10 Years of "Batman Begins"

It’s really hard to believe that it’s been a decade since Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins” hit theaters. The first big-screen take on Batman since 1997’s cinematic abortion “Batman & Robin” had a lot to fulfill for fanboys and regular moviegoers alike, especially considering what all had come before it. Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” is still considered the definitive take on the character, and while it still is for me to a degree, there’s something about “Batman Begins” that ever so slightly edges it out.

Gone was the gothic atmosphere and art deco set design. In its place was a sense of realism that a Batman movie had never had before. Looking back, this was for the best, especially considering the ridiculousness of “Batman Forever” and “Batman & Robin”. We were given a suit and gadgets that were based on military technology, adding to the realistic tone, and it worked. Nearly everything in the film worked…except for the twist of the real Ra’s Al Ghul (I saw that coming a mile away when I first laid eyes on Liam Neeson, it’s the beard man). That aside, this was the best modern take on Batman that we could have hoped for thus far.

Speaking of Ra’s, the other thing that “Batman Begins” did really well was present us two iconic villains that had never been on film before with him and The Scarecrow, and it did it in a realistic and believable way. Granted that Scarecrow’s exit from the film is abrupt and Batman’s final showdown with Ra’s I always found to be a bit underwhelming, but that’s beside the point. For a majority of the film’s two and a half hour running time, it doesn’t relent much, and that’s a good thing.

The casting is mostly good. Say what you will about Christian Bale overdoing the voice, because he does, but he’s a believable Batman in terms of sheer physicality. Katie Holmes sucks; we all already knew that, but Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Neeson, and Cillian Murphy are pitch perfect as Alfred, Gordon, Ra’s, and Scarecrow respectively. We couldn’t have asked for better casting choices for any of them.

Now granted, I do tend to enjoy “The Dark Knight” more than “Batman Begins”, mainly because of Heath Ledger’s timeless take as Joker, but looking back on it; “Batman Begins” is the superior film, only by a hair. It’s the perfect superhero origin story on film, and it hits all the main points without it being overblown or missing the mark. “Iron Man” comes close as being a perfect take on a cinematic origin, but “Batman Begins” tops it with its villains and overall sense of realism.

I could keep singing its praises, but most of you already know how great “Batman Begins” is already. Nolan’s trilogy is a whole is still the best live-action representation of Batman to this day, even if “The Dark Knight Rises” falters to the point of close to mediocrity. If you’ve never seen it for some reason, you need to. “Batman Begins” is the best pure origin story of a superhero on film, and remains one of the greatest comic book film adaptations of all time.

"The Dark Knight Rises" First Impressions

It started in 2005 with “Batman Begins”, and now six years later, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films have achieved an almost legendary status. “Batman Begins” was the Batman film that Bat-fans had craved for years: an honest-to-God origin story set in a realistic tone. In 2008 with “The Dark Knight”, we got a sequel that took Nolan’s realistic approach to the iconic character to new heights…but that’s something that we all know.

Now, here we are in 2011, and we’ve had our first official glimpse at “The Dark Knight Rises”, the third and final Batman film to be directed by Nolan, and if the tagline of the teaser trailer promises anything, it’s that this is indeed the end (hell, I swear that “The End” by The Doors played in my head throughout the teaser, but I digress). After seeing the teaser trailer, there are plenty of questions that have risen (no pun intended) so let’s just make a rundown here of what we know from seeing the trailer so far…

We catch scenes from both “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” as we hear a voiceover from Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson) from the first film, followed by a shots of Gordon (Gary Oldman) lying on a hospital bed having a conversation with Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) about how bad Gotham needs Batman back. This is followed by glimpses of Bane (Tom Hardy), the roided-up super villain that broke Batman’s back in the comics…all of which concluding with a quick glimpse of Bane getting ready to take on what appears to be an injured or winded Batman (and just who the hell is that standing in the background?) There are no glimpses of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) to be found, or of any of the new characters and additions to the cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard). With all that being said, it’s time to make some half-assed (possibly) predictions about what “The Dark Knight Rises” has to offer…

First off, like I said before, Bane breaks Batman’s back like a twig in the comics. His comic book form is that of a hulking brute that uses a drug called “venom” to get enhance his size and strength, along with the fact that he’s also a criminal genius. In his introductory storyarc in the comics, Bane figured out that Batman is Bruce Wayne, and proceeded to tire him out and wear him down by breaking the inmates out of Arkham Asylum, and then putting the Bat-bitch-slap on Batman when he was at his weakest. Could that be what happens in the film? There have already been reports that this is going to sort of be what happens, and that in Batman’s absence Catwoman and others attempt to take up the reigns of saving Gotham City, leading to Batman’s return, as he rises above and saves the day (maybe that why it’s titled “The Dark Knight Rises” perhaps)

Something else that is known thus far is that actor Josh Pence is playing a younger version of Ra’s Al Ghul, and has some sort of tie to Bane in the film. At the end of “Batman Begins”, Ra’s was burned up into a crispy critter, but it was also reported that Liam Neeson filmed some sort of role for the new film. Is it a flashback then perhaps? More than likely, even though Ra’s Al Ghul is an immortal villain in the comics, Nolan’s films have steered far away from supernatural elements and only focused on making things as realistic and believable as possible, so the Liam Neeson take on Ra’s is probably a flashback, unless Nolan is playing some kind of big time trump card. Speaking of trump cards, Marion Cotillard is playing a woman named Miranda Tate, with all rumors saying that the name is really an alias for Talia Al Ghul, the vengeful daughter of Ra’s. Maybe this is going to end up tying everything together somehow? I have no idea honestly, but it’s fun to theorize nevertheless.

With all this in mind, I haven’t even really gotten around to talking about what role Catwoman is going to play in all this. Will she be an out and out villain, or an unlikely ally? Or maybe a little of both? Since “Batman Begins”, Nolan has made a habit of only revealing as little or as much as he wants to in terms of making the audience want more, and with the film a year away from hitting the big screen, there’s still plenty more to be revealed and dissected over. Hell, it doesn’t even finish filming until later this year, but I for one am dying to see what gets revealed next, leading up to what’s going to be the last Batman film to feature Nolan, Bale, and the rest of the principle cast and crew.

Next summer can’t fucking come soon enough.

Superman Returns....again...

Only a couple weeks ago it was announced that British actor Henry Cavill (if you watched “The Tudors” on Showtime, he played Charles Brandon, and starred in an assortment of shitty direct to DVD horror movies as well) would be the next man to don the red and blue tights of Superman in the upcoming mega-budget reboot of the “Superman” film franchise. Yes folks, we’re getting another “Superman” reboot whether we want it or not, and it’s being brought to us by none other than director Zack Snyder, whose comic book adaptation credits include “300” and “Watchmen”. Do we really need another “Superman” movie? Well, believe it or not, maybe we do…

It was five years ago now (and it sure doesn’t feel like it was that long) that Warner Bros. had spent a quarter of a BILLION dollars on Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns”, which for all intents and purposes, flopped in comparison to the studio’s hopes and projections. Reception was mixed at best, with some enjoying it and others pretty much slamming Singer for being two steps away from practically plagiarizing Richard Donner’s original “Superman” film. Though Singer intended to pay wondrous amounts of homage to Donner and the original film, the end result was a 2 ½ hour long snooze-fest which had almost zero action sequences and portrayed Superman as being a “super-stalker”, always seeing what Lois Lane is up to in her new life apart from him…and it actually got to be kind of fucking creepy! Not to mention the fact that evil genius Lex Luthor still can’t come up with a better scheme than land control and Supes and Lois have a super-powered son, and well…well, that was “Superman Returns” in a nutshell. I just saved you 2 ½ hours, so you’re welcome.

Anyway, fast forward to 2008. Christopher Nolan scores a massive hit with “The Dark Knight”, and was eventually appointed supervising producer of a new “Superman” movie by Warner Bros. and DC. Singer’s proposed sequel was scrapped, as well as the former cast and crew, in favor of what was then promised to be a “darker” take on the Man of Steel. That statement in itself kind of sets up a bit of a conundrum though: Superman isn’t a “dark” kind of character. He’s the big blue Boy Scout, and aside from being loved by kids, most comic fans look at him as being an uber-lame character with universe-shattering power. But that’s the problem with being the most recognizable and most celebrated comic book character of all time: he hasn’t changed. I’m not saying he should, but we as a society no longer identify with Superman. We’ve become more accustomed and comfortable with celebrating the anti-hero, that’s why Batman has always managed to stay so relevant for decades. Combine that with the popularity of “dark” comic book movie heroes like Wolverine, The Punisher, Blade, and the like; and it becomes incredibly hard to appreciate a character that is just concentrated awesome good.

With that in mind, Nolan brings in Snyder, whose last foray into comic book adaptations saw him make the unfilmable film that was “Watchmen”: the godfather of dark superhero comics. While that film’s reception was mixed as well, Nolan and the studio both hope that Snyder can put a bit of a darker turn on the Man of Steel, and I for one actually kind of want to see it. So far though, it has been revealed that General Zod will return as the main villain of the film. Zod was last played by the great Terrance Stamp in “Superman II” way back in the day, and was awesome as well. Do we really need to see Zod again? I can understand Luthor being a recurring villain, but Zod again? If they want to put a darker spin on Superman, why not used some his darkest villains? What about Brainiac, the villain who had the biggest impact on Superman’s mythology other than Luthor? Or Darkseid, who for all intents and purposes is a God of death? Hell, even Doomsday, the monster that killed Superman in the comics; why not any of them instead of doing Zod over again?

*Sigh*

Believe it or not, even though I’m spouting off all this Superman knowledge, I’m not even a real fan of the character. When I was a kid it was a different story of course, and even today, you can’t pick up a single DC comic and not somehow find him in it somewhere. But that’s okay regardless; he’s just that iconic a character. Everyone knows who Superman is, and everyone knows his backstory…and they know it all whether they want to or not!

He’s that iconic that he deserves another cinematic shot…but if it fails again well…

it may prove that box office busts are so strong that even Superman can’t beat ‘em.