Batman Begins (To Go Downhill)
So I watched The Dark Knight a couple of weeks ago. Going in I didn’t know what to expect. I really liked Batman Begins, and it had a lot of the same people behind it. But the hype was ridiculous, with the screaming masses ready to hand Heath Ledger the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor months before anyone had even seen it. The IMDB hoi polloi were calling it the best movie ever, ahead of The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption, which made me realize that an unbiased review was unlikely to be had. Even film critics dare not speak ill of the dead.
Still, I did a pretty good job of ignoring the hype (which is easy to do when you don’t watch TV) so I went in optimistic. It kinda let me down though. It wasn’t a bad movie really, but it wasn’t anywhere near as good as the last one. And Heath Ledger was actually really good, but not great. He wasn’t even close to what won last year’s Best Supporting (Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men).
I mostly felt that the movie just tried to do a little too much at once. Superhero sequels almost always do. Spiderman 2 suffered from the same problem, as did X-men 3. They strive to be bigger and faster than the previous ones, with more CGI, more explosions, more villains causing more fight scenes. More of everything.
And it’s sad because what made them work, if the originals were really good, was their characterization. The special effects have to be top-notch, because they enable you to suspend disbelief when they are, which is pretty critical when you’re watching a movie about a man who can swing around from buildings on webs that shoot out of his wrists, but they shouldn’t be the main attraction.
But in order to top the previous ones, the sequels’ trailers need to have more fists flying, more stuff going boom, and more evil-looking dudes making the fists fly and the stuff go boom. And the basic humanity that makes you see a guy in a bat suit fighting crime and actually relate to it is lost somewhere around the third senseless explosion, which is usually about five minutes in.
Also, I think I’m fairly willing to suspend disbelief about a lot of things. A wealthy media mogul/ninja in a bat suit fighting crime? Sure. Another guy dressed like a clown causing it? Ok. A car that can eject a motorcycle from itself? Alright. But Maggie Gyllenhaal being pretty? Sorry, that crosses a line. Let’s just say the last time I saw something that ugly, I pulled the lever and immediately took a double dose of Kaopectate.
So either way, if you haven’t seen the movie yet (and if so, judging by the box office gross, you may be a fictional character) it’s missable. Catch it on DVD.
August 21, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I don't understand the contempt many viewers had for Maggie Gyllenhaal's appearance. Well, check that, I do understand it, she's ugly. But I don't understand how it could've detracted from this film as Katie Holmes is also hideous and proved an eyesore in Batman Begins. Whereas Gyllenhaal looks like a cartoon turtle with Down's syndrome, Holmes' eyes appear to be falling off her face, as though she's a distant relative of the Goonies' character, Sloth.
Two attempts to cast a hot chick and they miss both times? Unacceptable for a summer blockbuster. They had better lock up Megan Fox for the third installment right now, or they'll be flirting with my three strikes policy…granted, a policy with no consequences for the offending party whatsoever, but still…
August 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Sequels often have 'characterization' difficulties because so many of the characters are already established. Part of what made Batman Begins so entertaining was the opportunity to discover the new character. It's impossible to repeat that in a sequel. The character is already well-established. I was impressed at how much character continued to develop anyway, even though a lot of time was spent developing other characters and on unrelated themes like the boat incident.
August 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I thought X-men did it very well in their sequel by digging into the characters' pasts. They then totally flubbed it in the third installment.
August 25, 2008 at 1:09 am
Missable? Really? Now, I wouldn't say it was the best movie of all time or anything dumb like that, and it did have a couple problems (did try to do a little to much, could have been a little tighter in focus), however have you really seen a better movie this year?
Btw, comparing it to X-Men 3 is incredibly harsh, that movie wasn't just a little medicore, it was flat out horrible.
August 25, 2008 at 9:11 am
I haven't seen any other movies that were made this year actually. So I guess no, I haven't seen a better one yet.