"The Batman" (2022) Review (Spoilers)
Apr. 19th, 2022 01:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matt_zimmerAlso a review for the latest special of Doctor Who.
The Batman (2022)
Wow. Where to begin?
I liked, bordering on loved, that movie. But I have to be honest, I LOVED the first half, and only liked the second. As I was watching the first hour and a half, I believed the film had the potential to be both the best Batman film ever, and the best DC live-action project of all time. It didn't turn out that way (sadly) but it had a strong opening.
I think the thing I responded so well to is that all of the bizarre things happening at the beginning of the film are allowed to just happen without explanation, and the viewer has to come to the context of them on their own. And that made it like David Lynch and an art film, and I dug it. But the movie is too damn long. They could have deleted an hour of it and gotten to its essentials. I could never have sat in a theater through this. It would have been torture, even before Covid.
The second thing I didn't like is the same reason I hate The Dark Knight Rises: The domestic terrorist themes and online conspiracy sites hit too close to reality to enjoy in fiction. In fairness to this film, unlike the last Nolan film, the mass shooting wasn't simply nihilism for the sake of it. People in the city rose to the occasion, which was nice. But the whole thing gave me the willies anyways.
How is Robert Pattinson? I'm looking through the cast list of the live-action Batmans, and it's probable he's the best one. Not because his performance was exactly great. It's just that I tended to have bones to pick with almost all the previous ones (beside Adam West) and I didn't with Pattinson. Both his Batman and Bruce are equally laconic. He doesn't say much when he enters a room. He just takes it all in. But the thing that gets my big stamp of approval is getting rid of the damn Batgrowl. People have raved about The Dark Knight. But the fact that Nolan and Christian Bale invented the Batgrowl means that iteration of the franchise makes Batman worse, because other movies (and even cartoons) started taking the lead from that there. Pattinson's Batman voice is a little deeper than his Bruce. But he's not putting on a cartoon voice like Bale (and then Affleck) did. I cannot tell you how much I missed a realistic-speaking Batman. If you want to be real, that means that both Val Kilmer and George Clooney are better Batmen than either Bale or Affleck. I'm not saying their movies were better. But their time in the suit definitely was.
Pattinson is also lean and gaunt, which (don't laugh) brings to mind a vampire, which is something I think more Batman interpretations would do well-off leaning into. I don't think Batman needs to be the hardbody so many portrayals have turned him into. If you ask me the homoerotic muscles layered on muscles, actually kind of work against the mystique of the character. That's where I stand on Batman's bulging pecs and abs.
And it's good there is no Batgrowl here because Pattison spends more time in the Batman suit than any previous actor from any previous movie. So that specific choice was appreciated.
I'll tell you what I liked about Riddler. When they did the big reveal I didn't recognize the actor. As far as I know, they cast an unknown. And now when I rewatch the movie I won't be saying "Hey! There's Jim Carrey!" This guy HIMSELF is actually the Riddler! Neat trick, right? I believe Hollywood should be a casting a LOT more lesser known actors in major roles than they are. This guy's a find too. His Ava Maria stuff was nuts. And his singsong "Bruuuce Waaaayne" was suitably creepy.
Gotham was interesting because until the end it was portrayed as a Bright Lights, Big City sort of place. There's an actual stand-in for Time Square in it. It is not the broken down pit the rest of live-action portrays it as, at least not until the end.
Best performance in the movie is John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. I'm not saying the guy deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for it. But if I were in the Academy, I'd nominate him for it at least.
Joker at the ends sounds a bit young to me, but so was Cameron Monaghan, and even if Jerome on Gotham didn't turn out to be the actual Joker, I think he was probably second best in the role after Mark Hamill. I always struggle to say nice things about the dumpster fire that was Gotham, but Jerome Valeska was one of them. So a young take doesn't bother me too much.
Jeffrey Wright was a great live-action Gordon, but he's a better Batman voice on Batman: The Audio Adventures.
I was hoping I'd be able to declare this my favorite live-action DC movie ever, but it didn't quite get there by the end. But it's still a pretty impressive achievement. Even if it's too damn long. ****.
Doctor Who "Legend Of The Sea Devils"
I enjoyed that. A lot.
Thirteen has gotten an underwhelming reception among the Doctor Who fandom. The Doctor Who fandom is wrong. I think only Star Wars fans misread the quality of their fandom more than Doctor Who fans do. Russell T Davies is one of the worst showrunners of a successful show I can think of. He is a terrible writer too. And he's beloved while Stephen Moffat and Chris Chibnall get nothing but crap. And Thirteen is a good Doctor, simply because she's pleasant and her adventures are almost never truly gutwrenching. Yes, she has the worst Master of any Doctor, but that's not actually Jodie Whitaker's fault or problem. Her time on the TARDIS is just plain low-key and enjoyable.
She can actually admit she has feelings for Yaz. Without it being a big deal or changing the fact that she's rejecting her. She can talk about these things because she trusts her Companions. She says Yaz is one of the best people she's ever known. Longtime Who fans will scoff at this, but the truth is Thirteen behaves far more warmly and intimately with Yaz, Ryan, Graham, and Dan than previous Doctors ever did with a previous Companion. Her selling point to me is she doesn't make people uncomfortable or feel weird. And part of the previous Doctors doing that was to keep people at arm's length. But Thirteen matters to me because she can keep people at arm's length but let the person in question know that that's HER failing, and that Martha Jones and Clara Oswald aren't actually crazy for seeing things the way they did. She can comfort Yaz and actually discuss why she isn't able to do that with her. And I'm sorry, that makes Thirteen a great Doctor. Surely, not the greatest ever (there's a lot of competition for that) but don't ever let anyone tell you Thirteen sucks. It's not true. At all.
I do have a comment. It's not precisely negative, but seeing it felt negative to me. But the budget on the show has clearly been slashed, not just by a little, but drastically. Aside for it being shot on videotape again (which has ALWAYS looked awful) the Sea Devils are the kind of low-budget thing you'd see in the relaunch's first season (and The Sarah Jane Adventures). They are no more convincing than the Slitheen. I have two comments to make about the cheap-looking visual effects of this episode and the past season. The first is that they don't bother me at all. If believable visual effects were a dealbreaker, I'd never have become a fan of the show in the first place. The second comment is less pleasant and more worrisome. The fact that the budget has been cut enough that you can see lower quality results onscreen says the show is on VERY thin ice with the BBC. If Russell T Davies doesn't deliver for the 60th Anniversary season, I think the BBC might just up and cancel it. And considering DAVIES is the guy the BBC has pinned their hopes for the show's future on, I'm very nervous. Davies is awful on every level.
The swashbuckling stunts however were quite good. Probably because they didn't need to break the bank to do them practically. But they looked great.
The Doctor mentions Stephen King movies are never like the books. The notable exception is The Shawshank Redemption, which is exactly like the novella in plot, tone, and execution, but I can't expect the Doctor to note that exception while making the comparison she is.
I love Dan being outraged at being thought of as 70 by the kid. DAN may be in his 40's (although you can tell he bumped the actual age down a couple of years when saying so) but John Bishop is 55 and looks it. His mature look was one of the things I loved about him being made the male Companion of the series in the first place. And 55 is literally the halfway point between 40 and 70, and considering Dan's probably in his MID-forties, it's still a closer guess than Dan claims it is.
I am very much going to miss Thirteen, Dan, Yaz, Jodie Whitaker, and Chris Chibnall. I am one of the few fans mostly happy with the Chibnall years, and to see the show handed to the person who took such a HUGE personal dump on it on his way out sickens me a bit. Whoever the new Doctor is, I hope he / she lasts longer on the show than Davies does. He / she doesn't want that sociopath writing their Regeneration. I'm still steamed on David Tennant and Matt Smith's behalf just thinking about it. ****1/2.
The Batman (2022)
Wow. Where to begin?
I liked, bordering on loved, that movie. But I have to be honest, I LOVED the first half, and only liked the second. As I was watching the first hour and a half, I believed the film had the potential to be both the best Batman film ever, and the best DC live-action project of all time. It didn't turn out that way (sadly) but it had a strong opening.
I think the thing I responded so well to is that all of the bizarre things happening at the beginning of the film are allowed to just happen without explanation, and the viewer has to come to the context of them on their own. And that made it like David Lynch and an art film, and I dug it. But the movie is too damn long. They could have deleted an hour of it and gotten to its essentials. I could never have sat in a theater through this. It would have been torture, even before Covid.
The second thing I didn't like is the same reason I hate The Dark Knight Rises: The domestic terrorist themes and online conspiracy sites hit too close to reality to enjoy in fiction. In fairness to this film, unlike the last Nolan film, the mass shooting wasn't simply nihilism for the sake of it. People in the city rose to the occasion, which was nice. But the whole thing gave me the willies anyways.
How is Robert Pattinson? I'm looking through the cast list of the live-action Batmans, and it's probable he's the best one. Not because his performance was exactly great. It's just that I tended to have bones to pick with almost all the previous ones (beside Adam West) and I didn't with Pattinson. Both his Batman and Bruce are equally laconic. He doesn't say much when he enters a room. He just takes it all in. But the thing that gets my big stamp of approval is getting rid of the damn Batgrowl. People have raved about The Dark Knight. But the fact that Nolan and Christian Bale invented the Batgrowl means that iteration of the franchise makes Batman worse, because other movies (and even cartoons) started taking the lead from that there. Pattinson's Batman voice is a little deeper than his Bruce. But he's not putting on a cartoon voice like Bale (and then Affleck) did. I cannot tell you how much I missed a realistic-speaking Batman. If you want to be real, that means that both Val Kilmer and George Clooney are better Batmen than either Bale or Affleck. I'm not saying their movies were better. But their time in the suit definitely was.
Pattinson is also lean and gaunt, which (don't laugh) brings to mind a vampire, which is something I think more Batman interpretations would do well-off leaning into. I don't think Batman needs to be the hardbody so many portrayals have turned him into. If you ask me the homoerotic muscles layered on muscles, actually kind of work against the mystique of the character. That's where I stand on Batman's bulging pecs and abs.
And it's good there is no Batgrowl here because Pattison spends more time in the Batman suit than any previous actor from any previous movie. So that specific choice was appreciated.
I'll tell you what I liked about Riddler. When they did the big reveal I didn't recognize the actor. As far as I know, they cast an unknown. And now when I rewatch the movie I won't be saying "Hey! There's Jim Carrey!" This guy HIMSELF is actually the Riddler! Neat trick, right? I believe Hollywood should be a casting a LOT more lesser known actors in major roles than they are. This guy's a find too. His Ava Maria stuff was nuts. And his singsong "Bruuuce Waaaayne" was suitably creepy.
Gotham was interesting because until the end it was portrayed as a Bright Lights, Big City sort of place. There's an actual stand-in for Time Square in it. It is not the broken down pit the rest of live-action portrays it as, at least not until the end.
Best performance in the movie is John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. I'm not saying the guy deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for it. But if I were in the Academy, I'd nominate him for it at least.
Joker at the ends sounds a bit young to me, but so was Cameron Monaghan, and even if Jerome on Gotham didn't turn out to be the actual Joker, I think he was probably second best in the role after Mark Hamill. I always struggle to say nice things about the dumpster fire that was Gotham, but Jerome Valeska was one of them. So a young take doesn't bother me too much.
Jeffrey Wright was a great live-action Gordon, but he's a better Batman voice on Batman: The Audio Adventures.
I was hoping I'd be able to declare this my favorite live-action DC movie ever, but it didn't quite get there by the end. But it's still a pretty impressive achievement. Even if it's too damn long. ****.
Doctor Who "Legend Of The Sea Devils"
I enjoyed that. A lot.
Thirteen has gotten an underwhelming reception among the Doctor Who fandom. The Doctor Who fandom is wrong. I think only Star Wars fans misread the quality of their fandom more than Doctor Who fans do. Russell T Davies is one of the worst showrunners of a successful show I can think of. He is a terrible writer too. And he's beloved while Stephen Moffat and Chris Chibnall get nothing but crap. And Thirteen is a good Doctor, simply because she's pleasant and her adventures are almost never truly gutwrenching. Yes, she has the worst Master of any Doctor, but that's not actually Jodie Whitaker's fault or problem. Her time on the TARDIS is just plain low-key and enjoyable.
She can actually admit she has feelings for Yaz. Without it being a big deal or changing the fact that she's rejecting her. She can talk about these things because she trusts her Companions. She says Yaz is one of the best people she's ever known. Longtime Who fans will scoff at this, but the truth is Thirteen behaves far more warmly and intimately with Yaz, Ryan, Graham, and Dan than previous Doctors ever did with a previous Companion. Her selling point to me is she doesn't make people uncomfortable or feel weird. And part of the previous Doctors doing that was to keep people at arm's length. But Thirteen matters to me because she can keep people at arm's length but let the person in question know that that's HER failing, and that Martha Jones and Clara Oswald aren't actually crazy for seeing things the way they did. She can comfort Yaz and actually discuss why she isn't able to do that with her. And I'm sorry, that makes Thirteen a great Doctor. Surely, not the greatest ever (there's a lot of competition for that) but don't ever let anyone tell you Thirteen sucks. It's not true. At all.
I do have a comment. It's not precisely negative, but seeing it felt negative to me. But the budget on the show has clearly been slashed, not just by a little, but drastically. Aside for it being shot on videotape again (which has ALWAYS looked awful) the Sea Devils are the kind of low-budget thing you'd see in the relaunch's first season (and The Sarah Jane Adventures). They are no more convincing than the Slitheen. I have two comments to make about the cheap-looking visual effects of this episode and the past season. The first is that they don't bother me at all. If believable visual effects were a dealbreaker, I'd never have become a fan of the show in the first place. The second comment is less pleasant and more worrisome. The fact that the budget has been cut enough that you can see lower quality results onscreen says the show is on VERY thin ice with the BBC. If Russell T Davies doesn't deliver for the 60th Anniversary season, I think the BBC might just up and cancel it. And considering DAVIES is the guy the BBC has pinned their hopes for the show's future on, I'm very nervous. Davies is awful on every level.
The swashbuckling stunts however were quite good. Probably because they didn't need to break the bank to do them practically. But they looked great.
The Doctor mentions Stephen King movies are never like the books. The notable exception is The Shawshank Redemption, which is exactly like the novella in plot, tone, and execution, but I can't expect the Doctor to note that exception while making the comparison she is.
I love Dan being outraged at being thought of as 70 by the kid. DAN may be in his 40's (although you can tell he bumped the actual age down a couple of years when saying so) but John Bishop is 55 and looks it. His mature look was one of the things I loved about him being made the male Companion of the series in the first place. And 55 is literally the halfway point between 40 and 70, and considering Dan's probably in his MID-forties, it's still a closer guess than Dan claims it is.
I am very much going to miss Thirteen, Dan, Yaz, Jodie Whitaker, and Chris Chibnall. I am one of the few fans mostly happy with the Chibnall years, and to see the show handed to the person who took such a HUGE personal dump on it on his way out sickens me a bit. Whoever the new Doctor is, I hope he / she lasts longer on the show than Davies does. He / she doesn't want that sociopath writing their Regeneration. I'm still steamed on David Tennant and Matt Smith's behalf just thinking about it. ****1/2.
