It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I like the gritty stylishness in Tenet.
I could not agree more; I love dark, intense films, Se7en is an all time favorite, but I found The Batman to be a soul sucking, joyless, experience. I wasn’t a fan of Pattinson’s emo portrayal.
He's great when he's in the suit, but not so good out of it. His Bruce Wayne completely lacked any personality, for me. Luckily, he spends 80% of the film as The Bat, so the film survived it.
Bond with a moustaka ?
Wa wa wee wa.......
It's a sad thing, he's nearly cast as Valdo Obruchev though.
I mean, Dencik was basically doing a Borat impression at times during that movie anyway.
It's a rather odd performance as Batman/Wayne, no doubt. I actually really like Pattinson in that film, as well as the movie in general (it's not perfect, but it's very well made, and certainly the last time I went to see a film in the cinema I was genuinely excited by). That said I've heard some people say that his performance as either Wayne or Batman are flat or 'lazy' etc. I can sort of see why, but I think it's a case where it's just a very subtle performance, and much of it is impacted by whether one likes that particular approach to the character. As Batman much of the impact comes from his body language, how he moves his eyes. His 'Batman' voice can go from being 'whispery' and almost normal sounding in front of Gordon/Catwoman, to noticeably growly in front of Penguin and other criminals (heck, he does this within the span of the opening monologue), which in itself is very purposeful.
It's there with his Bruce Wayne as well I'd argue, that subtlety. For what it's worth I think Pattinson plays that younger, more isolated, and less assured version of the character well. I definitely got this sense through his body language and facial expressions when he attends the funeral in that film - he's a man out of his depth when it comes to even the most basic social situations. In that sense it's a very humanising portrayal of the character, different as it is. Personally, I'd have loved to have seen what Pattinson could have done with Bond in an alternate universe, but at least we have a solid Batman for now.
His problem would be the weight, he's not thinner than Chalamet, but he has the same body structure as Ben Whishaw, he could make a great Q though.
That's a decent analysis, but I'm still not quite sold on him as Bruce yet. I hope they move it on from that version of the character in the sequel (while keeping what made his Dark Knight tick) because even if has artistic merit, it's an incredibly boring version of him to watch. I'd admittedly be less harsh on it if people didn't label is as "comic accurate" when it very much isn't.
And of course, while it doesn't mean he have played Bond that way (something like Tenet would be more likely) it does make me more relieved that he never became Bond. And I say that as a fan of Pattinson.
The Batman isn't everyone's cup of tea, which I can appreciate. It's very much a slow boil, Neo-noir mystery which for many people can either be a bit dull, or perhaps doesn't have that rewatchability to it because you ultimately know the answer to the mystery after that first viewing. They definitely go a different direction with Batman/Wayne, with Pattinson playing him as a lonely, rather angry young man who seems to be suffering from mental illness. Again, it's not a version of the character for everyone. Personally, I prefer it to Nolan's trilogy, and I connect more with Pattinson's Batman than Bale's as a character. That's just me though.
I will say that my gut instinct is that The Batman will have some creative impact on Bond 26, however. More so than something like Top Gun actually. I don't think this will be strictly speaking in terms of tone (The Batman is stylistically and thematically a rather dark film), and I don't think we'll see an 'emo Bond' or anything like that. But I would like for the next Bond to be played and written in a way which subverts specific expectations of the character while still maintaining their core traits, much like Pattinson's Batman. The Batman also has some thematic overlap with the later Craig films, and I'd argue handles its ideas much better than NTTD (ie. the villain ultimately having rather sympathetic motives taken to their extremes, which mirrors the struggles of the hero). I think we might see Bond with a broad character arc not dissimilar to Batman's in this film. It's also an example of a film which was able to be a visual spectacle which leaned heavily into its source material (I don't know or care about comic book accurate, but I know it was influenced a lot by certain comics), drumming up fan expectation and praise, all with a budget of under £200 Million.
The meerkat from those 'Compare the Market' adverts also came to mind.
I want to agree, and in part, I do. But I also wish that she had been the main Bond Girl at some point. In an alternate SP (still released in 2015), I would have been fine with Bellucci as the main Bond Girl. Given how Hollywood likes to put most actresses out to pasture once they hit 40, I would have thought that with a feminist producer, we would see a main Bond Girl in her 40's, maybe early 50's.
Also he's 6'5 (according to google) so perhaps he too tall, as daft as it sounds. If Bond was that big it would be jarring
I don't think whoevers cast needs to be Bond through and through but casting someone who isn't "British" just seems odd and I worry they'd stand out like a sore thumb during press or premieres.
There is no Moore success without Lazenby's failure.
He's not very good in Euphoria.
Remember we'd even get an Irishman.
Now that you say it, the film did, better than any of its predecessors, realistically portray him as a loner with too much money who dresses up in a bat suit and fights crime. Making him an awkward, mentally ill, weirdo was indeed refreshing, humanising and sensical. (Not too dissimilar from what Craig tried to do with Bond).
They should have emphasised this quality beyond riddler's antagonism/kinship and meshed it better with the rest of the film, which was too plot heavy despite limiting itself to one (hollow) main storyline with no tangible parallels. E.g. The romance with cat woman was non-existent and forced, if she'd been the one to initiate and reject him at the end, they'd at least have been character consistent.
All at once. Remember, in 2005 the likes of Sam Worthington and even Goran Visnjic were considered and auditioned. I'm sure they'll mainly have a list of British candidates, but they won't pass over someone who is a potential contender because of their nationality.
I'd say the film did a pretty good job of meshing it with the main plot. The whole film is pretty much about how Batman's brand of vigilantism is only one step away from Riddler's quest for vengeance. The opening of the film especially leans into it - it opens with a rather brutal murder and as a result we expect to cut immediately to Batman doing something heroic. Instead you get Wayne doing this Travis Bikle-esque monologue about fear (it's not even clear for the first half a minute whether it's meant to be Riddler or Batman). Heck, even during his first fight with the goons he calls himself 'Vengeance' as opposed to Batman.
It's very plot heavy, agreed. But then again it's essentially a Neo-Noir, and by their nature they're very plot heavy and at times convoluted.
Compared to the relationship between Batman and Catwoman in TDKR I thought this one did a much better job. It helps that Zoe Kravitz is cast well in the role and her character seems a bit more fully written (I have no idea what it is with Christopher Nolan, but he has a weird habit of writing tough, sometimes femme fatale type female leads and then casts actresses who really don't fit that type nor inherently bring those qualities to the roles - Anne Hathaway, Katie Holmes, Maggie Gyllenhall etc.)
Zoe's character did have an arc but I wouldn't say it was explored very much at all. The plot was actually too simple according to me, too expositioned and too interjected by vague monologues and cliched dialogue. Side characters weren't given enough room to shine.
A neo-noir in all aspects, but more reminiscent of a video game cutscenes than a Humphrey Bogart flick.
I actually think some of the dialogue was a bit too expositional as well at times (which is a very common problem I personally have with lots of modern scripts anyway). You then have little issues such as Riddler's plan in the third act not being foreshadowed at all and feeling like it came out of nowhere (I didn't even realise first time watching it that Gotham was meant to be located near a river or had a water damn).
Apart from that I thought the script was relatively solid despite its flaws. I certainly felt the story was more thought out and thematically consistent than Nolan's Batman films (I enjoy the first two a lot but those are films I'd say are plagued by the same problems you mentioned, arguably even more so than this one, right down to the vague monologues).
At the end of the day it's a film that reinvented Batman and created a new cinematic universe (it really is a very engrossing film cinematography/mise-en-scene wise) while still keeping the core traits of the character consistent. Like I said, I think if we want an early indication of what Bond 26 might try, then this film is a good one to look at.
That's more just a personal preference thing I guess. Some people would say that close ups are better at conveying more subtle emotions - the little twitches of the face, flickers of the eye etc. - which couldn't otherwise be emoted in a wider shot. Sometimes it's a visual tactic used to make the audience feel more connected to the character as they go through the story (which I guess is what The Batman is doing with its many close up, shallow depth of field shots of the main character).