I know, I know, I know: everybody hated Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice, so I must, too, right? Well, the truth is I actually enjoyed significant parts of the flawed film. I don't feel the need to justify the good, the bad, and the ugly within the motion picture from start-to-finish, but I will say this: as arguably one of the oldest, truest, most serious Batman fans on the web these days, I'd strongly argue that the feature's depiction of the Caped Crusader is one of the best captured on film.
I know, I know, I know: what about the Christopher Nolan films?
Meh.
The issue I had with the Nolan films (the first two especially) was that the central beats of the story were such that the flick could've been done around ANY billionaire playboy who discovered a desire to fight crime. It didn't have to be Bruce Wayne. Seriously. It could've been any billionaire who'd made the same commitment. Too little of the story developed the relationships between the villains of Gotham City and its Dark Knight; and I felt each of the feature's suffered as a consequence. Sure, they were well-made; I'd never argue otherwise. I just wasn't drawn into the greater mythology of Gotham. Likewise, it could've been any big city.
About the time that Nolan kinda/sorta figured out how to truly made a Batman film -- as I'd argue he did with The Dark Knight Rises -- he was essentially stepping away from the DC property. Methinks he had to do this with the way he had structured his trilogy, true, but I would've loved to see what he could've done next, if that makes any sense.
As is always the case, I understand fully that my opinion goes against the grain with what fandom believes are three of the best Superhero films of the modern era ... but I'm not losing any sleep over it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I digress ...
Batman V. Superman, as flawed as it may be, finally showed audiences a Bruce Wayne with an all-consuming, driven passion to remake the world the way he wanted it. Critics felt that was perhaps a bridge too far for what's basically meant to be a comic book character, and they're wrong: Batman of the comic books has spent decades in his own never-ending battle to do just that ... to clean up the streets of Gotham City (and occasionally beyond) from the low-level punks to the high-level kingpins. The living embodiment of his own Greek tragedy, Batman is a relentless vigilante who'll stop at nothing to see justice delivered, and that usually means getting in fast-and-furious fisticuffs with the most overwhelming odds imaginable.
And that's why the film's titular warehouse fight remains a favorite with this old dog: this was the first time that a Batman flick showed audiences what the Dark Knight does fairly routinely in the comic books and graphic novels. He gets in there. He gets up-close-and-personal. He busts heads. He cracks skulls. He bloodies his knuckles. He takes blow after blow and blow and still refuses to go down or bend the knee. When necessary, he pull something from his belt -- a batarang, a smokebomb -- and he'll unleash it to better his odds. He does it with the theatricality required of the moment. And he wins. He survives against incredible odds.
And he does this every other night in Gotham City.
It was glorious to see on the screen finally.
Whether you like the Zack Snyder flick or not in ultimately inconsequential. This fight sequence for me defines the character as well as the potential for future Batflicks so far as this viewer is concerned. It was a highwater mark in the DC Cinematic Universe, and I stand by that.
This morning, I stumbled across an article wherein Men's Health asked an physician to actually break down this fight regarding its displayed injuries. I chuckled when I watched the video. I think you will, too.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I know, I know, I know: what about the Christopher Nolan films?
Meh.
The issue I had with the Nolan films (the first two especially) was that the central beats of the story were such that the flick could've been done around ANY billionaire playboy who discovered a desire to fight crime. It didn't have to be Bruce Wayne. Seriously. It could've been any billionaire who'd made the same commitment. Too little of the story developed the relationships between the villains of Gotham City and its Dark Knight; and I felt each of the feature's suffered as a consequence. Sure, they were well-made; I'd never argue otherwise. I just wasn't drawn into the greater mythology of Gotham. Likewise, it could've been any big city.
About the time that Nolan kinda/sorta figured out how to truly made a Batman film -- as I'd argue he did with The Dark Knight Rises -- he was essentially stepping away from the DC property. Methinks he had to do this with the way he had structured his trilogy, true, but I would've loved to see what he could've done next, if that makes any sense.
As is always the case, I understand fully that my opinion goes against the grain with what fandom believes are three of the best Superhero films of the modern era ... but I'm not losing any sleep over it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I digress ...
Batman V. Superman, as flawed as it may be, finally showed audiences a Bruce Wayne with an all-consuming, driven passion to remake the world the way he wanted it. Critics felt that was perhaps a bridge too far for what's basically meant to be a comic book character, and they're wrong: Batman of the comic books has spent decades in his own never-ending battle to do just that ... to clean up the streets of Gotham City (and occasionally beyond) from the low-level punks to the high-level kingpins. The living embodiment of his own Greek tragedy, Batman is a relentless vigilante who'll stop at nothing to see justice delivered, and that usually means getting in fast-and-furious fisticuffs with the most overwhelming odds imaginable.
And that's why the film's titular warehouse fight remains a favorite with this old dog: this was the first time that a Batman flick showed audiences what the Dark Knight does fairly routinely in the comic books and graphic novels. He gets in there. He gets up-close-and-personal. He busts heads. He cracks skulls. He bloodies his knuckles. He takes blow after blow and blow and still refuses to go down or bend the knee. When necessary, he pull something from his belt -- a batarang, a smokebomb -- and he'll unleash it to better his odds. He does it with the theatricality required of the moment. And he wins. He survives against incredible odds.
And he does this every other night in Gotham City.
It was glorious to see on the screen finally.
Whether you like the Zack Snyder flick or not in ultimately inconsequential. This fight sequence for me defines the character as well as the potential for future Batflicks so far as this viewer is concerned. It was a highwater mark in the DC Cinematic Universe, and I stand by that.
This morning, I stumbled across an article wherein Men's Health asked an physician to actually break down this fight regarding its displayed injuries. I chuckled when I watched the video. I think you will, too.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
RSS Feed