I am also surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. I went in expecting nothing and came out absolutely loving the film. I think Christian Bale was perfect as Batman and Liam Neeson and Morgan Freeman were impeccable as well. I am not going to write an entire review right now but just saffice to say that I think this is the second best film I have seen this year behind Sith. It is a dark film and has a very long running time and that may prevent it from being a monster hit, but if the wOM stays strong with this film, it should do all right. Loved how it ended too, the Joker calling card was priceless.

I thought it was a very good movie. Love the Scarecrow, one of my favorite Batman villians, and seeing the effects of the fear gas is just awesome.

3 things brought the movie down.

1. Some of the dialogue. In general, I think it was good, but had too many of those "ironic" one-liners like "didnt you get the memo" etc...
2. The directing during the hand-to-hand combat scenes was lacking. Camera was way too close and hectic, hard to tell what the hell is going on. Although, being forced to sit in the front row may have had its effects too. It wasnt as bad as that fight in Bourne Supremacy, but still, a little annoying.
3. I just happened to be in the worst. crowd. ever. Apparently one guy was a moron and couldnt follow even simple facts, so he had his buddy explain to him what happened everytime something happened. And near the end, after the train was derailed, someone started to clap, and then someone else started to clap, kind of sporadic spacing between them and it started a really annoying stretch where people were trying to be funny by sporadically clapping throughout the entire rest of the movie. There was no point during the rest of the movie where there wasnt some jackass clapping his hands together. When the credits came, I couldnt tell if the huge applause the film got was real or mostly sarcastic because of those people. Ok, so this didnt bring the movie down, but it annoyed the hell out of me.

God what a bad overall theatre experience. First row and jackass audience members. Still a very good movie, though.


***1/2

Its definately the best movie for me so far. They have everything from ninjas, to an atmospheric city setting, great hallucinagenic imagery and unlike the previous Batman, the villian's theaterical look isnt just used as a gimmack but as a weapon and secret power. I dont really give A+'s that often but I know it will be in my top 5 of this decade 9.6/10

Its a shame that the movie wont make more than 160 million so I hope hope that the good WOM and critical acclaim can translate super well into dvd sales so they will make a sequel without sacrificing the budget or the director's vision without studio heads interferring in order to make the movie more accessible

If T3 can finish with 150m, im sure BB can get 170m+

39 A's

Okay I lied.

I realize that we are in the midst of a Batman jizfest... I know, I know, completely inappropriate word. I could say "circle jerk" as a substitute. So I've remained rather more silent than usual. I also realize that my early exposure to the script gave me a very advanced negative opinion that I was unable to shed AND that I have critisized members recently for embracing this film (in my opinion) pretty blindly. I sent some of this to loyal, and he said I should post it. So I'm going to expand and post it here now. So with all that in mind, here are some... "talking points" about Batman Begins. If you are looking for a letter grade, then sorry.

For the sake of this discussion, we are really going to discuss a comparison between what Batman was created as (1930s Batman) what Batman was throughout the 1950s and 1960s, what Batman was for the Tim Burton films and what Batman is in Batman Begins and Frank Miller's outings. Nobody here is going to defend Batman Forever and Batman and Robin as being the pinnacle of what a Batman film can achieve, although I would argue that Joel Schumacher created a style for Batman and comic book movies which was REALLY close to that of the comics which spanned the 1960s. They were gaudy and poorly acted and poorly plotted AND poorly scripted. But without the rose colored vision of the comic book aficionado, it's not hard to see that the comics also contained those same virtues.

The reason for this (in my opinion) is that Bruce Wayne is not immortal or super-fueled like any other character. His "prime years" span a 20 year period between the age of 25 and 45 (roughly). Also, Bruce tends to be more emotionally dynamic than pretty much any other character, and the current prevailing theory and emotional health is also worked into the fabric of the story from time to time.

We're really talking about styles here. Unlike the more pure Superman and the pretty consistent Spider-Man, Batman is the ONE character in comics who has changed the most. The origion story has been done over and over and over. For example Joe Chill origionally randomly killed Batman's parents. This random bit of crime set Batman against the criminal underworld in a very general way. The same thing happens in Batman Begins, with a twist that the crime was not unfocused. It created Batman, but there was an element of vengence and revenge that was achived when Ra's was apparently killed. In 1989, this was very specific and set up the dynamic of very focused revenge. All of these approaches are valid. This changes everything to come. 1989 and Begins both have the problem of elongating Bruce Wayne's angst and making what he feels valid and potent. This is essentially the problem of Batman Forever, and the new series will have it as well. People don't like George Clooney because he played the Batman without the baggage (although most will acknowledge that he was the best thing about that "film").

In 1989 Keaton, a strange choice for Batman, played Batman as an eccentric recluse. The entire film, told from the perspective of those around him, told the tale of a sad but incredibly kooky man who was impossible to know. The armory scene with Vicki Vale and Knox perfectly set up everything we need to know about the mystery of Wayne. Batman's later uncovering of the antidote of Smilex and his instincts about the movements of the crime bosses showed his primary asset, his intelligence. And it worked... we can have an anti-hero here because the opposite is Joker, who IS more accessible and understandable than Batman but does such much damage that you have no choice but to root for Batman. This is the essence of Batman's character as a vigilante and a last resort.

Begins gives us a Batman who could be seen as less intelligent (thrown out of Princeton!) and, instead of brainy, is more of a physical Batman. The prime emphasis of Batman in Begins is to develop Bruce's physical skills, how he got his gear, how he deals with his company. It is a very nuts and bolts approach that leaves little mystery. In the end, it's a preferance.

1989 works so much better for me because it is the tale of sick/insane people doing kooky, kooky things. There is a weird mystery to it. Even Alfred comes off as really off center. We see the film through Vale's perspective (for the most part), WHY is there this guy who runs around in a laytex suit and how can he jump from building to building. Begins takes that away from us. We are supposed to respect the "mystery" of Batman but instead are handed all the examples on a plate. I believe that the Keaton Batman could go running around in a suit because he was so weird, but I can't make that same excuse with Bale's portrayal, who is more grounded and grim. It doesn't seem like the logical conclusion that someone in his position would come to.

There is also the issue of the origion, and this gets into how villians are portrayed. Begins goes down this road a little way, but having the assassin be a Napier/Joker, the story gains a focus and a nemesis which REALLY drive both the antagonist and the protagonist. There is a focus in 1989 that Begins can't achieve. There are *four* villians in Begins, Chill, Falcone, Krane and Ra's. On top of that, Wayne is fighting himself and the corrupt decay of the city. There is FAR too much going on for Bruce to feel as passionate about one of them (until the end, when the ur-villian is revealed and we've realized that we've spent half of the film spread between plot points which are there to set up sequels rather than to create a coohesive single film).

There's also a weird morality at play in the film. Batman will not cut the head off a crook but later will roll his car over police cars, explode them, and put the general populace in danger. There is also the issue that the plot point with Lucius Fox is never resolved and we never learn if the little boy, the Narrows, and all the people between the Narrows and Wayne tower ever recover from being driven insane.

More Begins nuts and bolts:

Michael Caine's Alfred was a welcome surprise for me. The script had maginalized Alfred by taking away part of his (and Bruce Wayne's) character and giving it to Lucius Fox. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox was just like most of the characters Morgan Freeman has played throughout his entire career. And I like Freeman so I'll let him be. The problem with the character is that some of Alfred's knowledge about the inner-workings of Batman's organization and Bruce Wayne's ability to solve problems (in this one it's chemistry and equipment) are eliminated by Lucius Fox giving Bruce immediate access to all he needs. He subtracts from both characters.

Tom Wilkinson's Falcone was a WASTE of time and a waste of talent. His one-note performance isn't believable or threatening. His dialog is some of the worst in the entire piece.

Gotham City's "reality" is underscored by bad CG and bad models. They got away with this in the early Batman movies because the city was so interesting architecturally, here there is no sense of geography. By creating Begins in a "real" environment and then putting very 1989 features of the bridges and ESPECIALLY the train rail Nolan seems to be trying to have his cake and eating it too. His theme throught the movie is "understand your surroundings" he doesn't give the entire movie any sense of geography... which is important when laying out his action sequences. Some are clever, some (like the final fight with Ra's Al Ghul) are so manically edited that it becomes a blur, and pointless.

Cillian Murphy would have been a tremendous Joker, but is a too young and too naive Scarecrow. What they should have done was this... made Scarecrow the primary villian and made Ra's Al Ghul more of a facilitator. Made it so that Ra's was helping Scarecrow for some reason and make Scarecrow the central villian of the piece. And not kill off Ra's. There is absolutely no satisfactory resolution to the Scarecrow story. This smacks of a sequel set up, which is not a good enough excuse to sacrifice story points for.

I don't have a problem with Katie Holmes or Gary Oldman. They both do okay, but there is nothing in their performances which couldn't have been done by another actor. The best scene in the movie is where Katie Holmes slaps Christian Bale, because, god damn, I wanted to do that as well. All of these films... Superman, X-Men, Spider-Man, end up with the chick and the superhero having to separate at the end... for once I wish Bruce Wayne would have just banged the chick and at least kept that illusion going until Batman Begins Part 2.

I'll finish this up later.

If T3 can finish with 150m, im sure BB can get 170m+[/quote]

I sure hope so if it can make 170 million(not super great but pretty good) combined with its critical acclaim and the great satisfication of majority of people who saw it not only liking it but very much adoring it, it would really warrant a sequel since WB will know that more people will really look forward to the sequel with that many people coming out loving the movie and surprising them

=D> =D>

I don't agree with everything you said, but I agree with a lot.

I realize that I moved paragraphs around and didn't re-read it. *sigh*.

2 comments

- I think you are wrong on this part > Begins gives us a Batman who could be seen as less intelligent (thrown out of Princeton!) > I don't think he was thrown out. He said he wasn't going back or returning.

I think that decision was due to the fact that he was planning to kill the mugger so he would have been in jail or on the run. Then after he didn't kill the mugger, Katie slapped him and sent him into see the crime boss and changed his whole thought process and he left the city.

- I understand what you are saying about the villain - maybe another villain choice would have been better.

but I like the set-up of him being Batman.

It was almost like the set-up of Spider-Man # 1.

Bruce says something to the effect of "He wouldn't be welcomed back there" although this *could* be in reference to his approaching decision to kill the guy, although this comment comes before that revelation (I think?) so it lead me to believe that he was kicked out of school.


This is obvious.


Another film with a strong first half and an even more inept second half.

Twot hings, one while I did enoy the movie alot of yur comments have validity in my opinion. two I found the above comments intersting after our back and forth in ROTS. It is never easy to be the person to go, this movie sucks when everyone praises it. I happent o enjoy it, and tend to only review movies when my opinion goes against the grain. We needs to her another BB, awesome A review or ROTS< best SW movie ever *chokes* review when there are 50 of them. It is better not to remain silent. The dissenting reviews are often more interesting then the ones praising the film.

IS BB, perfect no, but what made me enjoy this film was tht it focused on Batman first, we really don't spend much time on the villians or Rachel. The previous Batman films all spent alot of time on the villians and not so much on Batman.

I guess my question for you is this: Are you gonna come back a week later and go from giving this film an "A" to giving it a "D" like you did for SITH??? I found that incredibly odd that you gave SITH an "A" but then again upon a 2nd viewing, you gave it an "D" or an "F", not sure which.. Why is that?? I mean I still maintain that I gave BATMAN BEGINS a 9.5 or an "A", but also maintain that it will drop like the HULK in it's 2nd weekend after it's piss poor opening weekend box office.. Thoughts??

My review of Star Wars Episode III was a negative one. Or a "disappointed" one too.


It is my opinion that Batman works best as a figure of mystery, this movie pretty much exposed everything, but it lost the mystery, and now every movie that comes after this one will be tainted.

This version of Batman was an okay movie - I agree with the minority here that the best part was all the set-up and training, etc - when they got into this Gotham city modern day story, I felt it was flapping around going nowhere. I also didn't like the crazy close-up fighting direction - blech! And Katie Holmes is starting to freak me out - she used to be so cute - now there's something very creepy going on with her eyes. Christian Bale was okay as Batman, and I enjoyed all the supporting actors, except for Gary Oldman - oh how the mighty have fallen...

3 out of 5. (C+)

Well, I'm seeing this on Thursday, hopefully I'll like it. I was just talking to my old computer teacher and he said he loved it and he doesn't even like movies, so maybe I will like it

I never give it an A, I give it a B or a B+. I already saw Batman twice, and I still love it.

I fell asleep the seocnd time I saw Sith, that casued it to drop from a B to a C-/D+...the first itme around I focused on the scnes I liked, the second time I was able to really look at the film, and I had a hard time keeping my eyes open for most of it. Its better then the other prequels, but it still fails.

A person's opinion can change. The first time I saw Sith, I saw it as a SW fangirl just excited to see Vader on screen, when the excitement wore off, what I was left iwth disappointed me.

Such an amazing movie!! The other Batmans were good, but they just seemed like standard action movies compared to this. This was more of an adult drama, which I loved. The acting/dialogue is brilliant and seemed realistc (reminded me of Lost), and the action scenes were intense. The story was well thought out as well.

There was only a couple things that prevented me from giving it an even high grade: its rewatchibility factor will be low (would be boring again) and the overabundance of characters (so many small parts).

Also, why was this ninja group so concerned about Gotham when they were in some far away country?

My Grade: A- , Best of 2005, #31 on my All-Time list

Gotham is like New York... it's the most influential city in the world. Its what the rest of the world looks up to, and its being corrupted

andaroo: Some good points. The strongest one in my mind being the return of the superhero playboy. Or at least, don't reveal the identity. It seems like a distasteful future if he sleeps around with someone other than Dawes, as she's stil alive, and knows his identity. Friends, etc. It would have been great if she never found out. Either that or they'll have to kill her off quick in the next installment. In Spider-man it at least took two movies for the love interest to find out. So yes, this was a bit clean.

I didn't notice the cgi'd city so much. I'm getting used to digital non-spacial set-up I guess. Interestingly enough, I always figured Burton's Gotham was sourced in NYC, but for some reason this one felt like Chicago to me. Must have been the smaller bridges, the wider streets, and the above ground train. It didn't feel as cheaply morphed as many of the other action movies I see lately. Though you point is noted about the fact I had no idea were "The narrows" was in relation to the city at all. That is a big deal.

I liked Burton's Gotham the best, mostly because its supposed to be a ficticious place. The epitome of negative communal psyche. Not a real place. I dont know hot to explain it beyond that. As to Schumaker's gaudyness, I don't know the comics, so it may be true to form. I liked it about as much as I liked his gaudy Phantom sets. It was too guilded, felt like a Disney ride. The reason I never got into his movies though, were the uninspired "bad guys." This is the problem I have with Spider-man as well.

Spider-man does a decent job with the protagonists, but I have yet to really like either of the enemies procurred. The first SM, had just some random loonie. I didn't go for Dafoe at all, which is too bad, because the actor himself is strong. While the second installment was slightly better, and I liked the creative casting of Molina, it just, wasn't, a scary bad guy. It didn't hold up the end of the bargain.

Everyone always complains about Burton's Batman's as being too much about the villains. That's probably why I liked them. The hero's by nature, as less thrilling. I like the ambiguous, self-serving, duplicious Catwoman. I liked how Penguin's plan to take the first born unfolds so late in the game. Everyone thought he was in the municipal archives looking for his parents identity the whole time. The joker takes his time developing a cosmetic line. I was always engaged by this.

In Begins, the villains are in the middle. They're not as clean and simple as the Spiderman ones have thus far been, but they're no creative, witty, self-serving bandits either. They lacked a bit of color, but their actual plot was devious enough. It worked well that they were claiming to do it in the name of good will towards all men as well. It felt like an odd double...and resonates today with the "casualites" or war philosophy. Batman decided he wouldn't knowingly allow for those appendage casulties to happen.

That he then goes off and beats up some poor dock workers, or goes on a driving spree, is kind of the point. There are casulties there as well. So both batman and Ra's are playing the same game. The gift is to make Batman sympathetic even though he's doing the same thing. For me, Nolan did a pretty good job with that. I wasn't all that upset when Ra's dies, and still wanted Batman to succeed. I think its the groundwork for a continous introspection as to if he's doing the same thing the league of shadows actually was. Since as it stands, he is.

About how ambiguous Bruce/Batman should be. I don't like the neat little corners. I don't know all the batman deaths, but two movies have covered his parents being shot already. I was fine with that, and thought Nolan did great. I also liked when Bruce chooses the bat because he fears them, and wants enemies to feel a similar feel. That was a good line of thought. As to his questing for goodness, in the memory of his parents and against the backdrop of Dawes diatribes on true justice, I hope it actually collapses in the next installment. Maybe he kills someone innocent and has to then reflect on what Ras was saying. Become more sveere. I like him severe, which is probably why thi movie appealed to me.

I've always considered WB to be the darker company. Look at the aggressive cartoons it created in the face of Disney's cute ones. Is DC a darker comic line than Marvel? Someone might be able to answer that better than I. My like for the movie was despite its flaws. I love how it didn't take itself lightly, and "didn't have fun." I got tired of it somewhere in all the light-hearted hero flicks. When I want fun, I'll watch Pirates. Batman, and especially Gotham, are supposed to be sort of dark sinister places. The amalgamtion of all the negative aspects of society. With very few good people. Everyone is evil, and those that aren't, are at the least self-serving to the point of corruption.

I also liked how slow the first half was. After seeing the recent Sith, I have to say, when they dive right into fights and action minutes into a movie, it sets a very monotonous tone throughout. I'd rather have a drama first half with a quick shift in tone (to action) the second half because it makes for a more dynamic story, imo. Nolan was taking it at face value that the previous franchise was supposed to be 100% ignored, and that this would kick off a completely new one with no trace of the former. We'll see the joker again, and it'll be nothing like Nickolson.

Everyone keeps talking about the spin-off points with the villains, but I didn't get that at all. Why does everyone think Scarecrow is going to come back? I'm just wondering. I thought he was locked up and crazy for good. Most likely, I just assumed it was a hole in the plot, and not an intentional future resurrection. I'm pretty sure the next one will have the joker, and a new female (either love interest, but most likely sexy villainess) and that no one from this movie will carry over. I watched it a second time (still liked it) with that in mind, and I still think the entire cast of this movie with the exception of Caine and Bale won't be back.

Overall, the problems I had with it were primarily around some preachy dialogue. Especially on Dawes, a little bit on Ra's part. The rest of it was pretty fun for me.

from what i've read, burton's gotham city was an upside down vancouver .. but i could be wrong.

Oh.. it just seemed weird that they were so obsessed by it.

Excellent comments as always dolce...


Yeah, these two movies kind of play on the opposite end of that spectrum. My main annoyance with Spider-Man 2 is that it took yet another 2 hours to get to the point about their relationship. There are arcs in the movie but they double back on themselves by the end. It's what I primarily hate about television... the fear that if you "change something" then it won't be the same in the sequel.

This is why I kind of like the X-men series and what they are planning on doing to up to or more than 4 of the characters. It's a bold statement to take the characters in these super extreme arcs (because lets face it, most series, even like this don't last beyond 3 or 4 episodes). Imagine Batman and Robin if Schumacher (and WB, who are just as, if not more responsible) had killed off Alfred and/or Robin midway through the film. They could have saved the franchise and made a 5th film, reignited Batman's gritty angst and made a LOT more money.


I think I noticed it only as a reaction to outside materials which says they didn't engage in normal effects. They did, it was just PR spin.


Well it was shot in Chicago, and being that I don't know Chicago, I do know the bridge that led from the narrows, and the reason why i recognize it as it was used to great effect in Road to Perdition.


They also took a partially cheap shot by showing the map of the city on the computer a few times.


I do too. It felt familiar and unreal at the same time. In this environment I wasn't so opposed to the fact that a man like Joker/Penguin could go roaming about in the city. Begins felt more real, and it created an interesting contrast whenever things got UNreal.


True to some visions. As I discuss with bABA, there is no definite when we talk about Batman.


Yeah. Although Forever was a great platform for Carrey at the time, and I did actually enjoy elements of Freeze, it was just so poorly done and thrown together that one can't help but recoil.


Spider-Man 2 suffers from the more than one villian syndrome that almost ALL comic book movies have when they try to cram enough major baddies together. Spider-Man is unique that it's completely centered on Peter Parker, to an extreme level. Both DaFoe and Molina have been wasted. DaFoe because his part was just silly and overdone (and the costume...) and Molina because although a lot goes into setting up his level of intelligence, he basically turns into a secondary villian next to Harry. I'm wishing that Spider-Man 3 loses some of it's angst and basically becomes a movie about Peter vs. Harry, but it looks like they are intent on putting another one or two villians into the mix to fill it out. It's disappointing.


See... to me... Batman was always best when it was about the motivation of the villians and Batman being this secondary character shrouded in mystery.


Yeah... things lose steam later on. Catwoman's performance can never be recaptured. It was sexual and heartbreaking and it was at the right time and the right place for that kind of tragic female role. I always loved the way Keaton rips off his cowl at the end of the film, and the masquerade scene.

The only part of Returns I raise my eyebrows at is the part where the penguins, armed with rockets, come up from the streets... although I suppose it fits within both the universe of Batman and what Burton set up.


I think Scarecrow, out of all of them worked the best if only given... a bit more. Some balls and some control.


During the chase, while he's blowing up police cars and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the freeway only one thing occurred to me.

Batman is always prepared for this kind of shit. That's what Batman is. Prepared. The ultimate boy scout. He had the vials. A smarter Batman would have had those vials with him JUST IN CASE he had to use them. A smarther Batman would have already been synthesising mass quanities of the antidote or gone himself to do it rather than plan for the party.

And if this is a learning experience, Nolan should have had Bruce reflect on that.


Yeah, but it would be nice (and intelligent) for Bruce to recognize this vocally.


I didn't mind the first half. I actually thought the whole childhood backstory with Bruce was well done and actually gave Mr. Wayne some needed personality and humanity.


I actually disagree... with a few very minor changes you could easily turn this into a 1989 prequel.


He's crazy(ier?) but it showed him escaping on the "flaming" horse. So he's "out there somewhere".


Oldman will be back, and I think Freeman would too. His parts are small and uncomplicated.


I actually didn't mind Dawes in a few scenes. hehehe.

andaroo .. thats my biggest criticism of Nolan .. and Nolan got this one part wrong .. he forgot that batman is the world's greatest detective ..if theres one thing thats been constant about him throughout the years, its that fact. Hence the lack of reflecting on being prepared and shit ... at the end, thats the focus that was lost.

As for Schumacher galia .. like andaroo said .. no definitive gotham city ... even the Schumacher gotham has been portrayed in one form or another .. even the one in begins, burton, TAS ...

:laugh: