman and Nicholson’s Joker involving Batman interfering with police business and the mob’s attempts to kill Jack Napier (the Joker before he comes the Joker) for having an affair with his boss Carl Grissom’s (Jack Palance) mistress which causes Jack to fall into a vat of acid which changes his skin and want to kill everyone with a laugh-inducing chemical and… SEE WHAT I MEAN?!? I know it’s a matter of hindsight being 20/20, but somehow Christopher Nolan was able to tell a more coherent, complex and compelling story in The Dark Knight without the audience ever feeling out of the loop in what is happening, who is doing what, and why. Clearly, Burton did not focus nearly as much of his energies on overseeing the screenplay for Batman. Which gets to my problem with our two main characters. Apparently, Burton was fascinated by the image of Batman and the Joker as a child and wanted to explore a world where each of their origins are deeply intertwined. In the film, the former’s journey to become the Caped Crusader begins with Jack Napier murdering his parents (which is also done far more tastefully and intelligently in Todd Phillips’s Joker) and the latter’s journey to becoming Joker begins with Batman trying to kill him. Do I like the idea of these two ideological opposites having shared origin stories? Yes, but unfortunately Burton falters in pulling this off. And much of that has to do with both actors (in my humble opinion) not excelling in their respective roles. I get that Nicholson was, and continues to be, praised for his take on Joker. And, admittedly, he has some fun moments. But that’s just it: I don’t think it should be fun to watch the Joker scheme and terrorize. In fact, it should be terrifying knowing just how much fun he’s having despite nobody else sharing his glee. So, while Nicholson expertly shows us that he had fun playing the Joker, the horrifying aspects of the character simply don’t shine through. He just comes off more like a showman and less like a menacing supervillain. Regarding Keaton, I really don’t get why people admire his take on Batman or Bruce Wayne. Just like Nicholson, he has some good moments that are usually his awkward-but-endearing interactions with Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger). Yet those are few and far between, and when he dons the cowl and cape as Batman he doesn’t really say or do anything cool. To be fair, this isn’t completely on Keaton’s shoulders as Burton’s direction and the cinematography of the action doesn’t help the situation. But, at the end of the day, Keaton is not my Batman and I’m not very excited to see how they to modernize him in the upcoming DCEU films Batgirl and The Flash. But what about as a superhero tentpole? Does it have some great comic book movie “firsts”? Once again, Batman disappoints in this regard too. First off, I found Burton’s introduction of Batman in the opening minutes and the reveal of the Batmobile during the second act to be anti-climactic at best and lazy at worst. That being said, Nicholson revealing himself as the Joker from the shadows is a decent start to his turn as the iconic villain (just not followed up very well by his absurdly cartoonish antics). All that being said, though, one element of the film that remains awesome is the soaring and inspiring score from none other than Danny Elfman. The opening credits do their damnedest at hyping the audience up for a movie that never really comes, and how his music punctuates the action sequences and dramatic moments helps make the movie bearable rather than outright unwatchable. And I love how this is the beginning of his career as a composer for superhero movies, which continued with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy before heading onto the Marvel Cinematic with Avengers: Age of Ultron and the upcoming Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (a much-anticipated reunion with Raimi). So, after two viewings, my feelings on the 1989 Batman flick haven’t really changed. While it has some cool sets and some great music, the rest of the film leaves much to be desired. Sure, it set some trends for both the genre and the depiction of Batman on the big screen (famously, the deeper voice that Keaton adopted to better conceal Batman’s true identity). Ultimately, though, it remains for me more of a culturally and historically significant movie than a timeless on. Batman Returns (1992) I don’t have as much to say about Batman Returns, Burton’s follow-up to 1989’s Batman, because it’s basically the same movie. I do like it more than its predecessor, but just barely. To begin with some positives, I do think that this film strikes a slightly better tonal balance than the first film. It does this not by injecting some realism into the script but by getting rid of it entirely in favor of doubling-down on the camp from before. Much of this is embodied by the movie’s dual villain roles, but I’ll get to that later. Additionally, I did appreciate Burton’s art-deco aesthetic for Gotham a little more this time around largely due to its Christmas-infused elements. But, once again, Batman Returns is an example of Burton prioritizing style and flair to the detriment of story, characters, and themes. Which gets to the bad stuff of the movie. When it comes to the villains, I wouldn’t say that Danny DeVito as Penguin alongside Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman are better than Nicholson’s Joker from Batman. But I do think that they’re more fun to watch. Especially in the second act, when they first meet and begin working together, is when Burton’s need to “cartoonize” the Batman universe that he’s crafted forms center-stage and dominates the remainder of the narrative. And this allowed me to begin laughing at the movie for the second half. And, in my humble opinion, I’d rather laugh at a movie than not laugh at all. Furthermore, Burton’s second take on dual identities by making Selina Kyle/Catwoman a thematic foil to Bruce Wayne/Batman works ever-so-slightly better than it did the first time (emphasize “slightly”). Rather than intertwine (and therefore unnecessarily complicate) the hero’s and villain’s origins, Bruce and Selina falling for each other more once they realize which vigilante mask that they each wear is somewhat enticing and had some good potential for richer storytelling. It never quite got there, but I give Burton some credit for the potential on display between Keaton and Pfeiffer. That’s really it. Like I said, Batman Returns is basically the same movie so much of my criticisms of 1989’s Batman still stand. The characterization of the protagonist falls flat in favor of cool set pieces and zany villains and their ridiculous, animal-centric schemes. By the end, I feel like I don’t know Batman any better than at the end of Burton’s first movie, but at least I enjoyed myself a little more the second time around. Maybe an actual cartoon movie will work better than these live-action cartoons did. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) Similar to my lack of childhood nostalgia for Burton or Joel Schumacher’s Batman films of the late 80s and 90s, I did not grow up watching Batman: The Animated Series and thus had no personal connection to Kevin Conroy’s take on the character nor on other seminal interpretations of the Batman universe (notably Mark Hamill’s version of the Joker). So, when I first watched Batman: Mask of the Phantasm in 2020, I found it unengaging thematically, uninteresting visually, and generally just a slog to get through. However, I’m happy that I rewatched it last month because I ended up appreciating it a lot more in the wake of trudging my way through repeat viewings of the Burton flicks. In comparison to those cartoonish atrocities that try to put themselves off as dark, gritty superhero movies, Mask of the Phantasm is a real cartoon movie. And yet it somehow feels more grounded, emotionally mature, and thematically rich than 1989’s Batman or its sequel. Being that it’s a movie based on a children’s cartoon show, I found the film’s narrative structure to be quite bold and unassuming. Not to diminish kids’ intelligence, but that kind of storytelling device for anyone, no matter how old they are, can only go so far before it potentially becomes antithetical to the goal that the filmmakers are trying to achieve. Fortunately, the creative team behind Mask of the Phantasm balances the flashbacks well enough to provide much-needed context for Bruce Wayne’s relationship with Andrea Beaumont (Dana Delany). In turn, this allows the tragedy of the third-act climax between Batman and the Phantasm to actually feel earned and heartfelt without coming off as rushed or poorly written. On that note, I found Bruce and Andrea’s chemistry more palpable and believable than Michael Keaton’s dynamic with either Kim Basinger in Batman or Michelle Pfeiffer from Batman Returns. Much of this, I think, has to do with how the story sets them up as foils to one another who both lost parents in childhood and bond over this shared trauma. From there, Bruce’s turn as the Caped Crusader in this animated universe comes not from training with Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows in Asia but instead being (metaphorically) left at the altar by Andrea. I find this to be, in some sense, a more compelling origin for Batman. He did not create his crime-fighting alter ego solely out of a desire for vengeance against, or to serve justice to, the scummy underworld of Gotham City. Rather, it was being abandoned by his love and left alone that pushed him over the edge and into wearing the cape and cowl. Just another example of how a kids’ cartoon flick somehow crafted a better character for Bruce Wayne/Batman than any of the live-action versions that came before it. 😊 But what perhaps makes Mask of the Phantasm an overall better movie than Burton’s duology or any of the pre-2005 cinematic takes on the character is ultimately about fulfilling the key elements of Batman’s archetype and mythos. Not only do the filmmakers offer a nuanced (albeit truncated) backstory that resonates with the audience, but they included some characterization of Batman by showing him conduct actual detective work to solve the mystery of the Phantasm. In addition, the rapport between Kevin Conroy’s Batman and this version of Alfred Pennyworth (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.) finally feels legitimately endearing rather than just like an awkward pseudo-adoptive father-son relationship. Seeing how much this Alfred cares for Bruce as well as his cheeky attitude, I have to imagine that Christopher Nolan or Michael Caine drew some inspiration from the film for his own trilogy. In fairness, Mask of the Phantasm is by no means a great film. Without question, my biggest disappointment was with Mark Hamill’s rendition of the Joker. While we do only get about twenty-ish minutes with him, I wish he had been more involved in the story from the get-go so that I was more invested in his role in the climax involving Batman and Andrea. But, setting that aside, I think this movie does a better job than Burton’s two ventures into Gotham City in making a story worthy of Batman’s comic book origins. Is it my favorite take on the character? Certainly not, but for a less-than-80-minute runtime, it’s more than worth your time if you want to see Batman done justice in animated fashion. Reflecting on these three early, formative Batman movies, I am grateful that both Burton’s films and Mask of the Phantasm exist in the same way I’m happy that Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy exist. Without those, we never would’ve gotten Marvel Studios’s fresh and well-done take on the web-crawling teenage superhero. And without the Burton flicks and Mask of the Phantasm, we never would’ve gotten Batman Begins. Batman Begins (2005) Everyone talks about the first Blade and X-Men movies, as well as Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man movie, as the films that ushered in the modern comic book genre dominated these days by the likes of Marvel Studios. Yet many people seem to forget, ignore, or understate the significance of Christopher’s Nolan first cinematic venture to Gotham City that came out THREE YEARS before Jon Favreau’s Iron Man. Having seen Batman Begins twice, I just cannot understand why it is not given the credit it so rightly deserves as an example of how to do a superhero origin story right. In the spirit of full transparency, I’m not a fan of all of Christopher Nolan’s movies. That being said, I think his tackling of Batman in the “Dark Knight Trilogy” will go down as one of the best film trilogies in history (possibly even surpassing that of Francis Ford Coppola’s first two Godfather flicks and Steven Spielberg’s original Indiana Jones trilogy). Even if it doesn’t, Batman Begins should certainly be remembered as one of the best comic book movies of all time. Full stop. What makes Batman Begins so damn good? One of its most powerful qualities is Nolan’s full-throttled deconstruction of Bruce Wayne as a character as a means of exploring how a mythos like Batman can be born as the dual personality of a self-isolating billionaire. Rather than simply have Batman already exist like in the 1989 film or rush through his backstory like in Mask of the Phantasm, Nolan crafts the narrative of his first Batman flick around exploring the conditions, experiences, and psychological trauma needed for the Caped Crusader to form in his grounded version of Gotham City. In my humble opinion, this is undoubtedly the best decision Nolan could have made for a reboot of Batman. By focusing (almost) the entire first half of the movie on seeing Bruce Wayne philosophically and ideologically struggle with how to serve justice for his parents’ murders without disrespecting their memory and legacy, he made a film that can be watched and appreciated by people who have no nostalgic or sentimental attachments to the character (including myself). In short, Batman Begins manages to be a comic book movie about Batman that also doesn’t absolutely need Batman in it to be good. Having watched the film again recently, I am even more convinced just how imperative it is in the greater history of modern comic book cinema. Without going off too much on a tangent, all I’ll say is Jon Favreau may not have devoted the first half of Iron Man to seeing Tony Stark not in the fully-fleshed out Mk. III suit if not for Batman Begins preceding it. This compelling character arc for Bruce Wayne would not work without Christian Bale’s incredibly dedicated performance. Not for a second does the audience doubt his commitment to showing all of Wayne’s flaws and insecurities while also proving by the end how these traits contribute to the intimidating gusto of Batman as a symbol of mysterious, enigmatic vigilantism. Bale creates two characters in one movie that depend on one another to exist, but also allows Wayne and Batman to enhance each other while also revealing the inherent weaknesses of each one. Bruce Wayne is a lonely, tormented young man who has never fully dealt with the trauma from witnessing his parents murdered in front of him as a child. In attempting to waste his life away on some cockamamie scheme for revenge, he submits himself to the hard ways of the League of Shadows in order to discipline himself and find purpose. Upon returning home to Gotham City, Wayne recognizes that he cannot run around beating up criminals as himself and thus must create a dual identity that strikes fear and terror into the hearts of the city’s scum and villainy. Thus, Batman is born. By embracing theatricality and intimidation in crafting his superhero persona, Wayne is able to “mask” (😊) the enduring shame, guilt, and fear of his true self. Because while Batman may be able to punch bad guys and stop Gotham City from killing itself by the film’s conclusion, only Bruce Wayne can forgive himself for what happened to his parents and try to move on with his own life. Combined with Nolan’s screenplay (co-written with David S. Goyer), Bale’s origins as Batman also make the more ridiculous aspects of the Caped Crusader’s modus operandi palpable, logical, and believable. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE how Wayne justifies the imagery of the bat for his vigilante costume to Alfred (Michael Caine): “Bats frighten me. It’s time my enemies shared my dread.” This serves as a more-than-adequate explanation for why Wayne starts running around in a black suit of armor, cape and cowl beating up criminals. It also plays sufficiently well into the film’s central theme of fear and the lengths one will go to overcome their own fears. But the other element of Batman’s mythos that I think Nolan handled so well was his strict moral stance against killing criminals. While I always figured his parents being killed had something to do with it, Nolan just adds such fantastic layers of nuance to it. Essentially, Wayne nearly goes through with assassinating his parents’ murderer, Joe Chill, as he’s leaving court one day before seeing someone else gun him down in cold blood. As Wayne leaves and is confronted by his childhood friend and romantic interest Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), he faces the truth of why he wanted to kill Chill: it wasn’t about some higher principle of justice, but self-serving revenge. Furthermore, if Wayne had succumbed to those inner demons and gone through with it, he would lose any moral high ground and thus ensure that his parents’ deaths were in vain and nothing more. Did Tim Burton handle these core character motivations for Batman as Christopher Nolan did? I think you already know the answer. 😊 While the film is squarely on Bale’s shoulders, he is surrounded by a fantastic supporting cast. Michael Caine is a great Alfred in the entire “Dark Knight Trilogy,” but I particularly love how in this film he remains the angel on Bruce Wayne’s shoulder who never veers from being his moral guide but also never fails to give him grief for his quirks and eccentricities. I also found myself enjoying Katie Holmes more on this rewatch as Rachel Dawes, both in terms of her chemistry with Bale but also how her character stands out amongst the other Batman love interests that came before as a smart, stern woman that holds Wayne’s feet to the fire. I also greatly appreciate how much more prominent Jim Gordon has in Nolan’s trilogy compared to prior and later Batman movies, and Gary Oldman remains (in my humble opinion) the definitive take on the character’s noble Gotham City police officer who steadfastly aids and supports Batman for his good intentions (although I am excited to see what Jeffrey Wright does with the character in The Batman). Finally, I was pleasantly surprised by Morgan Freeman standing out as one of my favorite supporting characters for Batman. Specifically, I appreciated how his version of Lucius Fox could give Wayne even more shit than Alfred but also make his scenes introducing Wayne to cool gadgets and weapons more than just exposition but entertaining character building for both Fox and Wayne. I cannot wrap up discussing Batman Begins without showering praise on its villains. Nowadays, Liam Neeson gets no shortage of shit for the god-awful action flicks he keeps making but people forget that he can act superbly well when given the right role. And his approach to making Wayne’s mentor in the League of Shadows, Ra’s al Ghul, an ideological zealot who views himself as Batman’s equal except for their methods for ending crime and corruption is such a good foil to Batman for his introduction film. But whereas Neeson is the straight-man villain, Cillian Murphy soars as the slightly zanier Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow due to his unsettling personality and outlandish plan that’s just grounded enough in reality to be terrifying. Unfortunately, they are another example of how Batman Begins receives the raw deal due to its sequel because everyone talks about Heath Ledger’s take on the Joker but never Neeson or Murphy in this movie. And they should be talked about more, because they’re both awesome! Which essentially sums up my view on this movie. Despite being surpassed by its predecessor, Batman Begins remains one of my favorite comic book movies. But, more importantly, it is the first truly great Batman movie that tells a great origin story for the Caped Crusader that stands toe-to-toe with the best comic book origin flicks of the last two decades. The Dark Knight (2008) For a summary of the production and release of The Dark Knight, click here. If Batman Begins is the Star Wars of the “Dark Knight Trilogy,” than its 2008 sequel, The Dark Knight, is The Empire Strikes Back. For me, at least, this is true in more ways than one. While I personally enjoy and appreciate George Lucas’s iconic 1977 film more, I can admit that its 1980 sequel is a better-made film. This is very much true for Nolan’s first two entries in his Batman trilogy. Simply put, while I think Batman Begins is a more compelling Batman story, I think how he built on its themes in The Dark Knight to craft as close to a perfect movie as you can get is incredibly admirable and earned the film’s legacy as one of the best movies of the 21st century. Other than that, however, there is not much I can say about The Dark Knight that hasn’t already been said about it more eloquently and profoundly than many others in video essays across the Internet.[1] So, instead, I will strive to be succinct in what I love most about the movie. Here goes nothing… On a rewatch, I found myself more greatly appreciating Nolan’s masterful handling of the pace of The Dark Knight. There are virtually no scenes, whether they be action-oriented or dialogue-heavy, where the tension is not exponentially more heightened than the one that came before it. For a two-and-a-half-hour runtime, this could quickly exasperate and exhaust the audience to the point of causing them to lose interest. Yet, Nolan never lets this happen. When combined with the film’s other qualities, such as the practical effects and use of IMAX cameras in crafting a uniquely grounded aesthetic for Gotham City, he allows the film to transcend its time and cement itself as a movie that works no matter how old it gets. I am wholly confident that fifty years from now people will still be talking about The Dark Knight in the same vein that people nowadays shower praise on the likes of The Godfather and Aliens as prime representatives of the time they were made while simultaneously being timeless classics. When it comes to Nolan actually making a sequel of Batman Begins, he uses what was started with Bruce Wayne’s character and relationships, in addition to Batman’s crime-fighting philosophy, to serve up a powerful and compelling enemy. From the outset of the film in which he must discover the truth behind misguided impersonators to losing the love of his life resulting from hubris, Wayne endures physical and psychological toil in fighting against that which terrifies him most: chaos embroiling his city, and his failure to do anything about it. By the end, when Batman relinquishes any potential goodwill that he has with the people of Gotham in order to preserve the heroic reputation of district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Nolan cements his take on the Caped Crusader as one of the most noble, selfless, and courageous heroes in modern comic book cinema. As Jim Gordon puts it while Batman flees the police: “He’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now…He’s not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight.” If giving up everything you hold dear to serve the people you care about and work towards accomplishing the greater good doesn’t make you a fantastic superhero, I don’t know what the hell does. Of course, Batman is not what most people come away thinking about after watching The Dark Knight. Unsurprisingly, they come away in love with Heath Ledger as Batman’s iconic archenemy the Joker. From his eerie, ingenious opening scene during the bank robbery to the chilling “pencil scene” to his interactions with all the main characters, from start to finish Ledger steals this movie right out from under Bale. He perfectly encapsulates Batman’s ideological opposite, and pulls off a brilliant performance as a man who, as Alfred puts it, “just wants to watch the world burn.” While I personally get a tiny bit more out of seeing Joaquin Phoenix transform Arthur Fleck into a famous psychopath in 2019’s Joker, I cannot deny that Ledger more than earned his posthumous Oscar and his status as possibly the greatest comic book movie villain ever. Period. All that being said, however, I stand by the fact that Aaron Eckhart doesn’t get nearly enough credit for his tragic turn as Harvey Dent. While I get that Ledger is an entertaining psychopath with incredibly daring and malevolent schemes that Batman must somehow prevent, Dent is ultimately the heart of The Dark Knight. During the first half, I root for his relationship with Rachel Dawes (now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) despite hoping that her and Wayne can come to some sort of understanding about their relationship. But once Joker’s “you can only choose one” plot successfully ends up killing Dawes and physically scarring Dent, his unstable emotional state makes him vulnerable to the Joker’s manipulation and puts him on the path to forgoing all of his credibility with the people of Gotham by seeking vengeance for Rachel’s death. Once he kidnaps Jim Gordon’s family out of blaming Gordon’s negligence for Dawes’s demise, Dent cements himself as Nolan’s tragic villain of the entire “Dark Knight Trilogy.” Whereas Ra’s al Ghul and Scarecrow are shadowy figures trying to rid the world of Gotham’s crime-ridden façade and Joker is simply an agent of chaos, Dent is a genuinely good person whose own guilt and distorted sense of justice puts him down a destructive path of revenge that can only lead to his own grave. Nolan attempts to craft a similar arc for Bane (Tom Hardy) in the second sequel, but it doesn’t quite land as well. But, I’ll get to that later. In the midst of all this star power, it’s hard to forget the standout moments from our supporting cast. Once again, Jim Gordon’s presence both in the plot and his evolving relationship with Batman continues to be one of my favorite dynamics in Nolan’s trilogy. I particularly how, despite his wholehearted dedication to beating the Joker despite problems with the police bureaucracy surrounding him, he still admits fault to Dent in the face of watching his family be killed. His hyper-principled persona, fully embraced by Gary Oldman, works so well as something of a foil to Batman’s particular brand of vigilantism. When it comes to Wayne’s inner circle, Alfred has some of his best moments in both counseling and consoling his pseudo-adopted son during his best and worst moments. Particularly, the burden of keeping Wayne’s secret identity a secret seems to weigh very heavily on Alfred in the film more than before which plays into his changing view of Batman as a symbol that perhaps can’t be around forever due to the destructive role it plays in the life of the man that he cares so much for. Finally, Morgan Freeman once again shines as Batman’s armorer. I really appreciate his unflinching criticism of Batman’s not-so-subtle leaning towards authoritarian spying on the people of Gotham in the name of crime fighting. It makes Fox more than just a tertiary character, but an essential part of Nolan’s thematic exploration of the morality of surveillance in a post-9/11 world that serves as the film’s more subtle layer of social commentary. Need I say more? The Dark Knight is a fucking masterpiece, and if you haven’t seen it you’re missing out on some of the finest cinematic artistry ever captured on film. Go watch it; you’ll know that me and everyone else who’s seen it is right. 😊 The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Apparently, my Star Wars analogy from before really does hold muster because (in my humble opinion) The Dark Knight Rises is very much the Return of the Jedi of Nolan’s trilogy. Is it the best conclusion to a trilogy ever made? No, but it’s still a pretty good ending to the story that he started with Batman Begins. To begin with the positives, I think how Nolan wraps up Batman’s professional friendship with Jim Gordon brings the necessary emotions out of the audience. Seeing how Gordon has never lost faith in Batman by the time he has to fly the nuclear bomb out of Gotham (presumably at the cost of his own life) makes Oldman’s portrayal of our favorite Gotham police commissioner of the most memorable from Nolan’s entire trilogy. But it’s not just the returning cast that has shining moments. I did also appreciate Nolan’s effort to tie up some loose threads that stared with Batman Begins. Specifically, incorporating a revenge plot with Talia al Ghul (Marion Cotillard), the daughter of Wayne’s mentor Ra’s al Ghul, who is the true brains behind Bane’s terrorism operations. Was the romance between her and Wayne poorly set up and rushed? Sure, but I wanted to start by focusing on the positives. 😊 Simply put, Cotillard sells the betrayal in the third act which just lends credibility to her abilities as an actor in films like The Immigrant and Allied. And, of course, the production design and action sequences remain on point in this movie and hold their own against the best of the rest of the trilogy. I particularly loved the highway chase revealing Batman to the world for the first time in eight years, culminating in the reveal of the “Bat” aerial vehicle. And the use of Batman’s equipment and weapons unquestionably remain one of the best elements of all three films. Of course, the use of the “Bat” culminates in an awesome moment with the kids on the bridge recognizing Batman flying the bomb out of and away from Gotham City. While not quite as hype as Gordon’s “Dark Knight” speech at the end of the last movie, it still serves as a poignant finale to Batman’s swan song in this movie. Unfortunately, there is still much to be desired by the end of The Dark Knight Rises. While the film stands well enough on its own, I think much of the story and characterization just pales in comparison to the near-masterpiece that is Batman Begins and the undeniable masterpiece that is The Dark Knight. For starters, Nolan’s thematic exploration of what it means to endure and overcome pain via Batman’s flat-out loss fighting Bane (Tom Hardy) in the second act, resulting in his imprisonment which forces him to self-reflect and rehabilitate both his body and mind. While I appreciate Nolan’s dedication to giving Bruce Wayne true characters arc in all three films, the scenes with Wayne in prison while Gotham City is going to hell just aren’t interesting by comparison. Furthermore, one of the other best relationship dynamics of Nolan’s trilogy—the familial, father-son rapport between Wayne and Alfred—was (in my humble opinion) not well resolved either. Obviously, Michael Caine’s performance in all of his scenes was impeccable. His vulnerability he shows both when he’s angry at Wayne’s hotheaded drive to face Bane face-to-face and when he’s guiltily apologizing to Thomas and Martha Wayne’s headstones for letting them down (because he assumes that Wayne died) is so damn good. But, Nolan’s need to overstuff this movie with Bane’s terrorist schemes and other unnecessary side characters causes the resolution to Wayne and Alfred’s conflict feel rushed and thus leaves me feeling more unsatisfied than I should when they see each other in the end. When it comes to what is arguably the most lampooned part of The Dark Knight Rises—Hardy’s voice performance as Bane—I don’t hate it. Ultimately, Bane’s character felt repetitive in light of both the shadowy hardline nature of Ra’s al Ghul and the chaos-loving criminal antics of Joker. I’d rather have Bane be more a supporting villain and the screenplay play more into the third-act reveal of Talia that could’ve worked way better than it did (even though I did enjoy it, it's still too flawed to feel amazing). Also, maybe Nolan could’ve just gotten rid of Bane’s face mask earlier in the film like how Norman Osborn’s helmet was destroyed very early on in Spider-Man: No Way Home. This could’ve allowed Hardy’s acting chops to shine through much better, causing him to be more intimidating than amusing for some viewers. Ultimately, though, I think the major problem with this movie is Nolan’s screenplay (which he developed and co-wrote with David S. Goyer and his brother Jonathan, respectively). It just feels like Nolan consciously recognizing some senseless need to one-up himself in terms of the scale of wrecking Gotham City. In Batman Begins, the conflict was relatively contained but had the potential (and therefore the stakes) feel big. In The Dark Knight, the intimidation and plotting by the Joker feel grounded while also terrifying and (due to the philosophical nature of what the Joker represents in relation to Batman) higher stakes than what came before. But in this movie, Nolan’s storytelling ambitions (somewhat) got away from him. His injecting several new supporting characters, like eccentric vigilante Selina Kyle/Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and rookie police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), comes off as unnecessary which only hurts those characters’ ability to fit naturally and effectively into the overall story. Furthermore, the scale of the third-act conflict involving Bane’s nuclear bomb (while cool to watch) feels the most “comic book like” of the entire trilogy. And not in a good way, but rather to the extent that it hurts the grounded and realistic atmosphere that Nolan painstakingly established in the first two films. At the end of the day, I think The Dark Knight Rises is given more grief than it deserves. In terms of the production work that went it, it remains one of the best put-together comic book movies of the last decade and deserves praise in that respect. Unfortunately, Nolan’s handling of the epic scale was done better in films like Inception and Interstellar and instead foreshadowed some of Nolan’s worst work in films like Tenet. But, more disappointingly, The Dark Knight Rises ends up being only a good conclusion to a trilogy that included a fantastic first act and an utterly revolutionary second act. Thus, its ambitions hurt it and will forever leave Nolan’s “Dark Knight Trilogy” feeling only great instead of absolutely legendary. The LEGO Batman Movie (2017) Several years after The Dark Knight Rises came out, I think fans of the Caped Crusader and the general public were ready for a different take on Batman. We had the quasi-campiness of the Burton flicks, the in-your-face, no-holds-barred campiness of 1966’s Batman and the Schumacher movies, and the grounded, gritty realism of Nolan’s “Dark Knight Trilogy.” But after what was pulled off in those films, what could be done next at that point? For the answer, I refer back to one of last year’s blogs about the Neo-Western. There, when discussing 2017’s comic book movie Logan, I identified the four stages of evolution that a genre of fiction can go through: experimental, classical, parody, and deconstruction. While often these phases occur sequentially in relation to one another, I contend that if you apply this framework to understanding Batman’s evolution on the big screen we realize that Nolan’s trilogy skipped over parody in favor of breaking the conventions of the Batman flicks that came before. But that doesn’t mean filmmakers must now avoid parody altogether. In fact, the creative team behind The LEGO Batman Movie embraced it which is where much of the fun of this movie comes from. By integrating the outlandish and energetic physics of the LEGO property with the zany antics of Batman and his rogues’ gallery, director Chris McKay and the animation team show that their vision for this movie was spot-on: show the audience how fun it is to watch Batman defeat his villains while also reminding us how ridiculous his mythos and character (usually) are in anything other than an animated movie. On this point, I appreciate how in the wake of an increasing tendency towards meta references in the comic book genre (lookin’ at you, Deadpool!) that this movie doesn’t drown the audience with endless references to past cinematic Batmen without a point to it. Whenever the film makes overt jokes at the expense of the Burton or Schumacher flicks, or Nolan’s trilogy for that matter, it is doing it to add to the characterization of this version of Batman (played expertly, in my humble opinion, by Will Arnett). The fact that this LEGO Batman is aware of his mixed bag of a cinematic legacy makes his rugged personality and reclusive demeanor stand out in the midst of all these other takes on the character. Which brings me to what perhaps surprised me the most about The LEGO Batman Movie both times I saw it. For a children’s animated movie, the storytellers here managed to craft a pretty strong thematic arc for Bruce Wayne/Batman with an important message for people of all ages: if you allow the traumas of your past to affect your outlook on the future, you will lose out on fostering some meaningful relationships and allowing yourself to heal and move forward with your life. Do some of the other Batman movies touch on this idea? Sure, but I really like that Arnett’s version has to lose the prestige and self-esteem that comes with donning the cape and cowl and start relying on people to help him defeat the bad guys, like Dick Grayson/Robin (Michael Cera) and Barbara Gordon/Batgirl (Rosario Dawson). In turn, this acceptance of new people into his lonely, isolated world of Wayne Island teaches him the importance of being happy and having a new support system in his life by overcoming his fear of losing them again. This kind of deeply resonant storytelling comes quite close to some of the better Pixar movies in terms of giving young viewers hope and a love of life in a way that so many other animated films clearly have no interest in doing. To be clear, this movie could have just been a fun action movie with Batman (and some other Warner Brothers properties). But I’m appreciative of the creative team deciding to elevate Batman’s arc here and not simply go for a cash-grab LEGO movie off the backs of the 2014 hit that preceded it. Aside from Batman’s standout journey, I have to give overdue praise for the supporting cast of The LEGO Batman Movie. On a rewatch, Michael Cera’s Robin is dripping with such infectious, boyish charm to the point that his hyper pure innocence makes Batman’s initial rejection of and annoyance with him all the more heartbreaking. And their dynamic is fulfilling by the end as Batman bringing him into the fold feels earned and hopeful in a way that this movie’s conclusion should. I also adored Rosario Dawson’s role of Barbara Gordon, the new police commissioner who does not respect Batman’s lone-wolf vigilantism but recognizes the value of his symbolic presence to the people of Gotham City and thus wants him to work alongside the police to fight crime. This makes for an entertaining and rewarding, character-driven conflict between her and Batman from start to finish, and the creative team never make her come off as demanding or cynical in a way that feels antiquated for portraying a female character in a male-dominated movie and genre such as this one. I do have some complaints with the film. First and foremost, I was once again underwhelmed by the animated Joker (Zach Galifianakis) on display here. Like Phantasm, I wish he played a more pivotal role in the story as opposed to relying on bringing in all these Warner Brothers properties (Voldemort, Sauron, and King Kong, just to name a few) to help him take over Gotham. Sure, it makes for some fun set pieces, but ultimately didn’t really add much meaningful to the story. Instead, I would have preferred a third act simply focusing on Batman learning to accept both his friends like Robin and Batgirl as well as his extensive rogues’ gallery in order to defeat Joker. This could have show Batman grow as a character while also keeping it a story centered within Batman’s chaotic world of wacky characters. It simply didn’t need Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings to make it good because it already was. But, at the end of the day The LEGO Batman Movie is still a super fun ride with some meaningful character moments and a satisfying Batman-centered story that feels different enough from what came before while also not ignoring the other movies. Quite the opposite; it celebrates Batman’s rich cinematic heritage with heartfelt parody and loving homage to the good, bad, great, and awful movies that make up this treasure trove of nerd cinema. Simply put, if you want to have fun watching a Batman movie, you can’t go wrong with The LEGO Batman Movie. The Batman (2022) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “The Batman.” You have been warned.] More than fifteen years after Christopher Nolan brought modern sensibilities to adapting Batman for the big screen in Batman Begins, many comic book movie fans and cinephiles at large were unsure how any filmmaker could possibly revitalize Batman in live-action form after Nolan. Especially after the critical and commercial success of The Dark Knight, the idea of seeing a new take on the character than had even a slim chance of rivaling Nolan’s iteration of the Caped Crusader seemed preposterous. As such, after The Dark Knight Rises the one and only live-action version of Batman came in the form of Ben Affleck playing a grizzled and weary Bruce Wayne in several DC Extended Universe flicks from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to last year’s HBO Max original Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Granted, Affleck never got his own solo Batman movie (even though he planned on directing himself until 2017 before completely leaving the project in 2019). So, where did Warner Brothers take Batman from there? Enter Long Island native and regular J.J. Abrams collaborator Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, War for the Planet of the Apes), who decided to detach his film from the established continuity of the DCEU in preference of making a standalone Batman flick that would serve as a reboot a decade after Nolan’s “Dark Knight Trilogy” concluded. And ever since the teaser trailer premiered in late summer of 2020, fans across the globe hotly anticipated what Reeves would offer in terms of a new take on Batman. The question is: did he deliver an iconic version of the character that stands on its own but also rivals the best that came before? In my humble opinion…YES. HE. DID. To be clear, The Batman could not exist without the art-deco ambience of Burton’s two flicks, the grounded crime thrills characteristic of Nolan’s trilogy, or even Snyder’s version that shows how Batman struggles to work as part of a team. And in ways both subtle and obvious, this film pays homage and respect to what preceded it in an effort to craft a fresh cinematic take on Batman, his eclectic rogues’ gallery, and the grimy city of Gotham that they inhabit. So, what makes The Batman a great movie? I think the most brilliant aspect of its story is how it acts as an origin story different from any other superhero movie of the past few decades. And it does so by not showing us Bruce Wayne becoming Batman like in Batman Begins or as an expert and experienced crime fighter like in Mask of the Phantasm or The LEGO Batman Movie. Instead, Reeves and star Robert Pattinson hook the audience by telling a story based in the realities of what it would mean for Bruce Wayne to be learn how to fight crime on the job during only his second year donning the cape and cowl. This narrative device allows for The Batman to stand out as a superhero early in his career that can make mistakes without it feeling unbelievable or disappointing. Everything from his suit being durable but not impenetrable to him putting together his Batmobile before revealing it roughly halfway through the runtime and nearly killing himself testing out a flight suit reinforces the notion that Pattinson’s take on the character has not fully come into his own. This lays the foundation for Batman’s character arc in the movie which seems inspired by a scene in Batman Begins. It’s almost like Reeves saw Christian Bale nearly gun down Carmine Falcone in Nolan’s first Batman movie and thought: “What if my movie was centered on that entire emotional struggle?” In other words, The Batman shows us the inherent moral ambiguity of a rich orphan from a powerful family dressing up in a bat costume and beating up criminals. Namely, that such acts could inspire other mentally-unstable Gotham citizens (lower on the socioeconomic ladder than Bruce Wayne, mind you) to take action in their own twisted, deranged fashion. Enter the Riddler. Paul Dano shines as a poor orphan (and thus an effective foil to Pattinson) who was left behind in the wake of the deaths of Bruce’s parents due to Gotham politics and law enforcement drenched in corruption. Whereas his parents being killed put Bruce on the path to become a crime-fighting vigilante, the Riddler is inspired by seeing Batman on the streets of Gotham to unmask the corrupt in the city his own way. Despite being less physically capable than Batman, his intellect is able to orchestrate a multi-layered plan which not only forces Bruce Wayne to learn the truth behind his father’s ties to organized crime boss Carmine Falcone (John Turturro) but also causes Batman to question the effect that his presence is actually having on the city he claims to want to defend despite frightening both the criminals and the innocent. I loved what Reeves did with this Batman story. He unabashedly did not make an action-heavy thriller like Nolan’s trilogy or most comic book movies made today, but rather clearly wanted The Batman to play off more like a slow-paced crime drama starring Batman as an up-and-coming detective alongside Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Despite me having no sentimental or nostalgic attachment to Batman’s characterization as the “world’s greatest detective,” I enjoyed Reeves and Pattinson bringing this aspect of the character to the big screen since most other Batman movies (the exception being Mask of the Phantasm) barely address this in any satisfying way. Not the case here, as Pattinson and Wright have such strong chemistry as two principled men struggling to avoid becoming unraveled by the revelations of just how deep the corruption goes. While The Batman fulfills on its name as being a story very much focused on Batman’s journey embracing the need for him to be more than just a violent vigilante, there are some great supporting performances that vary on screen time but all make an impact in their own unique way. Easily the standout from the supporting cast (in my humble opinion) is Zoë Kravitz as Selina Kyle as a stripped-down and grounded Catwoman who retains much of the sly wittiness and zany sexiness in homage to Michelle Pfeiffer’s take on the character in Batman Returns. That being said, I think Kravitz’s chemistry with Pattinson far and away exceeds anything that Pfeiffer had with Michael Keaton or Christian Bale had with Anne Hathaway in The Dark Knight Rises. Furthermore, Catwoman’s physicality and fight choreography was fulfilling due to its distinctiveness from Batman. Unlike Pattinson’s brutish fierceness punching and tasing people up close, Kravitz pulls off a more light-footed and kinetic style distancing herself from enemies while taking them out of the fight as quickly as possible. In some ways, I’m more excited to see where this version of Catwoman goes in a sequel than Batman. Aside from the Riddler, the two secondary antagonists have great moments all their own despite being very different in personality. Simply put, Colin Farrell transforms behind the prosthetics and make-up for his highly effective take on the Penguin. Rather than laughing at the character’s over-the-top nature like I did with Danny DeVito in Batman Returns, I enjoyed Farrell lightening up the grim and dour mood during his scenes in treating Batman as we probably should see him: a freak in a costume. Whereas Farrell makes for a fun antagonist, John Turturro’s version of crime lord Carmine Falcone whose ability to deceive Bruce Wayne regarding his past relationship with his father makes for an essential and compelling piece of the heart of this movie. Despite being overshadowed by the harrowing theatricality of the Riddler or the mesmerizing charm of Catwoman, Falcone in The Batman made for an actual character that I cared to watch on screen compared to prior versions. I hope I’ve made it clear that I really liked Matt Reeves’ The Batman. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a flawed film, as the runtime detracts from my enjoyment of it a little bit. While I was never bored watching it in the theater, there were small moments here and there or parts of scenes that I thought could’ve been trimmed down or cut entirely to transform the film from a three-hour crime drama to a two-and-a-half-hour instant classic. But, in my estimation, that doesn’t hurt the movie enough to drag it down to “good.” Undoubtedly, The Batman is a great comic book movie that, despite not being as emotionally compelling as Batman Begins or as kinetically thrilling as The Dark Knight, offers a refreshingly unique cinematic take on Batman that does enough richly thematic storytelling to warrant setting up at least one sequel for the future. Despite not growing up with the Caped Crusader, I think that Batman’s various appearances in film altogether demonstrate the evolution of the comic book over the past thirty-plus years. From where we started with Burton’s zany, cartoonish world of Batman and Batman Returns (which was followed up by a somehow even more over-the-top world from Joel Schumacher), we’ve seen Batman in animated form with Mask of the Phantasm. For many fans, the defining take comes from Christopher Nolan in the “Dark Knight Trilogy.” And yet all of these became parody in The LEGO Batman Movie before Matt Reeves came along to inject new life into the character’s rich cinematic legacy with The Batman. Where does the character go from here? Personally, I’m excited for what potentially will come. With all that being said, here is my ranking of the eight Batman movies that I wrote about above:
What is your favorite film starring the Caped Crusader? How do you want to see Batman’s character evolve in future movies? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMQuShmUZhs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfQdjSpJgUQ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhpjKX1j-KQ
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|