fdpedro

Tim Burton's Batman films were needed at the time, they did help erase the image the 1960s series had left, but he didn't have a clue how to handle the character. Sure, he had the right atmosphere, the right sets, the right costumes, and above all, the right music with Danny Elfman's Bernard Hermannen-inspired score, but Batman remained a tortured, lonely, and uncharismatic figure. Michael Keaton was physically miscast since he couldn't pull off the annoying arrogant playboy type in Bruce Wayne, neither had the necessary physical presence to handle Batman. It sure didn't help that the villains were given more screen-time and had way more charisma. Joel Schumacer took over the series and brought it back to the 1960s camp the Burton film were trying to erase, and while he was more comfortable with the Batman character than the previous director, he didn't have a clue how to handle the atmosphere.

Well, enough with all of this, after Schumacer ruined the series completely, a re-start seemed like the smartest thing to do since none of the previous films really captured the true spirit of the character at all. And here comes Christopher Nolan, director or Memento and the Insomnia remake, to do the Batman movie fans had been waiting for a long time. Screenwriter/director David S. Goyer was in charge of the script, borrowing elements from Miller's Year One, he crafted the quintessential Batman script, avoiding all of the mistakes Sam Hamm and Akira Goldsman committed in the past.

Christian Bale takes over the role played by nearly eight actors in the past, the film opens with a runaway Bruce Wayne starting his ninja training with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and his leader Ras Al Ghul (Ken Wantannabe) in the Hymalaias. As this happens, we flashback to twenty years ago, when eight-year old Bruce lost his parents to a thug (not the Joker like the first film) and swore his revenge against criminality. Bruce doesn't become Batman automatically, he nearly considers killing the murderer of his parents later on.

It's moments like Bruce throwing his gun at the sea that make Batman Begins different from nearly every previous big screen Batman representation. We finally have a film about Batman and not the villains. Not that there are no strong villains in this entry at all. Once Bruce's training is over (as he disagrees over Ras' brutal crime fighting tactics, enforcing the rule in the comics that he doesn't kill) he returns to Gotham City, which has been taken over by ruthless mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and his main thug Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) a criminal psychiatrist who is later revealed to be the classic villain The Scarecrow. Murphy doesn't have as much screen time as Jack Nicholson or Danny DeVito, but for once we have a Batman villain that is actually menacing, a villain that doesn't dance to Prince records and doesn't wear puffy shoes and colorful costumes. His specialty of infecting his victims with fear-inducing gas gives room for some pretty nifty hallucination sequences.

Gotham City is not the studio-bound 1940s noir look by Tim Burton, neither the psychotic neon-bathed wonderland from the Joel Schumacer entries. Instead, this is a realistic city, filled with slums (the Narrows) and to an extent inspired by Ridley Scott's futuristic rain-soaked metropolis in Blade Runner, a film Nolan showed to his crew before shooting began.

Many people have criticized the action sequences for their fast editing techniques and the fact that we never see Batman, but that was pretty much the point. Batman is supposed to be a dark figure, we are not supposed to get a good look at him during the confrontations. That is not to say the film's action sequences don't deliver. While it takes its time to build up characters and situations before the rumbling begins, the bat-mobile chase puts the loud theater speakers to the test. The final action set-piece taking place inside a speeding train is better than it sounds, we finally have a good climax in a Batman film for once rather than the Dark Knight destroying the villain's lair.

In terms of acting, few films out there have a cast this good. Christian Bale is by far the definitive live-action Batman ever shown on screen, he perfectly handles the character's split personality from the snobby playboy to the Dark Knight, even the voice changes, not to mention he looks great in the costume. Morgan Freeman and Michael Cane both play good mentors to Bruce, and even knowing Cane doesn't look like the part as much as Michael Gough, he has great chemistry with Bale and we finally see their relationship sparkle. Even actors with small parts like Rutger Hauer, who plays Bruce Wayne's main enemy at Wayne Enterprises, shine. Unfortunately, Katie Holmes is the only weak link here. Script-writer Goyer took a big liberty of creating this new character who means a lot to Bruce (she was his childhood friend) especially for the movie, and while she is more interesting than the previous romantic interests in this franchise (except for Catwoman obviously) she doesn't look very comfortable in the scenes where toughness is required. And last but not least is Gary Oldman's note-by-note perfect role as Lt. Gordon, a hard-working honest cop who, like Batman, fights against corruption. For once we get to see the Batman/Gordon relationship that was never explored in the 1989/1997 film series, maybe afraid it would turn as campy as in the 1960s TV show with the Bat-phone.

Few summer blockbusters work as much as Batman Begins. Never so much fun and energy was felt in a theater since the release of Kill Bill: Volume 1 in 2003. Chris Nolan has not only resurrected a dead franchise from oblivion, but done a film few super-heroes could have the honor of having. The summer of 2005 doesn't get any better than this.

It is not very hard to believe "Fat Girl" and "Romance X" were made by the same director, as much as the films differ in quality. The problem is that both films handle different subject matters. And while "Fat Girl" was successful in what it set out to do, "Romance X" fails miserably. This year I re-watched another chick-flick I never thought much of, Bertolucci's "Stealing Beauty", and found myself enjoying it a great deal, so I tried to do the same with "Romance X". It didn't work out, I now hate the film even more.

The film is described as "porn for women", and it already starts with a totally unbelievable premise: School-teacher Marie (Caroline Ducey) has a boyfriend (Sagamore Stévenin) who refuses to sleep with her for no reason whatsoever. He doesn't have any problems with getting an erection, or finding her attractive, he just doesn't want to have sex. What a believable premise! Maybe it was supposed to be unbelievable, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting. The fact that it never crosses Marie's mind that her boyfriend might be GAY doesn't help it from being existentially funny. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unintentionally funny, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

Marie fails to be a likable character as well, like most in the film. She is about 23, has the body of a 13-year old, the face of a 30-year old, and talks like a repressed, grumpy 75-year old. Every single line of dialogue that comes out of her mouth are mostly complaints on how miserable her sex life is, how much she hates men, and her amazing depressing theories on sex in general. It is not a very far stretch to assume it is Breillat speaking her lines, not Marie. Anyone who watches this film will get the impression that Briellat has never spoken to a human being. The most charismatic character, and actor, of the entire film is Ducey's first affair, a lonely Italian man named Paolo (Rocco Sifreddi) who seems to be the only human being in the film. The problem is that… well… Rocco is not an actor, he is a porn star only cast because of the size of his penis. You know you are in trouble when a "guest porn star" is the film's most interesting personality, because compared to Marie's boyfriend, he is Cary Grant. But again, maybe it was supposed to be unrealistic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

While it lasts for about 90 minutes, it feels like you are watching a much longer film. There is nothing wrong with films being slow and taking their time, but this one does it for no reason at all. There is a scene where Marie is lead by a man into being tied up for a bondage experience. It last about ten minutes for the man to lead her into his room and pull the ropes around her, only for her to give up. Later in the film, she tries it again, and so we begin to roll our eyes. But again, maybe it was supposed to be slow, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

So you might be thinking that at least if the film is a pretentious, boring mess, well, at least it delivers as a soft-core porno, right? Wrong. This is the most misfire I've ever seen as an erotic film. Although I applaud Caroline Ducey for taking her "extentions" as an actress to the limit during the sex/nudity scenes, but they are anything but arousing. In fact, they are unbelievably boring. Only one involving Rocco Sifreddi is a bit, dare I say, far from tedious, but it would have helped if the actress at least seemed like she was enjoying it. I know this was not supposed to be a film about titties, but what else could one look for when there is nothing else? But again, maybe it was supposed to be non-erotic, maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.

"Romance X" is one or those films that think they are art-house masterpieces, that they are groundbreaking, and that in the future it will be remembered as a classic. I've seen Lifetime Original Movies that portray strong, independent women in a more successful way than in this film. Maybe this film would have been quite a statement had it been released back in the early 70s, but in 1999 it does feel a bit outdated. Surely a film with such a controversial topic as a woman committing… gasp… adultery would be very shocking. How couldn't it be, a woman who attends…gasp… nightclubs by herself. What will she do next to be outrageous, take a valium? As a side note, the nightclub sequences have to be seen to believe. The music is bad even for Euro-techno standards and it is so low you can hear people's footsteps in the dance floor. But that is only a minor flaw in such a mess of a film. While the cinematography is beautiful and the work with colors (especially red and white) is effective, it doesn't manage to make this worth 90 minutes (which feel like 4 hours) of your life. But again, maybe it was supposed to be an unintentionally funny, unrealistic, slow, and non-erotic. Maybe this is a deep, thoughtful, surrealistic film, but it's just not interesting.