So, why all the interest in a film franchise that has been around since the late 80's (we're not counting the 60's television movie, because that fine film is in a league of it's own), and already introduced to the general public the concept of a Caped Crusader, Bat-nipples and Alicia Silverstone in foam rubber latex? Could have something to do with the list of talent attached to this latest film (Chris Nolan, David Goyer, Rutger Hauer)? Perhaps all this heightened anticipation had something to do with the well publicized discovery of a "Batman" script ("Batman: The Frightening") floating about the internet (a script which many claimed Nolan had a hand in writing, but ultimately was debunked as nothing more fanboy fiction)? Maybe it was the endless parade of rumors and insider gossip leaked out over the world wide web, telling of secret auditions for the title role, by such heavy weight actors like Ben Affleck and Ashton Kutcher? Or does it all just boil down to the notion that folks like having a "Batman" flick to look forward to in theaters (this is a franchise after all)?

Personally, I was excited the moment I first heard that Director Chris Nolan ("Memento" "Insomnia") was chosen to helm the film, and while I didn't find his version of "Insomnia" as captivating as the original, I love the man's skill as a director. Then there was that accursed internet script ("Batman: The Frightening"), with it's dark settings (in the script, Batman is accused of killing Gordon, and sent to Arkham Asylum), twisted villains (let's just say the Scarecrow wasn't playing for laughs like "Batman: Forever" Two-Face) and an shocking ending that befit Nolan's "Memento" which have me salivating in anticipation! Oh, but the rumors that soon followed seemed determined to quell my fevered fanboy mind, as article after article cropped up alleging that Warner Brothers wasn't interested in making a DARK (meaning 'PG-13' or heaven forbid 'Rated-R') feature film version of their beloved cash cow. . .uh, "Dark Knight Detective". Joel Schumacher (yeah, that Joel Schumacher), when asked about the possibility of Warner Bros., releasing a "Batman" film geared more towards an adult audience, said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the film studio wasn't so much concerned with the box office profits of each "Batman", as they were with the money generated from the sale of the film's merchandise. I believe Schumacher's exact words were, "Were a film can make millions, the merchandise can make billions!" All to true and very realistic, if not a little sad, but there must be a way to give the more mature fans of both "Batman" and Chris Nolan an enjoyable film that isn't tailor made for only those person between the ages of 6 & 16 (*more on that later).

Then a glimmer of hope broke along the horizon, as welcomed news came down that one of fandom's favorite superhero scribes, David Goyer, was tapped to co-write Nolan's "Batman" screenplay, and suddenly the world seemed right again (boy, I really need to get a life). Goyer's incredible talent elevated a minor Marvel bit player (Blade) into a box office golden boy, even if he was responsible for writing the television version of "Nick Fury: Agent of Shield". Goyer's involvement heralded great tidings. The only thing missing now was a star, and oh what a tangled web of headaches, b***s*** and endless rumor this caused! From the get go, Nolan made no qualms over his choice for the role of millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne/Batman; actor Guy Pierce ("LA Confidential" "Memento"). Problem was, the studio wanted a name, hence the many auditions and Ben Affleck, while Goyer insisted on an actor who not only looked good in tight black leather, but who would make a compelling/interesting Bruce Wayne. After all, Goyer's script didn't even introduce the Cowled One until half way through the film, so whoever was picked to play Batman better keep the audience entertained for an hour as Wayne. Pierce appeared perfect for the duel role (in my opinion), seeing as how he has acting chops aplenty, emotes quiet intensity in almost every performance ("LA Confidential" is my favorite), can build the required physique (he was totally buffed up in "Prisilla: Queen of the Desert". . . shake your groove thing baby!), and is no stranger to strange roles ("Ravenous" anyone?). Whether Pierce ultimately declined to play the part, or Warner Bros., just wasn't keen on casting a non-A list actor for the lead role, I don't know, but in the end, and after all the hoopla and hubbub, a suitable Batman was found; Christian Bale. Who?

Not a bad question considering that many among the general movie going public probably have no idea who Christian Bale is, and just what films he's been featured in. I mean, he's no Val Kilmer or George Clooney that's for sure, and even Michael Keaton was a recognizable name after making the comedy "Mr. Mom" (and oh, were fans happy when he took the lead role in Tim Burton's 1989 version of "Batman") Bale seemed pop up out of the blue, and to be completely honest, if asked four months back to name one of his pictures, I'd have drawn a blank (uh, I think he was "Reign of Fire"). But not to long ago I was fortunate enough to rent a little known flick called "Equilibrium", and since that time I have done nothing but sing his praises. I won't go off on a tangent about this most awesome of films, or the superb bit of acting Bale delivered (because this thing is long enough as is), but needless to say it quickly convinced me that Bale was Batman! But what about Bale's ability to produce an entertaining Bruce Wayne? "Equilibrium" showed that he could act the intently determined superhero/young hero in training with ease, but the charismatic millionaire playboy is a whole other persona, and Bale's Saint John character exhibited few, if any, moments of exuberance and hilarity. Thankfully we have "American Psycho"; a film in which Bale exudes talent as a callous, totally self-absorbed, stereotypical 80's yuppie, who thrashes his monotone persona whenever he starts killing people. Here Bale gives what can haphazardly be labeled a comedic performance; dancing to yesteryear tunes before plunging an ax into some guy's head, grinning from ear to ear as he chases a prostitute through an apartment complex with a chainsaw, and just really enjoying himself amongst all the blood and carnage. Great film, but not for the timid and definitely not for the young.

I could prattle on endlessly about Bale, Nolan and Goyer's combined talent, but I'm in need of a smoke break and the day is almost done. Since the addition of Bale a bevy of other respected actors have joined the "Batman" troupe, with almost all carrying the badge of former Academy Award nominee or Oscar Winner, and each signifying Nolan's commitment to making this "Batman" film like no other before (truthfully, I was a little unsure about Katie Holmes, but then I saw her in "Pieces of April", so now I'm cool with it). And though it won't arrive for another 15 months to the local theater chain, I for one can't wait until "Batman Begins".

Doctor Strangelove

*PS-Okay, Warner Brothers wants a huge merchandise money gusher, but they also want a film that adults will willing pay to see, so I think I might have a solution that would make all concerned happy. Since Nolan's "Batman Begins" looks to be a very mature film unsuitable for younger viewing, Warner Bros., should release a live-action children's version of "Teen Titans" (written by the same talented folks who gave us "Batman: The Animated Series") at the same time "Batman Begins" is released. This way Warner Bros., has two franchise films targeted at two very different audiences and can market merchandise according to age groups. Parents won't be quick to return toys for a film they found inappropriate if their kids are screaming to see "Teen Titans", while Warner Bros., won't waste money producing kiddie related merchandise on a picture aimed at adults. Warner Brothers would have to hugely hyped superhero flicks in theaters at the same time, and they wouldn't have to worry about souring the market because the two are completely different films. I am a mediocre God! Call me Warner Bros., I got ideas.

Batman Begins
Release Date: June 17, 2005
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenwriter: David Goyer, Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Michael Caine (Alfred), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Gary Oldman (Lt. James Gordon), Ken Watanabe (Ra's Al Ghul), Katie Holmes (some chick Bruce bangs), Cillian Murphy (Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow), Tom Wilkinson (Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle).

All images on this page
are copyright 2004 Warner Brothers, DC Comics, 20th Century Fox

Previously on Talking to that Venomous Fishwife:
DVD Reviews by Dr. Strangelove

All information on this page is intended for satrical (or review) purposes only. Please, don't sue us.
Really.
I'm not a well man.