Christian Bale is the man.
Oh, yeah, and so are Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. They really lift any movie (and support The Man).
So, yeah, I liked the movie. 😉 God, I really am a geek wanna-be! (not that that’s a bad thing).
I think the identity killer of Bruce Wayne’s parents will always be a toss up, since I am aware that in one earlier incarnation of Batman, the killer was just a criminal (probably the earlier comic books of the 1940’s). In another (recall the Batman movie of 1989, with Michael Keaton as Bruce), the killer is the Joker himself – so we could wrap our heads around the idea of who created who – the criminals made Batman – a psycho justice-seeker, but Batman made the criminals – the psycho ones anyway. Christian Bale’s Batman movie does bring that into question (does Batman make the criminals go “theatrical” or did they make him go (more) nuts?).
Bale’s strong portrayal certainly didn’t ignore the question of just how many issues does Bruce have. While Keaton didn’t turn away from the Bruce as a psycho, I liked how the Bale movie emphasized Bruce’s path and his perennial Scarlet Pimpernel dilemma – yeah, so he’s a Kennedy-esque playboy, but he ain’t stupid (or, tries not to be in his Bruce persona). But he risks losing “Bruce” – whoever he may or could have been without his issues in the way (the “Fugitive” series/graphic novel played up the whole Bruce vs. the Batman dilemma). The Waynes had a legacy, and there’s the heir going around in Kevlar costume to beat up the bad guys. Umm, right. Hope you do find time in your Bruce life to fix up the elevated subways of Gotham, Bruce. I mean that in a nice way, of course.
The R’as Al Ghul storyline was definitely confusing in the movie. In the comics and the 1990’s cartoon, that character was seriously nuts. Henri Ducard existed too (in the comics, so far as I know – but I’m not too into the comics – really, I’m not!) – but the Bale movie has really made me confused there. (seriously, my Bat-knowledge is based on whatever I’ve picked up over the years or the cartoons – which are far more mature than you’d think and are highly recommended).
The Bale movie could have been more cheesier (well, aren’t all superhero movies just a little cheesy and campy? Isn’t that what we like about them?), but it was a superior movie all around. A little on the long side (like how much “Let’s torture Bruce” scenes can we stomach?).
I do miss the idea of Bruce having some more allies in the fight to save Gotham. Umm, sure, the Asst. DA who doesn’t walk around with her DA badge; the one good cop; and Bruce’s corporate right hand man. The comics and the cartoons did give Bruce his own personal doctor, and she was pretty inspirational as she also helped the inner city communities, tended to Bruce’s wounds and helped Alfred (someone has to help the poor guy watch Bruce do crazy stuff). What, do we really think that Alfred had to deal with Bruce’s “spelunking injuries” by himself? 😉 Well, Bruce is just beginning, so good help will have to come down the line.
Thumbs up for Batman Begins. If this jumpstart the franchise, I’m on it.
“Entertainment Weekly” had the new Superman/Lois Lane on its cover, as it presented its Must-see list. Hmm. Not sure if this will get that franchise going: personally, Clark Kent is that guy on Channel 11 in WB’s “Smallville.” But, WB didn’t want to break its tv contracts by deciding to have the actor Tom Welling be in a future big-screen movie, so they get an unknown to be the new new Clark. Heck, they even have a B-level star be Lois (even though “Smallville”‘s Lois is great). And, they want to hurry up with the new new Superman, because they’ve got their new Batman and they sat on their new new Superman project for ten years.
Hmm. Well, I can only handle one franchise at a time. Batman has the upper hand right now, and WB better not screw it up.