paoloemanuele

Being a creature of the eighties, I was alive and sold when the first Batman (1989) reached the screens. Now I have seen so many versions, perhaps I have become weary of them. I thought Affleck, despite his very lackluster movies, was the best presentation of the character on screen. Bale was ok, just looked a bit like a cosplayer, but the movies (well, one and a half) were quite good. Keaton didn't look like superhero material but ended up being very good for its time. What about the former vampire? Well, he's good, as acting goes. Has presence, a not ridiculous batman voice, doesn't look too massive (ie. No steroid galore like those other two) but resonably strong, a good jawline. Bruce Wayne is a bit too frowny and emolike, but I bet it's not his choice but it's in the script. What does this film lack then?

Well, editing, for one. It's overlong, and highly cuttable.

The script is decent, but contrived, generic, and even with very good performances by the villains, doesn't seem very convincing.

Too much back and forth, the fact that batman walks happily among cops as he's not a masked vigilante, all that talk about shadows when he's often in plain neon light (also, I know it's a comicbook movie, but c'mon, nobody realizes he's freaking Bruce Wayne? Any face recognition software would get it in seconds, not to mention he looks just like him and he walks often centimetres from people's faces...).

It takes itself very seriously, but fails to deliver. The voiceover was very corny too, like it was trying to convince us.

The action is ok, nothing to write home about but competent.

The costume was a bit meh, with an almost Adam West nose and too much details, but it's hard to beat Affleck's costume as it looks just like the comics while being resonably realistic.

Zoey Kravitz is goodlooking as usual, and can act as well, but her motivations seem a bit stretched.

Alfred didn't convince me, no fault to Serkins though, and neither did the Penguin; again, Farrell gave a good performance, but the character was a bit pointless.

I don't know, it all seemed like some videogame cutscenes instead of a proper movie. Maybe with a slicker edit it would have been better, but as it is, I honestly wouldn't pay to watch a sequel.

Salvatores has been directing movies for more than twenty years, and most of them are very watchable with great ones every now and then. This title, although I enjoyed it a lot, is to me a bit of a hit and miss. The casting is good (the usual Abatantuono, Bisio, Bentivoglio etc.), the film flows quite alright and some of the points it makes are spot on. Yet years later I decided to read the book and I found out the story was just much better, and could have made a greater film, or even a short series, if budget wasn't a problem (in Italy often is). The comedic turn Salvatores decided to make doesn't convince me thoroughly, and although it is funny, it's not as good as other films he made (Mediterraneo, Marrakech Express). To all the Italian readers (because I don't know if it has been translated in any other languages) I can only advise to read Pino Cacucci's book, if you like travels and serious storytelling, it's the right book for you. Ah, and be careful because you'll become obsessed about going to Mexico!

I watched this movie recently for the first time and I'm 26 (I know, shame on me). I didn't know anything about it and didn't even read the cover of the DVD, so it came as a surprise to me. Well, it's an amazing thriller with very good acting all along. First of all, Jack Nicholson portraits a great character, very different from the types we got used to see him playing later on. John Houston is also very believable in a role that could have easily turned into a stereotype. The LA setting in the '30s is very suggestive, and Polanski's direction follows the story with a objective eye that suits the film perfectly. I recommend this masterpiece to anyone who likes good cinema.