# Rate Batman Begins



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 15, 2005)

Haven't seen this thread yet, so I get to start it! Yay!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 15, 2005)

Voted for the first "9," assuming you meant it to be "8."


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 15, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Voted for the first "9," assuming you meant it to be "8."



 8...9...same thing, right?


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 16, 2005)

Voted for the second 9. Probably my favorite film I've seen this year.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Jun 16, 2005)

Gave it a 10, myself.  Great movie, great visuals.  The origins tale was really well done.  Christian Bale *is* Batman.  I hadn't seen any of his stuff before, somehow, so I was basically just hoping he didn't suck.  He nailed the role, with the look, the acting, the mannerisms.  

Not only was it a Wayne/Batman origins story, but it sets the stage for the super-villians of Gotham in a believeable way.  I hope this becomes an X-Men/Spiderman type franchise with a lot of sequels, so long as they don't go campy like the original string of Batman movies.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 16, 2005)

orbitalfreak said:
			
		

> Christian Bale *is* Batman.  I hadn't seen any of his stuff before, somehow, so I was basically just hoping he didn't suck.




Rent Equilibrium. Seriously. Right now. It's hard to find in most video stores, but it's available on Netflix. Heck, I'd almost recommend buying it sight unseen, I thought it was that good.

It's the movie that convinced me they'd chosen right when they first cast Bale.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 16, 2005)

i am now thoroughly convinced i live on a different planet than everyone else.

this movie might have been worse than revenge of the sith. or maybe i'm just being hard on it because its fresher in my mind. so i gave it the same 4 i gave sith.

there was ZERO applause in my theatre, so even if some others looked at me funny for killing it on the way out the door, they couldnt have enjoyed it very much.

with all the little things wrong, and a handful of big things wrong too, the mostly cool Scarecrow wasn't enough to make me enjoy the whole package.

Oh well. 
I wonder if War of the Worlds and Fantastic Four will keep up the "it only gets worse" trend.


----------



## Soel (Jun 16, 2005)

I liked it, and I don't really care for the Batman character. I think its head and shoulders above any of the other Batman films. Fantastic cast throughout!

Bale is a great actor. Someone suggested Equilibrium, but I would suggest American Psycho, The Machinist, and All the Little Animals as well.


----------



## KenM (Jun 16, 2005)

I really liked it. Best Batman movie yet. Closest to the comic books, IMO. I do have one logic question though: 



Spoiler



Ok, we see Katie Holmes' character driving her own car, except in the scene where she gets attacked, she is on the train. How come she is not driving? What happened to her car?


----------



## The Serge (Jun 16, 2005)

*Batman Begins Review:*

Comic books often get a bad rap.  Since their inception in the late 1930s, comics have been written primarily for children and younger adults.  Even the name "comic book" suggests something light hearted in Western culture, something not worthy of serious consideration (despite the fact that from a literary perspective, "comic" means a whole lot more).  This attitude towards comics would persist until for decades, resulting in the dumbing down of the genre in the 50s (after WWII).  

Perhaps the greatest culprit in degenerating the quality of comics as a genre occured in the late 1960s with _Batman_.  This show single-handedly shattered any concept of involved, sophisticated storytelling for years and solidified in many people's minds the idea that comics were not to be taken seriously, were not to draw on real world inspirations, were not for anything but the most myopic of children.  

The Batman character has probably suffered from this attitude more than any other superhero.  Superman, being an affable, big brother figure empowered by the sun, can get away with light-heartedness and simplisity.  Spiderman, essentially a variation on the whole "jokester" hero like Bugs Bunny or Briar Rabbit, can get away with it.  Even a character as violent as Captain America can get away with it as he personifies, at his base level, a simplistic view of the American Dream and patriotism.  However, The Batman -- the second great superhero -- was born in darkness and in violence.  At his base, the character is a depressing vision of what a hero is because he's driven entirely and totally by revenge, not by some altruistic goal (this would be added, necessarily, later).  Yet and still, camp and silliness and the attitude that children need to be faced with empty foolishness have often derailed the integrity of this and other more complex characters.  This has especially been the case in movies.

When Warner Bros. released _Batman_ in 1989, it was hailed as an achievement... and in a sense it was.  By far it was the most sophisticated screen (big or little) rendition of the character at the time, it came the closest to capturing the nature of the character.  Here, Batman was dark and mysterious.  He didn't talk much, didn't have a bunch of "bat" garbage, and existed in a gloomy world.  Despite these overtones, Batman was not treated particularly seriously.  Gotham City was a phantasmogorical edifice; Batman's motivations were nebulous, not to mention his take on justice; and, not only don't we learn how he became a threatening fighter or found his inspiration, we never learn were "he gets those wonderful toys."  It's clearly a simple fantasy and not, when it comes down to it, a particularly good one because many questions are left unanswered (not to mnention the fact that the focus is rarely on Batman, but on other satellite characters like The Joker).  

From this shallow foundation, a Batman franchise would grow, subsequent inclusions moving further and further away from the base material, slowy and inexorably returning to the attitude that Batman, like comics, need not be taken or treated seriously.  Comics, as Joel Schumacher said, were about fun and color and such.  It would be Schumacher, with George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger along for the ride, who would utterly destroy the franchise with a completely overcamp of the character, nipples, cod pieces, cackling, and ice-skates.

Then, something happened.  Although it had occured in the comic book industry (more properly referred to as the "graphic novel" industry) since the 70s and took real shape in the mid 80s, the popular media required even more time.  If one excludes _Superman: The Movie_, it was with Marvel heroes, led by _X-Men_ and _Spiderman_, in which a more sophisticated take involving character development, cohesive plotting, real storytelling, in which we would see comic book characters treated seriously.  Young men and women who had read comics as kids and were _still_ reading them as adults were in the film industry.  They were watching great "children's" programming like _Batman: The Animated Series[/i[ and were writing their own stories in X-Files and similar shows.  And they turned their eyes to the one character that has never been properly handled on the big screen since his inception in 1939.  Batman Begins would be the result.  

Batman Begins, starring Christian Bale as the title character, is by far the best film rendition of the character anywhere save, perhaps, the cartoon series.  And, more importantly from a franchise perspective, it's the first truly good movie from the group as it not only takes The Batman character seriously, but treats him as a person with motivations, with goals, with drive, and with fears.  The Batman is not a traditional superhero.  He possesses no powers, he is painfully mortal, he's obsessed with loss.  He's unpleasant and difficult to deal with.  And, in this film, he's damn near perfect.

Batman Begins works largely because the focus is on the development of the character.  There are no doubts about The Batman's motivations, why he dresses up as a bat, why he doesn't kill, why he's able to hide in plain sight...  Virtually everything is answered in this film.  The characterizations, from Michael Caine's Alfred Pennyworth to Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon, are spot on.  Even characters with no comic basis, like Rachel Dawe's character, are handled well, and further support The Batman character.  

This film draws heavily from the comics, particularly from Batman: Year One by Frank Miller.  It also draws heavily from a variety of stories that feature Ra's Al Ghul.  The treatment of Al Ghul in this is absolutely brilliant, particularly the twist that's uncovered by the last 1/4 of the film.  His motivations are perfect and his establishment as a chief Bat-villain is well handled.  The Scarecrow, played by Cillian Murphy, is well done.  Gone is the idea that this is some frail professor; rather, what we have here is a man knee deep in public corruption who uses his genius to get paid.  

The Batmobile is awesome.  I was one of the many displeased with what I saw and I am pleased to say I was wrong.  That thing looks cool as Hell and the stuff it accomplishes in the film is pretty awesome.  

Visually, this is the most accurate portrayal of the character.  Batman's appearances, as I've always advocated, are akin to the appearance of a monster in a horror film.  Lots of background noise as criminals try to find him in vain.  He comes out of the shadows, puts down a criminal, and disappears again.  Or, even more frightening, he comes out of the shadows, grabs a criminal, and disappears with him.  The fights are short and brutal...  As Ducard says early on, the fights aren't a dance.

Another great aspect of this is the "fear" theme.  This concept drives the entire film.  Although on occasion it goes overboard, it's established in the tone and atmosphere from the very beginning.  It's a refrain we get that reminds us what The Batman's about.

This film, while clearly a stand-alone, has set up for the future of Gotham City and its Dark Knight.  The origins of some of The Batman's foes have been established in this film.  The end of the film not only gave me chills, it gave me the giggles.

The music is excellent.  Composed by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, it's a far cry from the material that made Danny Elfman famous.  Although there are some motifs, including at least three for Batman, it doesn't have the dark, but triumphant, march that has defined the character for the past 16 years.  This material is brooding and grim, very ambient at times, with a hint of electronics.  Frankly, although many will miss a more thematic score, the music in this film is far more appropriate for The Batman.

This is by far the best Batman movie.  It's also a good movie with strong performances, excellent cinematography, and a strong, cohesive story.  It's heavily thematic that treats the characters seriously.  Christopher Nolan, the director, should be commended for his handling of this film.  I would say that it stands with X-Men and Spiderman II as the best comic book movie adaptations in the past decade and, so far, the best movie of the year.  

Grade:  9_


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 16, 2005)

Damn, The Serge is a tough act to follow. Nice review.

I give it an 8.5, bumping up to 9 because the failures that have come before increase the difficulty level.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 16, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> i am now thoroughly convinced i live on a different planet than everyone else.
> 
> this movie might have been worse than revenge of the sith. or maybe i'm just being hard on it because its fresher in my mind. so i gave it the same 4 i gave sith.
> 
> ...




Opinions are like . . . , well, everybody has one. In the past you have supported your opinions well even when others disagreed. Have you cooled down enough to point out the places where you found fault with the movie?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 16, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> I really liked it. Best Batman movie yet. Closest to the comic books, IMO. I do have one logic question though:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Answer Below:


Spoiler



Have you seen the parking prices downtown?  I totally buy it.  I know lots of people in Chicago who own cars and drive around plenty - myself included - but take mass transit when going to work.



BTW, it was neat seeing some of the Gotham locations that were shot within a block or two of where I work in downtown Chicago...


----------



## Fiery James (Jun 16, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> i am now thoroughly convinced i live on a different planet than everyone else.




We can test this theory--- 

Was Catwoman an excellent movie in your world?

If yes, then your hypothesis is correct.

If no, then we share the same world, just not the same tastes.



- JB


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 16, 2005)

Saw it last night. I give it a nine. It was really amazing, and I was very pleased that they didn't 



Spoiler



kill any of the villians; Crane gets clean away, and we never see Ra's body - not that it might matter, if the movie version has access to a Lazerus Pit.


 . I was very, very pleased and can't wait for the next one.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 16, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Rent Equilibrium. Seriously. Right now. It's hard to find in most video stores, but it's available on Netflix. Heck, I'd almost recommend buying it sight unseen, I thought it was that good.
> 
> It's the movie that convinced me they'd chosen right when they first cast Bale.





So very true. We found it at a used CD/DVD store. They had like six copied for like $5 apiece.


----------



## Mimic (Jun 16, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> with all the little things wrong, and a handful of big things wrong too, the mostly cool Scarecrow wasn't enough to make me enjoy the whole package.




I would like to know what you didn't like about it. I haven't actually seen it yet but you are the first person I have heard about that actually disliked it

Although from this 


> there was ZERO applause in my theatre, so even if some others looked at me funny for killing it on the way out the door, they couldnt have enjoyed it very much.




I kind of get the feeling you went into the show expecting not to like it.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 16, 2005)

Really enjoyed it, on many levels.  I wish the cuts during the fights weren't so quick, but it was just reallly solid all the way around.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 16, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I wish the cuts during the fights weren't so quick...



I liked the "what just happened/how did he do that" element - I felt like I was sharing the criminals' POV instead of Batman's.  Burton's Batman showed us the trick, e.g., first time we see him "flying" through the fog, and we see him detatch the line from his utility belt; this one didn't, which makes him a lot scarier.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 16, 2005)

You know what would have been perfect?

This Batman movie with the fight scenes from "Ong Bak". That would have been a straight 10.

Without the coherent fight scenes, I give it a 9, because the fights didn't really matter too much. It probably won't be a big blockbuster, though, since there's a long stretch without any action.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 16, 2005)

Mimic said:
			
		

> I kind of get the feeling you went into the show expecting not to like it.




IIRC, he posted _months_ ago that he expected this to be the movie that'll kill the comic-book-movie fad, so you could be right.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 16, 2005)

okey dokey. i just woke up. so i'll give the long version of the story and my reasons for not liking it. i'll try to make it coherent.  (wow...its really long and rambling... i guess i failed)  and i'm gonna put it all behind a spoiler tag because the title of the thread doesnt say spoilers. 

(random idea, rather than weeks early review threads and rate threads and what not. how about  3 threads for every movie. 1> before. 2> after without spoilers 3> after with spoilers. )

[sblock]

i DID go into the movie expecting it to be bad. I've been saying so in this board all spring.(but Mimic, why would you get that out of me noticing the lack of reaction in the theatre?) But I don't see why that would be a bad thing. It is impossible to go into a movie with NO expectations and usually when people go into movies with low expectations, they wind up finding a movie BETTER than it really is. And they find it worse when they have high expectations.  
I can back that up with my own expectation history. I went into X-Men fearing the worst, and wound up loving the movie. With re-watching, I realize that it is good, and it is the first comic book movie to do it right (so it gets bonus points) but it isnt as great as i though coming out of the theatre. i loved it so much because it surpassed my expectations. 
I'm also convinced that this explains why people liked Revolutions better than Reloaded and Sith at all. 

One more personal preference: I like my Batman crazy. I like my Batman = real, Bruce = the mask. I like my Batman angry and untrusting.  I like my Batman to not let anyone close to him at all except Alfred and any other sidekicks he has hanging around the cave.  I'm a 20-year comics fan, started as a Marvel fanboy, in the last few years, I much prefer the direction of the DC Universe. I really like the current company-line on Batman but mostly that works so well in how he plays off the other heroes. 

Prefering crazy Batman is one reason why I expected to not like the movie. If we're at "batman begins" then he isn't completely insane yet. My most recent pre-movie opinion is that it might be a good movie, but it wouldn't be a good batman movie.  I don't think it even suceeded on that level, but maybe if this wasn't trying to be Batman I would have bumped my score up to a 5.

The movie chooses to start with a really long, tedious take on Batman's origin. The reason why people haven't gone into much detail on the training of Batman is because it would be mostly boring. Just a lot of meditation and sparring. And if youre not gonna bother to show me the fights and or make them cool because you don't want to spend money making it look good then why bother giving me batman vs. ninja training at all.  (You could invent the "its supposed to be fast and brutal" excuse...but then don't have fight scenes please)

The Ra's "swerve" was obvious from as soon as Liam started talking at the top of the mountain.  And as "real" as this movie is trying to be,  the best they could come up with for a master plot involved the "microwave emitter". Whatever. How is this any less campy than any of the other movies? The fact that the invented science fiction clashes with the feel f the rest of the movie just makes it worse. 

The tweak of Batman's "real" origin was pointless and annoying. 
First, a minor annoyance, the reason why every other retelling of the Batman origin kept the show Bruce sees with his parents as the movie-version of ZORRO is because Zorro is a masked crime-fighter and its supposed to give young Bruce his sense of justice and the whole masked vigilante idea.
Second, a MAJOR annoyance, was that they chose to make Bruce feel responsible for his parent's death. Guilt should not be a motivation of Batman. Spider-man might sue, and Batman is all anger. 

The fact that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun irritated me to no end. Letting Rachel be the one who changed his outlook was embarassing. The Rachel character was so weak and unconvincing that giving her such power over Batman's "origin"  just doesn't work.

The movie suffers from a definite vibe of trying to hard to be cool. The tank, the demonic Batman image,the ninjas. It came across as "how can i squeeze all these SUPER COOL things into this SUPER COOL movie. better add more SUPER COOL EXPLOSIONS too" 

It also tried to hard to tie everything into a pretty little bow. Rachel is tied into Batman's origin. Falcone uses Crane, who is also working with Ra's who is also tied into Batman's origin. Plus, both Falcone and Ra's have a thing against the Waynes. Enough already. 

Hey look, Its Mr Zsasz. Look there he is again. No, he's not gonna actually do anything, but hey, he was there.  

After getting gassed the first time, why is Bats acting like an idiot in front of Lucius and Alfred? He doesn't have to at like dumb-Bruce with these two. Yet he asks Lucius to dumb the conversation down for him. Maybe this Batman isn't smart, he sure as heck wasn't a detective. This is obviously a comics-gripe. But really, if you just want gadget-guy with no detective skills, why make a Batman movie?

Worst part of the movie: the bat-tank chase sequence. Not only is the tank beyond lame (especially the fact that you have to get horizontal to fire the weapons) BUT batman leads the police on a chase with a complete and total disregard for the safety of the cops or the civilians.  This is inexcusable. Batman is the one hero who doesn't cause random property damage, always makes sure to protect the civilians and would never put a cop's life at risk. 
Then the writer has the nerve to give Alfred the line "It was a miracle that nobody was killed." The writer basically admits that he wrote a stupid irresponisble chase sequence and hopes I'll forgive him because "nobody was killed"? No. 

So movie-Batman is willing to risk other's lives to save his friend because he's still to human and attached to people. Yet he tells Rachel he has no friends, and they whip out the "Bruce is the mask" line at the end of the movie? SORRY, YOU LOSE. you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you write human-Batman, you can't use that line. 

This is a big problem with the movie. It grabs at the bruce-mask line, it grabs at the "super-hero existence creates more dangerous super-villains" , it grabs at all these cute little modern comic psycho-analyzation theories without backing them up in anyway whatsoever in the movie. You aren't deep or introspective just by bringing up one comic quote. 

The final fight with Ra's was also ridiculous. Another mess of a fight scene, followed by complete destruction of the city's infrastructure and Batman leaving Ra's to die. 
What? Oh wait, he (and Alfred) also left at least one guy to die in the burning Wayne manor. If comic book Batman left so many bad guys to die, we wouldn't have any left.

The final nail in the coffin: He told the dumb girl his secret identity. AGAIN. This is what almost made me walk out of the theate in the 2nd batman movie. And they did it again. WHY? Dear god, why?  I weep. 


Caine's Alfred didnt work for me. Too impersonal. Of course, that could have been attributed to the fact that he kept saying "Master Wayne" instead of "Master Bruce". nothing says cold and impersonal like calling your "pseudo-son" by his last name. 

Rachel was your typical pointless, unlikable, love interest shoe-horned into an action movie.

Liam Neeson was Liam Neeson as old wise mentor. Sometimes I wonder if he just doesn't use dialogue from other movies to see if the director catches it. Can we NOT use this guy in any more old , wise mentor roles?  Please? 

Cillian Murphy was very good as Scarecrow, but there was one scene where he seemed to be channeling Jimmy Fallon that really bothered me.  The scarecrow effects were pretty good for the most part. 

Gordon's role left him a non-factor in the movie, but look, young Gordon was the cop who was nice to young Bruce the night his parents were killed. The tie-everything-together disease continues. 

Bale's Batman didnt excite me. He never came across as cool, scary, smart, or competent.  The Batman-voice thing was inconsistent.  He wasn't awful. But he didnt convince me either.  


Overall, the movie fails in trying too hard to be clever and cool and serious that it forgets to be fun, exciting or interesting. It felt like it was just going through the motions.  
With nothing to make me smile or get excited, the only thing I take out of the movie is all the things that made me cringe and wince. 

[/sblock]


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 16, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> (random idea, rather than weeks early review threads and rate threads and what not. how about  3 threads for every movie. 1> before. 2> after without spoilers 3> after with spoilers. )




Psst...this one wasn't posted early. In fact, it wasn't even up a day before.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 17, 2005)

Gave it a 10, but maybe  9.5 would be more appropriate (10's are *really, really* good). In any case- loved it. The only real problem I had was with the final fight- a lot of people have criticized the fight scenes in general, but I actually liked them. I much prefer the fast and gritty fight scenes with random thugs to the 5 minute ballet with Thug #1 that we have seen in all the previous Batman movies. They're redshirts- let's not dwell. On the other hand, the fight with a major villain- in this case Ra's- should and could have been more clearly edited than it was. I couldn't see a lot of what went on, and couldn't understand a lot of their dialogue. Again, though, my only major gripe.

Didn't realize Christopher Nolan was a writer and director until the end credits, but it certainly explained why I kept thinking of Memento as I was watching the movie- even prior to the "Flass" character showing up.

Last thought- Christian Bale is ripped, man! The guy is freakin' huge! Considering his last role (in The Machinist) had him down to a rail thin 110 lbs., this dude bulked up like no one's business! Way bigger than he was in American Psycho. I can't imagine what stress that weight loss/gain has put on his body.

Looking forward to more Batman- though I hope we don't see any of the villains we've already seen (in previous movies), unless they come up with some interesting new takes.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 17, 2005)

stevelabny, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I remembered you mentioned being a fan a while back, so I figured you had concrete reasons for your opinions. I'll spoiler, like you did, with stevelabny's opinions in quotes:

[sblock]

"The movie chooses to start with a really long, tedious take on Batman's origin." 

I actually liked this part, some good background detail, and set things up well for later.

"First, a minor annoyance, the reason why every other retelling of the Batman origin kept the show Bruce sees with his parents as the movie-version of ZORRO is because Zorro is a masked crime-fighter and its supposed to give young Bruce his sense of justice and the whole masked vigilante idea."

Not minor in my mind, perhaps the most senseless departure from the origin story. Did anyone recognize the opera? Was it an actual opera or something created for the movie? Zorro inspired Bob Kane, and Bruce Wayne. No reason for leaving that out.

"Second, a MAJOR annoyance, was that they chose to make Bruce feel responsible for his parent's death. Guilt should not be a motivation of Batman. Spider-man might sue, and Batman is all anger."

Didn't bother me any, logical for a child to feel somewhat responsible.

"The fact that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun irritated me to no end. Letting Rachel be the one who changed his outlook was embarassing. The Rachel character was so weak and unconvincing that giving her such power over Batman's "origin" just doesn't work."

Planning to kill Chill did not bother me, showed that he had vengeance in mind, and rage. I agree the Rachel character was weak though.

"Then the writer has the nerve to give Alfred the line "It was a miracle that nobody was killed." The writer basically admits that he wrote a stupid irresponisble chase sequence and hopes I'll forgive him because "nobody was killed"? No."

Agreed, it was senseless for him to put others are risk just to make his escape and save his friend. Good point.

"So movie-Batman is willing to risk other's lives to save his friend because he's still to human and attached to people. Yet he tells Rachel he has no friends, and they whip out the "Bruce is the mask" line at the end of the movie? SORRY, YOU LOSE. you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you write human-Batman, you can't use that line."

The only problem I had here was I would have preferred them to "show, not tell",  but I guess they dumbed down some. Understandable, but it doesn't make for a better movie that way. 

"The final nail in the coffin: He told the dumb girl his secret identity. AGAIN. This is what almost made me walk out of the theate in the 2nd batman movie. And they did it again. WHY? Dear god, why? I weep."

Agreed, this was my first comment to my friends after the movie. Why do movie superheroes always have to reveal their identities to the girl?

"Caine's Alfred didnt work for me. Too impersonal. Of course, that could have been attributed to the fact that he kept saying "Master Wayne" instead of "Master Bruce". nothing says cold and impersonal like calling your "pseudo-son" by his last name."

This observation really convinces me stevelabny knows and cares about the character. Great point, I agree.

"Cillian Murphy was very good as Scarecrow, but there was one scene where he seemed to be channeling Jimmy Fallon that really bothered me. The scarecrow effects were pretty good for the most part."

Agreed, great Scarecrow. His eyes even looked like he was full of crazy.

"Bale's Batman didnt excite me. He never came across as cool, scary, smart, or competent. The Batman-voice thing was inconsistent. He wasn't awful. But he didnt convince me either."

The point on which we disagree the most. Bale is easily the best screen Batman ever. 

[/sblock]

Thanks to your well-reasoned analysis, my rating goes down to an 8. Great points, but they did not bother me as much as they did you, and they still got more right than they got wrong. Still the best Batman movie, in my opinion.


----------



## Greylock (Jun 17, 2005)

Solid 8. I'll pay to see it again, and I'll pay when it comes out on DVD. That last is saying a lot for me. I don't buy many movies.


----------



## Logan (Jun 17, 2005)

Gave it a nine.  Best Batman movie I've seen.  I have high hopes for the new Bat-franchise, they are certianly off to a good start.   About the only thing I didn't like was the fight sences, I hate short cut fight sences,  it drives me nuts.  
oh well, great flick, though.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 17, 2005)

Hmmm.....just got back from the movie, to find my home vandalised 

Overall, awesome, awesome film.  I have to admit, I couldn't stand the ones with Michael Keaton, etc.  This though, was dark, brooding, humorous.....

Batman was believable.  The writing was pretty good for an action movie, though the action was dark.  At times it was hard to see what was going on.  But cool, overall.

And the Batmobile....where do I buy one? 

Banshee


----------



## Berandor (Jun 17, 2005)

Batman Begins origin answer:


Spoiler



The show they see is - I think - Faust. I thought it was alright.


----------



## Ibram (Jun 17, 2005)

Batman Begins is an awsomely cool movie, the best I've seen this year (or the past few years for that matter).

anyone who disagrees is a communist


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 17, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> It's the not the movie I would have written, therefore it must suck.



You were right -- that was pretty incoherent.  

I thought it one of the better movies I've seen this year.  If only they'd have actually filmed some fight scenes, instead of just pretending to, I'd have given it the higher nine, or even a ten (instead of the nine that's really eight.)  I do think it's kinda insulting to do that type of filmwork, though.  You can be nasty, brutish and short and still actually show the audience what's happening.  If not, you need better fight choreographers.  And if your actors can't do it, have you ever heard of stuntmen?


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 17, 2005)

I've adored Christian Bale for years, ever since he played an adorable newspaper boy in Disney's "Newsies."  He's a very underrated actor. He's got a heckuva lotta talent.

I think he's the only actor who's played Batman who has actually read the comics and graphic novels.  Heard a sound byte on the Bob & Tom show this morning where he was talking about how he was trying to portray some elements of the graphic novels in his performance.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 18, 2005)

Has anyone witnessed a better ending in a comic book film adaptation?  I mean, that last scene between The Batman and Gordon on the roof top...  The discussion of escalation (with excellent real world references)...  The disappearance of The Scarecrow and the proliferation of the inmates...  And _the card scene_!!!!!  I got chills when I saw that.  And they dragged it out so long, too!  The closest I've _ever_ to having that level of anticipation for a hoped for sequel (preferrably with the same talent all the way around) was at the end of _X2_.  

Did anyone feel the same way?

Also, did you all notice that all of the elements from the comics were there, even if they were slightly adjusted for the film?  Ra's Al Ghul's motivations were virtually identical...  He viewed himself as honorable, as righteous, and that he needed an heir.  Gordon was a normal, incredibly good man in a tough predicament who's made stronger by the presence of another man not bound by the same limitations.  Dr. Crane was perfect in this, hands down.  His whole clinical nature and the manner in which he responded to everything (he's only _ever_ scared once and that's during his second meeting with The Batman).  The only thing missing was The Batman's detective skills to significant degree.   Here's to hoping that we'll see more of this in the sequel (please, Chris Nolan and Christian Bale, come back!!!!).


----------



## David Howery (Jun 18, 2005)

hmm... Christian Bale was also the hero in "Reign of Fire"... but I notice nobody is claiming that is one of their favorite Bale movies...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 18, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Perhaps the greatest culprit in degenerating the quality of comics as a genre occured in the late 1960s with _Batman_.  This show single-handedly shattered any concept of involved, sophisticated storytelling for years and solidified in many people's minds the idea that comics were not to be taken seriously, were not to draw on real world inspirations, were not for anything but the most myopic of children.




I think you kind of missed the point of the 1960s Batman TV series:  it wasn't _supposed_ to make people start taking comic books seriously as an art form.  The show was a parody of the comic books, and a pretty brilliant one at that.  The show had lots of action to appeal for kids, and some surprisingly clever humor that adults would get.  Oh, and who could forget Burgess Meredith's great portrayal of the Penguin?  Personally, I thought that the 1960s Batman TV series was great. 

Back to the topic, though:  I gave Batman Begins a 9 out of 10.  It was great in almost every respect, but I didn't really like Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Plus, his "raspy bat-voice" when he was in-costume struck me as more silly than intimidating.  I also didn't like the "extreme close-up shaky cam" that nearly every movie fight scene seems to use nowadays (hell, even Lord of the Rings used that technique in some scenes, why do so many filmmakers use it?).


----------



## ForceUser (Jun 18, 2005)

This is, without a doubt, the best Batman movie ever made, and possibly the best super hero movie ever made. Very well done!


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 18, 2005)

I gave it 4. 

I thought that the character bits were decent, but the action was as weak as hell. Poorly shot, choppy and incoherent. Yes I understand the effect the Nolan was going for, I'm just saying that it didnt work for me. If I'm watching action on the screen I'd actually like to see the action. The glimpses of batman worked for the scene at the docks, but even the fights with @ the LOS HQ were done pretty poorly. 

Keep Nolan for the character bits, but get a decent action director or capable 2nd unit guy to frame and shoot the fight scenes. A big part of Big summer action movies for me are the fight scenes and this one failed miserably. 

On a positive note, my favorite line in the movie:

Flass : "Swear to God!!!"
Batman : "Swear to ME!!!"


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 18, 2005)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I gave it 4.




Thank you. I thought I was all alone in this world.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 18, 2005)

I gave it an eight, though it's really more of a 7.5... I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and was in a good mood after seeing Mr. & Mrs. Smith, a much lighter movie to get me in the mood.

One point off for Katie Holmes, who I honestly thought was terrible.  If one thing hurt the movie for me, it was her.  She's a small screen girl, and she needs to stay there.

One point off for terrible fight scenes, especially considering how choppy they were.  Say what you will about the crappiness of Matrix: Reloaded, it set the bar IMO for action scenes (even the CGI Smith scene), and this movie was a fart in the wind compared to it.  Really should have taken two points off, but again, in a good mood.

Half a point off for everyone looking so young.  Okay, not Alfred, Gordon, or Lucius, all of whom are supposed to be old.  Bale did not look thirty (though in actuality he's 31), Holmes looked like she was maybe twenty-five.  Murphy looked twenty-one.  I had real trouble believing these were adults in the film.  Maybe I'm just resisting the fact that I'm twenty-five and becoming an adult myself, who knows?


----------



## Klaus (Jun 18, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> hmm... Christian Bale was also the hero in "Reign of Fire"... but I notice nobody is claiming that is one of their favorite Bale movies...



 ::looks around and timidly raises hand::

Hey, it's got Bale, dragons, Matthew McConahue (sp) playing a dwarf barbarian... That's a d20 Modern/Apocalypse setting on its own! And the Star Wars reenaction was priceless! (got meself the DVD)

And I'll add another favorite Bale movie: Shaft! "YOU WANT MY SHOE???"


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 18, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ::looks around and timidly raises hand::
> 
> Hey, it's got Bale, dragons, Matthew McConahue (sp) playing a dwarf barbarian... That's a d20 Modern/Apocalypse setting on its own! And the Star Wars reenaction was priceless! (got meself the DVD)
> 
> And I'll add another favorite Bale movie: Shaft! "YOU WANT MY SHOE???"



I'm with Claudio - I thought RoF was much fun.  As was Shaft.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 18, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I think you kind of missed the point of the 1960s Batman TV series:  it wasn't _supposed_ to make people start taking comic books seriously as an art form.  The show was a parody of the comic books, and a pretty brilliant one at that.  The show had lots of action to appeal for kids, and some surprisingly clever humor that adults would get.  Oh, and who could forget Burgess Meredith's great portrayal of the Penguin?  Personally, I thought that the 1960s Batman TV series was great.



I didn't miss "the point" of the series...  I just disagree with its take on comics in general and on The Batman in particular.  That kind of camp would have been far more appropriate in a more "light-hearted" character than The Batman.  Although I enjoyed it as a child and still watch it any time it comes on television, I think that its take on Batman and on comics severely damaged the nature of comics for almost 20 years (although one could argue that Dr. Wertham and others like him in the 50s were more culpable).  As for the humor being appealing to adults...  Well, I think that adults found the humor tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it was "clever."

As for Burgess Meredith's portrayal, it was all fine and good.  I've always preferred Cesar (sp?) Romero's Joker.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 18, 2005)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I gave it 4.
> 
> I thought that the character bits were decent, but the action was as weak as hell. Poorly shot, choppy and incoherent. Yes I understand the effect the Nolan was going for, I'm just saying that it didnt work for me. If I'm watching action on the screen I'd actually like to see the action. The glimpses of batman worked for the scene at the docks, but even the fights with @ the LOS HQ were done pretty poorly.



I don't get it...  You mean that your disdain for the fight scenes were enough to override the characterizations, the great dialogue (like the one you mention), and the overall story?  

 :\


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 18, 2005)

> Christian Bale was also the hero in "Reign of Fire"... but I notice nobody is claiming that is one of their favorite Bale movies...



 *shrug*  I like it.  There's no way everyone in the world is going to like every film made by one actor.  And he's done a lot of independent film work, but the man's gotta feed his family; RoF made some decent money, if I remember correctly.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 18, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I don't get it...  You mean that your disdain for the fight scenes were enough to override the characterizations, the great dialogue (like the one you mention), and the overall story?
> 
> :\




Look, I dont want to get into some long discussion about my criteria for a good action film. But it's like this TO ME, BATMAN BEGINS was supposed to have been a combination of character driven drama AND action. Seriously, there are plenty of character driven dramas out there, alot better than BEGINS. The selling point for me and alot of people are the @ss beatings that Batman hands out between the angst and the presentation of those beatdowns were handled poorly. 

If you don't get that, it's OK. But for me I need the balance of good story AND good action.


----------



## The Serge (Jun 18, 2005)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Look, I dont want to get into some long discussion about my criteria for a good action film. But it's like this TO ME, BATMAN BEGINS was supposed to have been a combination of character driven drama AND action. Seriously, there are plenty of character driven dramas out there, alot better than BEGINS. The selling point for me and alot of people are the @ss beatings that Batman hands out between the angst and the presentation of those beatdowns were handled poorly.
> 
> If you don't get that, it's OK. But for me I need the balance of good story AND good action.



I get it to a degree.  What I don't get is how that could knock your rating from 10 to 4...  Especially in light of your other comments.  It seems like your vote would have been a 6 or 7.

Whatever, though...  I've learned not to expect consistency or logic in many movie or book discussions all the time.  That's not a knock...  There are movies I hate despite recognizing that they're good movies.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 19, 2005)

Just saw it this afternoon. I gave it a 9, near perfection.
Hands down the best Batman movie ever, and perhaps even the best superhero movie ever!

I can see what some people are saying about the fight scenes, but I believe it was done with a purpose. It's explained in the movie even as Ducard trains Wayne about what a fight is. But sure they could have thrown us a little action candy with the final fight.

I didn't notice any problems with Batmans voice, but I've read articles where they explain that Batman has a voice changer / speakers built into the suit.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/batsuit.htm


> The microphones in the ears are combined with special earpieces in the cowl that give Batman superior hearing in the field. The microphones can also be used to amplify Batman's voice and broadcast it through a discreet speaker in the suit. This is what gives Batman's voice that distinctive, disembodied and unearthly sound.





Like Ebert said, this is not only a good superhero movie, it's a good MOVIE movie. Nolan did an excellent job building the character of Batman. My girlfriend who I dragged along, and is a tough film critic actually turned to me at the end and said it was "excellent".


----------



## Jarrod (Jun 19, 2005)

I liked it. It was a fun movie, and I didn't have time to spend analyzing it in the middle. As a friend noted afterwards, they even pulled off the pseudo-science that normally annoys the heck out of us.



Spoiler



Microwave generator that can vaporize water in the mains but doesn't nuke the people standing right next to it? Sheesh.



My only two real faults with the movie are 1) the action shots (ugh, shaky-cam). The LoS fear fight was well done for the "you can't tell where they are", and the first mook fight for the "he disappeared, where'd he go?". The rest were just seizure-inducing. C'mon, spend some money on stuntmen and show us what's going on. And 2) I didn't like the music. How is it that all Hans Zimmer music sounds the same? Batman Begins sounded very similar to the action scenes in The Rock, and Pirates of the Caribbean (not Hans Zimmer, but he consulted), and National Treasure, and...

And _man_ the supporting cast was great. Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman.... they made the movie.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 19, 2005)

Jarrod said:
			
		

> I liked it. It was a fun movie, and I didn't have time to spend analyzing it in the middle. As a friend noted afterwards, they even pulled off the pseudo-science that normally annoys the heck out of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




re: your spoiler
Agreed, I had the same question  
But it IS a comic book movie    so I was willing to let that one go, especially since the rest was so well done.




> And _man_ the supporting cast was great. Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman.... they made the movie.




Definately, this movie had a very high quality feel to it. Much of that I think had to do with the casting.

One other point I forgot to make in my original post. I was quite happy to see a "summer blockbuster" movie that wasn't dependent on rubbing it's special effects in my face.    This movie felt very real, or true. I'd be hard pressed to think of any scenes that were obviously 'blue-screened'.

I sincerely hope that Christopher Nolan and the main cast return for the sequel.


----------



## Pants (Jun 19, 2005)

Gave it a 9. On second thought, I'd probably give it an 8 or a very high 7.

Great development of Bruce Wayne. Generally good acting, though Bale's Batman voice wasn't my favorite and I don't think that Holmes can act all that well. It's just too bad that the movie is brought down by a rather nebulous plot involving a microwave thingie and lots and lots of collateral damage. Add in the very little closure about what happened to those people exposed to the gas and it's sad to see this otherwise great film brought low.

The fight scenes didn't bother me too much, although they overdid the 'shaky what the hell is going on effect' a little too much. I liked the fight scenes in Bourne Identity, but Batman Begins kicked it up a notch... and not in a good way.

The Scarecrow turned out a lot better than I thought.


----------



## rom90125 (Jun 19, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> You know what would have been perfect?
> 
> This Batman movie with the fight scenes from "Ong Bak". That would have been a straight 10.
> 
> Without the coherent fight scenes, I give it a 9, because the fights didn't really matter too much. It probably won't be a big blockbuster, though, since there's a long stretch without any action.




For this reason, and the Rachel character, I also gave it a 9.  I felt Nolan would have been better off introducing Dent in this film then force a 'love story' subplot into the mix.  I understand why Dent wasn't seen (I imagine they will want a big-name actor for the part, and the budget for this film probably couldn't support it) but it would have saved the audience some cringe-worthy moments.  

The rumblings I've read (mainly at http://batman-on-film.com) are that Dent will be brought into the mix in the next film.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 19, 2005)

The only thing I can really complain about is how much of a 'pilot movie' it was.

Man, now I'll have to wait for two or three years for the next episode. Damnit.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 19, 2005)

I thought the movie was good, still likes '89 better IMO. The only thing that baothered me about the movie, and this has been a theme through out the other BAtman films as well, was the fact that the female lead always finds out who the man beneath the cowl is.

_Batman_ Alfred brings Vikki Vale to the bat cave
_Batman Returns_ Dialogue between Selena & Bruce is repeated when they fight as Batman & Catwoman
_Batman Forever_ IIRC he comes out and tells Dr. Chase Maridian.
_Batman & Robin_ I am drawing a blank since the movie does not exist
_Batman Begins_ Dialogue between Bruce and Rachel is repeated when he saves her.

Why do they insists on doing that in every movie, can't the movie end with out the female lead knowing who is behind the mask.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 20, 2005)

I wouldnt see a problem with it if the female lead STAYED the female lead. If they change women for the next movie then I'd have a problemw ith it. If Rachel (and the lovely Joey, err i mean Ms Tom Cruise) stays teh female lead I think it will be ok.

As for why? I thought it was plain to see. Bruce really does love her, or at least yurns for her approval. The movie paints her as his moral compass. He trusts her as much as he trusts Alfred. 

Now, on the topic of Alfred. I know the actor did a good job, but seriously, I kept thinking he was gonna start speaking in British or that he'd jump into a Blue Mini Coop. Austin Powers Faaaaaaaaaaasssa as Alfred? heh.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 20, 2005)

10.

Superb in every imaginable way, the best comic book movie ever and probably knocks off _Unleashed_ as the best film this year.

IMO, anyone complaining about the fight scenes misses the point completely.  The fight scenes in _Batman Begins_ are filmed horror-movie style rather than action-movie style, with the hero in the monster's part.  It's an amazing twist and superbly done if one doesn't go into it expecting "superhero movie" fights.

I didn't mind Katie Holmes' Rachel character.  If the series switches female leads, I'll agree with those who ragged on her; as a recurring character, she was both necessary to the plot and well-done.

Christian Bale was absolutely unbelievable... except that I expected nothing less than perfection from him since the day I heard he'd have the part.  As an aside, I enjoyed _Revenge of the Sith_ (albeit much, much less than _Batman Begins_), but Bale would have been the perfect Anakin Skywalker, too.

The Scarecrow was great, too, except that he was much more terrifying without the mask.  Great casting, great job.

Liam Neeson was... well, the same role he's been playing in pretty much every movie lately, but he's sure good at it.  

The rest of the cast, the pacing, the set designs... all superb.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 20, 2005)

Brilliant.  Gave it a 9, degraded from a 10 mostly because of the choppy fight scenes and Katie Holmes, who just seemed to stick out like a sore thumb.  DC finally has something that stacks up against the X-Men and Spider-Man films.  Here's hoping the new Superman movie also rules, and that they get busy on a GL flick.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 20, 2005)

gave it a 7 should have gone with an 8, I liked it for its dialog and characters they were very good.  It's weakness; Katie Holmes - don't get me wrong she is cute and a fine actress but I am media'd out on her and all things Tom, I think this hurt the movie.  

(Okay, I know, someone is going to point out how much I liked Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the media of the stars, the difference: the public display.)


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 20, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> 10.
> 
> IMO, anyone complaining about the fight scenes misses the point completely.  The fight scenes in _Batman Begins_ are filmed horror-movie style rather than action-movie style, with the hero in the monster's part.  It's an amazing twist and superbly done if one doesn't go into it expecting "superhero movie" fights.





See i read that "horror movie" bit an review somewhere, so youre not saying anything new. For the encounter on the docks and at the apt where Bats first runs into Scarecrow it works. But the fight scenes are poorly shot from the get go (including the stuff at the LOS HQ and the final fight between Batman and Ras' on the monorail was just awful.  

It's as simple as this and it has nothing to do with "superhero movie" fights. When I see someone throw a punch or a kick, I expect to see that puchh or kick make contact or see why it didnt make contact. 

So seriously, I "GET" what Nolan was trying to do, it was IMHO, done poorly. I study movie fights and for the most part I understand why things are shot a certain way and why things are framed the way that they are. It's not a "twist", it's was a stylistic choice. I didnt expect a "superhero movie" fight in BOURNE IDENTITY, but that movie had one of the best hand to hand exchanges in movie in a good long while. The 1st BLADE which you could call a "superhero type movie" had pretty good fight scenes. Hell, even the brief hand to hand exchange in COLLATERAL was shot in a dark club, with Tom Cruise as a sociopathic hitman, you could still SEE what he was doing. He was DIRECT, QUICK and BRUTAL. The way that you would expect to SEE Batman fight. But I didnt get that, so for me the movie was less than satisfying.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 20, 2005)

Jarrod said:
			
		

> And 2) I didn't like the music. How is it that all Hans Zimmer music sounds the same? Batman Begins sounded very similar to the action scenes in The Rock, and Pirates of the Caribbean (not Hans Zimmer, but he consulted), and National Treasure, and...



Really?  I loved the music.  I'll probably pick up the soundtrack so I can add it to my mix of stuff I use for my rpg sessions.  Don't forget; the soundtrack was a collaberation of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard.  I love most of the work of both of them -- I've got several of their soundtracks as integral parts of my RPG session soundtracks, and I'd continue to add more if I could justify buying more soundtrack CDs along with all the other crap I buy.  I like the tracklist for the soundtrack too --

1. Vespertilio        
2. Eptesicus        
3. Myotis        
4. Barbastella        
5. Artibeus        
6. Tadarida        
7. Macrotus        
8. Antrozous        
9. Nycteris        
10. Molossus        
11. Corynorhinus        
12. Lasiurus


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 20, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> IMO, anyone complaining about the fight scenes misses the point completely.  The fight scenes in _Batman Begins_ are filmed horror-movie style rather than action-movie style, with the hero in the monster's part.  It's an amazing twist and superbly done if one doesn't go into it expecting "superhero movie" fights.



No, we don't.  It makes sense for the docks scene where Batman is pulling the mooks up into the air and scaring the piss out of them, but it sucks for his League of Shadows training and the final confrontation on the train.  There's no good reason to use the style there except the _real_ point of those fight scenes: no good stunt choreographer and no good stuntmen.


----------



## Krug (Jun 20, 2005)

Man this was great, except for some choppy editing for the action sequences. Great dialogue and story, and washed away the bad taste of the last two Batman movies. 9/10. Best summer movie so far this year.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 20, 2005)

> IMO, anyone complaining about the fight scenes misses the point completely. The fight scenes in Batman Begins are filmed horror-movie style rather than action-movie style, with the hero in the monster's part. It's an amazing twist and superbly done if one doesn't go into it expecting "superhero movie" fights.



I was fine with the fight scenes, and I agree with the above.

I gave the movie a 9. I would have given a 9.5 [though not possible in this scale] but for the car chase scene. I kept thinking of all the property damage and all the potential for an innocent bystander to be injured or killed (lots of debris). Not heroic.

I liked the '89 Batman OK. It was a comic book movie. I didn't like any of the following franchise movies. This movie, though, was more than a comic book movie. I've never been a big fan of Batman. I always saw him as cocky, spoiled (I got powers 'cause I bought 'em), and angsty because it set him apart from other heroes. This movie sold me on Batman.

Gordon: "I never got to say 'Thank you.'"

Batman: "And you'll never have to."

By god, but *that* is a hero.

Quasqueton


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 20, 2005)

> It's weakness; Katie Holmes - don't get me wrong she is cute and a fine actress but I am media'd out on her and all things Tom, I think this hurt the movie.





I heard a movie critic on the _Today_ show this morning talking about how the Cruise-Holmes real-life saga currently going on is the only thing boosting sales of tickets for this film.  The critic was bemoaning the fact that now actors/actresses will have to create real-life drama to encourage big box-office.  I thought it sort of odd that this is the thinking in Hollywood; there wasn't any drama between actors for _Revenge of the Sith_ and it still did very well at the box office.  I think Hollywood is once again ignoring the fan base - which is what's really making the money for the film - and expects real life drama to reel in the bucks.  Sad.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 20, 2005)

Yeah, my wife saw that too.  I should point out, though, that Leonard Maltin is one of _very few_ critics who doesn't like this movie.

And him linking Katie Holmes real-life romance to the movie sales is just insulting and petty, IMO.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 20, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I didn't mind Katie Holmes' Rachel character.




If and when the new francise goes on, I wonder if they will do anything with the characters of Salina Kyle, Talia Head, Pamala Isley, Vickie Vale and any other women who have become involved eith Bats over the years.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The Scarecrow was great, too, except that he was much more terrifying without the mask.  Great casting, great job.




The actor (Cillian Murphy?) was also good in 28 Days Later. The Scarecrow was a good choice, a warm up that worked well with the large LOS but did not pose too much trouble for Batman. That role is reserve for the Joker.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Liam Neeson was... well, the same role he's been playing in pretty much every movie lately...




Really? At what point do you think Ducard sat down with Bruce and quizzed him about his sexual history?


----------



## Jamdin (Jun 20, 2005)

I give Batman Begins a 9 since it basically updated the mythos for a new generation.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 20, 2005)

The opera was actually "Der Fledermaus." ("The Bat.")


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 20, 2005)

I gave it a solid 9.  Had no problem whatsoever with the fight scenes.  Batman picking off goons "Predator"-style was freaking wicked.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 20, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I am media'd out on her and all things Tom, I think this hurt the movie.
> 
> (Okay, I know, someone is going to point out how much I liked Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the media of the stars, the difference: the public display.)



See, you should follow Fanboy's Pre-Movie Enjoyment Plan(TM) and not follow movie star gosip. I find I enjoy movies a lot more when I know nothing about an actor's personal life.   

Sadly, I can't always follow my own plan. I'll be listening to the radio and sudenly be accosted with movie star gosip. Fortunately, I have lots of pre-sets 

The change from Zorro to opera is one that I like, now that I've seen the whole movie. It changes Bruces movtivations from simply revenge to guilt+revenge. There would have been no motivation for Bruce to want to leave early if it had been a Zorro movie. Leaving early allowed them to leave when the streets were less croweded, and the kind of confrontation that the Wayne's die in is more credible with fewer people around.


----------



## Abraxas (Jun 21, 2005)

> See, you should follow Fanboy's Pre-Movie Enjoyment Plan(TM) and not follow movie star gosip. I find I enjoy movies a lot more when I know nothing about an actor's personal life.



I'll second this - there are too many actors around now that if they are in a film I won't go see it cause I'm not going to subsidize wackos - If I listened to any more there won't be any movies I'll be able to watch.

I gave it a soild 9. The weapon from "Simon Bar Sinister's big book of fiendish machines" and Katie Holmes are what knocked it down from a 10.

I thought the soundtrack was great and am definitely going to be picking it up.
I really liked the fight scenes (its the only time that I've ever liked shaky cam).
I really liked the Scarecrow (the only other costumed villain in the Batman movies since the 60's that I liked was Carrey's Riddler).
Bale is the best Bruce Wayne/Batman so far (and I also liked RoF).
And overall I liked everyone in the cast, not one of those actors is on my "Boy do they Bug Me" list.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 21, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The opera was actually "Der Fledermaus." ("The Bat.")



 Actually, no, it was Faust. Unless there's a Mephistophele in Die Fledermaus (the IMDB credits list the tenor as playing Mephistophele).

I gave this movie a 10, 'cause the poll won't let me vote 11.



SPOILERS ABOUND, SO BEGONE!!!!!




Christian Bale -> There aren't enough praises to make justice to his work. Even if I didn't know that his previous work was The Machinist, I'd still be impressed at his physical condition. The man was built like a brick wall! His Bruce Wayne was top notch, and his Batman was the best I have ever seen. "I-I swear to God!" "Swear to ME!". 

Michael Caine -> The best compliment I can give to the Alfred/Bruce scenes is that at times it felt like watching the Animated Series. "If you're out to battle crime, I hope you'll conceal your identity, to protect the ones you care about.""You're talking about Rachel?""Actually, sir, I was talking about me..."

Morgan Freeman -> A small part, but Freeman made it work perfectly. And the corporate maneuver to place Fox where he is portrayed in the regular Batman mythos (that is, as defacto head of Wayne Enterprises) was brilliant!

Gary Oldman -> He is the everyman in this, who marvels at the Batmobile and sees Batman for what he truly can accomplish. Gordon manages to be serious and yet to serve as comic relief when most needed (his reactions inside the Batmobile were great).

Rutger Hauer -> "Didn't you get the memo?" indeed! 

Liam Neeson -> I knew the truth about his character as soon as I saw his first picture! I knew it! And it was still great! Liam plays the mentor figure really well, but managed to stay sharp even as he turned into villain. No scenery-chewin' here, thank you very much. His serene posture when facing certain (?) death was great.

Ken Watanabe -> I didn't see Last Samurai, so this was my first exposure to his work. I was certainly impressed. I wonder if his character was actually named Ubu... 

Cillian Murphy -> There's something very wrong with this man. He plays crazy tooooo well!

Katie Holmes -> She did a decent enough job (she hasn't been overexposed down here, so I won't hold the Cruise saga against her). Her one-sided smirk is her weakness, though...

The Microwave Emitter -> I don't have a problem with it. First, it's a Plot Device (tm). Second, one could argue that it evaporates purified water, and the H2O is the human body isn't purified, so the microwaves pass right through ya.

Gotham -> This is a true crime-ridden city, believable in every way. Far less operatic than Burton's Gotham, it just increased the scope of the movie (since it wasn't restricted to sound stages.

Arkham -> Amazing! Smack in the middle of the worst neighboorhood, and it looks like a true asylum inside (Hannibal Lecter would fit right in!). Batman's stroll along the cell blocks with his swarm of bats crystalized his image in the minds of all inmates who saw him, so now they have a reason to be obsessed with the Bat.

The Final Scene -> That interplay spoke volumes about how good this movie is. It explained why Gotham will become what we know it will become (a running ground for freaks). And the card... that scene is brilliant!

The costume and the car -> It all works, it all seems realistic... Kudos to the producers!

Forget the other attempts. Now I can finally say "I saw a Batman movie".


----------



## devilbat (Jun 21, 2005)

I gave it an 8.  I thought it was a great movie, all in all.  A few things I didn't like though.

I thought Katie Holmes was brutal.
I didn't like "The Voice"
I thought Batman's cowl was to big.
I wopuld have liked to see something referencing Bruce Wayne's intellectual training.  He is the "World's greatest detective" after all.  Not jus the Worlds greatest fighter.

Everything else was excellent.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 21, 2005)

A solid 9.

I really enjoyed it. A great movie, superb cast and incredibly well done. 

Sir Michael Caine was really cool as Alfred. 
Christian Bale surely is the best Batman actor so far and by far.

There was one thing, I really wondered about, tho...

[sblock]Why didn't the microwaves evaporate the humans, too? [/sblock]

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jun 22, 2005)

A very solid 9, and the best movie for quite some time.

My take on the microwaves:


Spoiler



IIRC it was mentioned that the microwaves are concentrated at a specific point, aiming at the water supply. It wasn't aimed at humans, so none have been vaporized.
It's still superhero science, but makes somewhat more sense.


 



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Christian Bale -> There aren't enough praises to make justice to his work. Even if I didn't know that his previous work was The Machinist, I'd still be impressed at his physical condition. The man was built like a brick wall! His Bruce Wayne was top notch, and his Batman was the best I have ever seen. "I-I swear to God!" "Swear to ME!".




Christian Bale seems to be the young (relatively speaking) actor to watch. He goes from top-notch-performance to even-better-performance, and he might well be the Daniel Day-Lewis of our time, if it wasn't for the fact that he stars in more than one movie every 5 years 

Anyway, I was very impressed - especially considering the co-stars and Bale's ability to not seem weak in comparison. To the contrary.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 22, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> A solid 9.
> 
> I really enjoyed it. A great movie, superb cast and incredibly well done.
> 
> Sir Michael Caine was really cool as Alfred.



Definitely.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 22, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Rent Equilibrium. Seriously. Right now. It's hard to find in most video stores, but it's available on Netflix. Heck, I'd almost recommend buying it sight unseen, I thought it was that good.
> 
> It's the movie that convinced me they'd chosen right when they first cast Bale.




I bought Equilibrium on a whim (bargain bin ex-rental) and it has probably become my most watched DVD - I loved the story and I thought Bale was spot-on in it. Like Mouseferatu I was delighted that he was cast as Batman on the basis of his role in Equilibrium.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 22, 2005)

I would have voted 9 but having *every* fight scene done in such a way that you can't see the action irritated me, and brought it down to an 8. As others have said it makes sense for the mooks, but not for the major fight scenes - and if you've seen equilibrium you'll probably agree that Bale does fight scenes pretty well when the choreography is there.

For the record I hated the Bourne Second Coming with its shaky camerawork. 

The very best 'finish em quick' fight scenes I remember seeing where in Brotherhood of the Rose (four part TV movie about CIA assassins http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096985/ ). The hand to hand combats with Peter Strauss and others were all short and brutal - the way that you'd expect them to be when highly trained people are involved.

Cheers


----------



## ssampier (Jun 23, 2005)

I liked it, I saw it on a whim (relatives wanted to go and I didn't have any other plans). Overall I give a 8, I think the acting and casting was good.

My main criticisms were there was too many "tiered" adversaries; the mob boss, the scare-crow, then Ra's Al Ghul. Furthermore, I thought scare-crow was defeated too quickly. He was such a neat character, I was disappointed that he wasn't the main adversary. He's literally a psychological villian, I would like to see more cunning; i.e. a villian that messes with your head.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 23, 2005)

As to Batman's Detective Training: I think Lucius Fox will see to that  I'm sure in the following movies, Batman would take Fox's role in this one, too. I think Nolan thought having Batman invent his equipment and a cure even though he spent the last years as a criminal or in prison would have stretched the "realism" he tried to bring to the movie.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 23, 2005)

A solid 10.  Not entirely perfect, but I wouldn't change anything.  The fight scenes weren't as blurry or jumpy as Bourne Supremacy (which was made irritating because the excellent fight sequences of the first film set a standard they essentially violated, IMHO), and sometimes it worked more than other for me...but I never felt annoyed by the jumps; in fact sometimes I felt they were entirely appropriate.

Awesome performances, solid writing (I like how things like the blades on his gloves came from Ra's gauntlet design; I really liked how he arrived at the bat design slowly, rather than just "I shall become a BAT!" of the original comic) and some really great characterizations.  I loved how the Scarecrow WAS the Scarecrow, and not some ninja-trained version of same.  A good left hook could take him out (



Spoiler



or taser, as the case may be


).  Oldman's Jim Gordon was an unexpected gem, and Gordon's significant role was very welcome.

Maybe Stevelabny's audience didn't applaud, but mine did.  They cheered when Lucius Fox gave Earle his notice, and enjoyed the film immensely.  Valanthe and I turned to each other at the end and said "Best. Batman. EVAR".

Oh, and I gotta get me one of those.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> AValanthe and I turned to each other at the end and said "Best. Batman. EVAR".
> 
> Oh, and I gotta get me one of those.



What, a Batman?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

No, a virus that makes people insane.


----------



## Ghostwind (Jun 23, 2005)

I saw it last night finally with my Dad and thought it was a brilliant film (gave it a 10). It worked on so many levels from the actual story to the subtle humor that was strung out through the whole thing (especially the line about Alfred knowing one joke). I plan on seeing it a second time with my wife in the next couple of weeks hopefully.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 23, 2005)

I gave it an 8, and definitely think it's my favorite of the Batman movies.

But best _comic book_ movie ever?

I dunno, maybe it comes down to personal preference for the heroes themselves, but for my money Spiderman (I or II, take your pick) is still the reigning champ for _comic book_ movies. They're fantastic in every way.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 23, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I gave it an 8, and definitely think it's my favorite of the Batman movies.
> 
> But best _comic book_ movie ever?
> 
> I dunno, maybe it comes down to personal preference for the heroes themselves, but for my money Spiderman (I or II, take your pick) is still the reigning champ for _comic book_ movies. They're fantastic in every way.




EDIT: Whoa whoa whoa! Back the train up. _The Incredibles_ would be the hands-down champ, but I won't count it because (a) it's animated, and I think it's implied that we're looking for real people playing comic book heroes; and (b) they're not based on an existing comic book. But The Incredibles is the best _superhero_ movie _ever._


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2005)

I think it holds its own fairly well with the Spider-man franchise, though.  And personally, I'd put X2 up there as well -- that was some damn fine comic book adaptation.

But if you leave aside superhero comics, I think Road to Perdition is by far a better movie than all the rest of them combined.  Of course, it doesn't feel at all like a comic book movie, and although it is based on a graphic novel, I don't think it really should count.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But if you leave aside superhero comics, I think Road to Perdition is by far a better movie than all the rest of them combined.  Of course, it doesn't feel at all like a comic book movie, and although it is based on a graphic novel, I don't think it really should count.




No, neither do I-- but if you're going to go that route, put Sin City right up near the top.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 23, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: Whoa whoa whoa! Back the train up. _The Incredibles_ would be the hands-down champ, but I won't count it because (a) it's animated, and I think it's implied that we're looking for real people playing comic book heroes; and (b) they're not based on an existing comic book. But The Incredibles is the best _superhero_ movie _ever._



 Y'see, The Incredibles never 'cliqued' with me... I kept hearing all kinds of praises about it, but when I watched it on DVD, I just expected... more.

Batman Begins, IMHO, is the best comic book or superhero movie ever (topping the first Superman, who was faithful to the comics at the time, including time reversal).


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, neither do I-- but if you're going to go that route, put Sin City right up near the top.



I expect that's probably true -- but I can't make that claim, because I missed Sin City in theatres.  I'm waiting for the DVD release now.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 24, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> No, neither do I-- but if you're going to go that route, put Sin City right up near the top.




True that.  For totally faithful adaption, nothing tops Sin City, a near shot for shot and word for word reproduction of the comic.  The incredibles is easily the best Superhero movie made, IMHO, while the best superhero movies include X2, Spiderman 2,  Superman the Movie and now Batman Begins.  X2 is faithful in concept and execution, if not letter of the law, in the same vein of BB, which doesn't follow the canon....but let's be honest, here: the canon has been rewritten a half-dozen times for most of these characters.  Batman's prehistory has been clarified, redefined and slightly rewritten for decades.  Spiderman...well, not's go there, shall we (even if you ignore the 'clone' nonsense, we still have John Byrne's....contributions).

The fact is that as I get older, I care less and less about being specific to the canon of the comics, when the comics aren't really that internally consistent to begin with.  What I'm concerned with is when they distill the original characters and concepts down to a pure form and pass it back to me anew.  Batman Begins did just that.  

The original '88 Batman movie was like water to a man in a desert...we were all thrilled that someone had made a relatively non-campy movie about a superhero that we weren't embarassed to admit having seen.  But looking back at it now, it hasn't aged well; worse, the cracks have gotten worse.  I remember Sam Hamm referred to the experience when Jack Nicholson asked why the latest of dozens of rewrites had him doing some seemingly pointless action, and him having to tell "I don't know, Jack...I just don't know."  By today's standards, it seems really....well, kinda bad, honestly.

Oh, and to you young whipper-snappers: Superman the Movie was NOT faithful to the comics of the time.  It was anything but; Superman wasn't working at the Daily Planet in those days, he was a TV anchorman working for Morgan Edge.  His powers were significantly greater and less than the movie version...there were tons of things different at the time.  The Superman  movie directly influenced Superman's reboot, with John Byrne taking many cues from Reeves' performance.  

I mean, if you want perspective, try watching the first Wonder Woman pilot movie or ANY Captain America movie.  ACK.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 24, 2005)

I saw it last night. There are way too many scenes where the chacraters are whispering. I could barely make out the dialogue.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 24, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> let's be honest, here: the canon has been rewritten a half-dozen times for most of these characters.  Batman's prehistory has been clarified, redefined and slightly rewritten for decades.



I have a collection of Batman newspaper strips from 10/25/1943 - 10/28/1944 that completely backs you up. The tone of the first six strips, a kind of introduction of who Batman and Robin are, is much more in line with the 60's Batman than The Dark Knight Returns. Before anyone says "yeah, but those are newspaper strips..." I'd like to point out that a large body of Bob Kane's Batman work was done on the strips. Kane himself said that that the Newspaper Strips were the big leagues, a notion that was commonly held by the comics industry.

With Superman, his origin first appeared in the newspapers, not in Action Comics or Superman #1. Also, most of the things we think of as being quintessentially Superman first appeared in either the radio show or the newspaper strip. In fact, Clark Kent works for the Daily *Planet* because the original Daily Star was too common a name. They didn't want to loose a client because Superman worked for a competing paper!


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jun 25, 2005)

Fantastic movie. Best of the superhero cadre yet but not by so much as to totally out distance the Spiderflicks. Dang but they didn't nail my version of Batman.


----------



## ssampier (Jun 25, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I gave it an 8, and definitely think it's my favorite of the Batman movies.
> 
> But best _comic book_ movie ever?
> 
> I dunno, maybe it comes down to personal preference for the heroes themselves, but for my money Spiderman (I or II, take your pick) is still the reigning champ for _comic book_ movies. They're fantastic in every way.




Certainly not. This was a good movie and all, but I enjoyed the original Batman movie the most.

BTW, I'm not a Batman expert, so maybe I'm confused. Who was the character that originated the phrase, "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

I first I thought it was the Waynes' murderer, then I changed my mind and thought, the Joker.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 26, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> So very true. We found it at a used CD/DVD store. They had like six copied for like $5 apiece.




I really, really, really did not like Equilibrium. Not at all, at all. I cannot understand why some peole like it.

Batman Begins I gave an 8. Depp as a young Gordon was great! (I have to admit that I like Gordon as a character better than Batman... and Batman better than Superman.) A very solid movie, and better than any Batman movie that I have seen, even the old serials.

The Auld Grump, who did dot expect to like BB at all.


----------



## jeff37923 (Jun 26, 2005)

I thought that it sucked mightily. So far, IMHO, the best Batman stuff has been the animated series. Until Warner Brothers and DC Comics come to an argreement with Frank Miller to do Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns - we won't be getting a good Batman movie.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 26, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> BTW, I'm not a Batman expert, so maybe I'm confused. Who was the character that originated the phrase, "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
> 
> I first I thought it was the Waynes' murderer, then I changed my mind and thought, the Joker.




In the Burton Batman movie they're one and the same. The way Batman realizes that the Joker is his parents' killer (back when the latter was just a young hoodlum) is when he uses that line in front of Bruce Wayne.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 26, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Depp as a young Gordon was great!




You mean Gary Oldman?


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 26, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I first I thought it was the Waynes' murderer, then I changed my mind and thought, the Joker.




As shilsen points out, they were one and the same in the Burton movie.  This is, however, purely an invention of that movie.  BB returns to the classic lore of Joe Chill, random street thug, killing Wayne's parents.  The Joker was a two-bit mystery-man villian wearing a red cape who fell in a vat of magic acid that turned him into his 'happier' self.  Alan Moore once did a story of it from Jack Napier (i.e. the Joker's) perspective.  It was very good.

As for the Dark Knight Returns....it's still good, but hasn't aged as well as it might.  Some of the 80s references feel very dated now, for example.  However, WB has animated part of the DKR in the Animated Series.  It was the episode where three kids tell stories about Bats, and the first is a Bill Finger story, the second is a the battle with the gang boss in DKR and I can't honestly recall the third (though I seem to recall Neal Adams linkage).  Besides which, DKR is a pretty lousy place to restart a movie franchise...especially as it features a Superman who's a puppet of the government, which kills two franchises with one stroke...and requires the audience to know who Green Arrow is, for that matter.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 26, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> You mean Gary Oldman?




Heh.  Maybe it was Johnny Depp playing Gary Oldman playing Jim Gordon.  Man gets deep in a role, you know?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 26, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> You mean Gary Oldman?




Doh! I don't know how that one happened, except that the trailers preceding BB included two Johnny Depp movies that are being done by Tim Burton...  (Corpse Bride and Willy Wonka, both on my must see list.) I know full well that it was Gary Coleman. (Joke.)

The Auld Grump

As for who killed the Waynes in the comics it was a thug named Joe Chill.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 26, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> As shilsen points out, they were one and the same in the Burton movie.  This is, however, purely an invention of that movie.  BB returns to the classic lore of Joe Chill, random street thug, killing Wayne's parents.  The Joker was a two-bit mystery-man villian wearing a red cape who fell in a vat of magic acid that turned him into his 'happier' self.  Alan Moore once did a story of it from Jack Napier (i.e. the Joker's) perspective.  It was very good.
> 
> As for the Dark Knight Returns....it's still good, but hasn't aged as well as it might.  Some of the 80s references feel very dated now, for example.  However, WB has animated part of the DKR in the Animated Series.  It was the episode where three kids tell stories about Bats, and the first is a Bill Finger story, the second is a the battle with the gang boss in DKR and I can't honestly recall the third (though I seem to recall Neal Adams linkage).  Besides which, DKR is a pretty lousy place to restart a movie franchise...especially as it features a Superman who's a puppet of the government, which kills two franchises with one stroke...and requires the audience to know who Green Arrow is, for that matter.



 And despite of what some recent lousy Batman comics said, the Joker's origin from "The Killing Joke" is one of many possible origins swimming around that crazy noggin' of his. Like he said, if he needs an origin, he'd rather have it be multiple choice...

And he was never referred to as Jack Napier either. IMHO, clearly defining who the Joker was before he put on the Red Hood's costume and took a chemical dive lessens the persona. He's the chaotic and illogical deadliness of life personified, the "bad things happen to good people for no reason" theory, for him life is a joke, and death is the punchline.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 27, 2005)

I await the sequel, with Joker in the wings. This new revise will not replace Tim's B. first masterpiece, Nolan's has set it's own mark.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 27, 2005)

Gave it a solid 9.

Great cast.  The supporting characters really made it click.  The origin story and the villains were compelling and worked as different types of adversaries.  All the acting was quite good, even Holmes.  I know it's not just me but the way she talks out of the side of her mouth reminds me too much of her Joey character from da' Creek.  If she could lose that distinguishing facial movement it would be easier to buy her as other characters.

Loved the cave.  Loved the car.  Loved the Bat-shuriken.  Loved the cape.

Didn't love the Bat-voice but it didn't lessen the film.

The fight scenes didn't really bother me.  Would I have liked to see more of the fighting?  Yes, but the artistic choice to have the fights not go smoothly works for me.  Bats is screwing up as he goes and taking some bad shots and risks and there is tons of chaos.  The rest of the movie is shot in a similar fashion so to have Matrix/Star Wars-like fight scenes would have been a bit jarring.  However, I would expect the next Batman to have cleaner fight scenes to follow Bats better understanding of his unique fighting style.

Others have mentioned this but the whole film certainly felt like a prequel or at the least a chapter one.  That is a compliment.  I especially liked how the title didn't appear until the very end.  We get Gordon and Bats final exchange, fade to black and the BATMAN BEGINS.

It does work as a singular film, too.


----------



## ShadeMoon64 (Jun 27, 2005)

I enjoyed the film a great deal.  It has by far the most interesting interpretation of the Batman character I have seen.  A great all around cast though I could have done without the Katie Holmes character.  I understand the function she played in the story but I felt she was to "light weight" an actress for the part.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 27, 2005)

I quite enjoyed it, but my wife left the theater ranting about how awful it was, and continued until I told her to knock it off.  By then, my buzz was officially harshed .

THere was some stuff about it that I didn't like:  mostly, the action scenes and the car chase left me cold.  But the acting was almost all superb, and I loved the settng of a realistic, gritty city instead of a cartoon city (not to knock Burton's vision; this was just different and fascinating).  The Scarecrow was probably the best supervillain I've ever seen.

Daniel


----------



## ssampier (Jun 28, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> In the Burton Batman movie they're one and the same. The way Batman realizes that the Joker is his parents' killer (back when the latter was just a young hoodlum) is when he uses that line in front of Bruce Wayne.




Thanks! I thought I was going crazy. I still liked the original movie the best; call me nostalgic.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 28, 2005)

... I just noticed there's no 8 on the poll.  Maybe I'm slow.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 28, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> ... I just noticed there's no 8 on the poll.  Maybe I'm slow.



 It was pointed out on the first page. 

Having finally seen this...I have to give it a 10. I enjoyed every second of the movie, including the fight scenes. I can't really pick out anything I didn't like at all. Though I do have to say that Alfred is, yet again, proving to be one of my favourites.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 29, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Thanks! I thought I was going crazy. I still liked the original movie the best; call me nostalgic.



 Gonna have to disagree with you, Lee Meriwether dosen't hold a candle to Julie Newmar.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 29, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Gonna have to disagree with you, Lee Meriwether dosen't hold a candle to Julie Newmar.




What, no love for Eartha Kitt?  I mean, that voice!


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 29, 2005)

ShadeMoon64 said:
			
		

> ... A great all around cast though I could have done without the Katie Holmes character. I understand the function she played in the story but I felt she was to "light weight" an actress for the part.




Everyone else I've talked to about the movie has felt the same way, and apparently Warner Bros does as well.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

ShadeMoon64 said:
			
		

> A great all around cast though I could have done without the Katie Holmes character.  I understand the function she played in the story but I felt she was to "light weight" an actress for the part.



But what does that mean?  Lots of folks complain about Katie Holmes but nobody is really explaining _what_ is so bad about her or her role.  I thought she worked fine.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But what does that mean?  Lots of folks complain about Katie Holmes but nobody is really explaining _what_ is so bad about her or her role.  I thought she worked fine.




I have to agree with Joshua, here.  I didn't have any problems with Katie Holmes in the movie.  She wasn't a standout, but the part was only a supporting role and a much smaller part than that of Alfred or Gordon, for example.  It was on the same par as say Flass for screen time.  Oscar-worthy, no...but I thought she did fine.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 29, 2005)

I gauge this movie as "firmly mediocre". For me, it's either a weak 7 or a strong 6, so I voted "6".

I thought the fight scenes were dreadful (suffering from the cheap shaky camera and "death of a thousand cuts" choppyness), the Bat-SUV chase was too long for me, and the Katie Holmes character was pure dead weight (boring, lack of any personality, and rather useless to the movie, in my view).

On the other hand, the origin story was good, and he's the best Batman by far. Morgan Freeman was great but woefully underused, and for me, Sergeant/Lt. Gordon was the best thing in that movie by far.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> (boring, lack of any personality, and rather useless to the movie, in my view).



See, at least that's meaningful criticism rather than the, "Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise piss me off, so her part in the movie sucked," which seems to characterize most of the rest of the complaints about her.


----------



## ender_wiggin (Jun 29, 2005)

The fight scenes never bothered me; it's a style, so who cares. Katie Holmes was probably the worst acting in the movie, but that's not saying much, because *everyone* was so damn good. She was solid enough, though I think her younger counterpart did a better job acting. Anyway, she had her moments.

The real thing that was awesome was the music. Sure, people say Hans Zimmer's stuff is all the same or Howard's stuff is all the same, but who cares. During the movie, I didn't know who composed or performed the stuff, and I was like holy sh*t that's good music. I'm listening to the soundtrack right now.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 30, 2005)

Katie Holmes was just utterly unconvincing as a DA with seven years' experience in the department. If she were an intern, I coulda believed it, but there's no way she projects the weariness, cynicism, or inner strength of spending seven years prosecuting the crimes of a corrupt city.

A better actress could have handled the subtlety required by the character. She just didn't.

At the same time, she was virtually the only woman in the movie with more than one line. I'd appreciate a sequel that had some significant female characters in it.

Daniel


----------



## Pants (Jun 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But what does that mean?  Lots of folks complain about Katie Holmes but nobody is really explaining _what_ is so bad about her or her role.  I thought she worked fine.



You know... I thought her character was good and necessary to the story, the material she was given was good, but I just did not care for her acting. It felt stilted and forced at times. It was even more distracting considering everyone else in the movie.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 1, 2005)

A solid 7, good but not great.


----------



## ShrinkyLink (Jul 2, 2005)

Saw it this afternoon. The audience around me did not care for the film at all--they did cheer and hoot at the 'Dukes of Hazzard' trailer, so that explains much. One critic derided the film as 'weird'. 

I really liked it, even with the criticisms pointed out here: the rooftop chase and the poorly directed fight scenes. As for Katie, I've had it up to here with seeing her glassy eyed mug every time I turn on the TV, but I thought she was decent eye candy here. Oh, she was supposed to be a character as well? Can't have everything.

As for Bale going from 120 pounds in _The Machinist_ to 240 for _Begins_, I heard Bale on NPR say that it caused a stress on his heart, and he would never do it again. This was the same interview that Bale confessed he was doing interviews with the American accent he used in the film, instead of his native Welsh lilt. The interviewer seemed a bit outraged at what she saw as Bale 'acting' in an interview. Bale replied he wanted to cut down on 'confusion', citing that Batman was an American hero. Assumably, this meant being British would simply not be on.


----------



## The Serge (Jul 2, 2005)

Yeah, I noticed that he was speaking what sounded to be a "standard" American dialect in his interviews.  I assumed he was doing it in order to make it easier for most Americans to understand him (which I also think is weird.  He should have to feel forced to take on another accent just to communicate... I've heard him speak with his Welsh accent and he sounds fine).


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 2, 2005)

I gave it an 8, and I think it’s the second best Batman full-length movie ever made.  It had me for most of the time but I didn’t like the ending in places but that was probably cause I didn’t much care for the love story.  (something that I don’t normally dislike but it doesn’t work well with the Batman I know in love.)


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 2, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> okey dokey. i just woke up. so i'll give the long version of the story and my reasons for not liking it. i'll try to make it coherent.  (wow...its really long and rambling... i guess i failed)  and i'm gonna put it all behind a spoiler tag because the title of the thread doesnt say spoilers.
> 
> (random idea, rather than weeks early review threads and rate threads and what not. how about  3 threads for every movie. 1> before. 2> after without spoilers 3> after with spoilers. )
> 
> ...



ERrr? So you DON"T like the batman from the comics. Because the batman from the comics is not some angry dude going around enacting vigilantism. Batman does or did feel guilt about his parents. That really came out when Jason Todd died during that story arch. It was even revisited during the episodes before the new crisis. Saying that batman's motiviation isnt his own guilt is just not supported by the comics. Frank Millers Dark Knight returns inspired the revamp of Batman, it isn't batman though. 

When batman first started, he used guns. Man he used anything he could get his hand on. He was sense refined. This is the movie paying homage to the characters beginings. Again , the character did not begin with Dark Knight returns. 

Batman's also not some hermit with a fetish for young wards and old butlers. Examining the bruce wayne persona will tell you that. If batman really was this super super brooding dude whom hated everyone, there'd be no need for a bruce wayne. He'd simply play it like bruce wayne is some old hermit. 

This is the beginning of batman. If you liked year one, You'd see that it doesnt miss a beat. Batman makes mistakes. Batman is not a sueprhero yet, he doesnt have the JLA on speed dial. This is a comic book movie. The movie doesnt have time to waste screentime on mindless rescues. Heck, in the comic they don't do it either. It is assumed that batman did not put the person at risk. Odly you complain about superman's time a year after batman, yet you would have liked it if batman wasted screentime rescuing everyone in the movie. Which is it? Do you want a longer movie or a shorter movie? 

Infilstructure? Again this is a comib book movie. Gotham's infiltructure is destroyed in every movie and dang near every other issue. It's comic book violence. Best example I can think of where there was major destruction was the fight scenes with bane and Azreal Batman. Sometimes you break some eggs to make an omlette. Thats a big part of hte batman mythos. Do what it takes without going too far.


----------



## Shalimar (Jul 2, 2006)

Necromancy


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 2, 2006)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Necromancy



lol sorry shalimar. Steve and I were talking over on the superman therad and batman came up. Neither of us wnated to diver the thread from superman, and it was silly to start another batman thread, so he sent me a link to this one.


----------

