Batman Begins

[kmeyers]

Not at all. The only thing that took me out of the movie at all was Katie Holmes's righteous indignation.
I agree, she was the weakest link in this movie...but she wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of people have said.

I actually liked her character. It made Bruce care what someone thought about him again...not just his dead parents...and Alfred...someone outside himself.

it made him more real...especially when he psuedo told her who he was. that rocked.

[Grant]

Not at all. The only thing that took me out of the movie at all was Katie Holmes's righteous indignation.

Personally after she kept harping on Bruce about not doing anything with his life I wanted him to say "Yo bitch I went to ninja school!"

[west3man]

First of all, the bad. I didn't like the cowl at all. In some scenes it gave Bale a chubby face. Not as scary as it was supposed to. The contrast with the scary face we see when Crane is delusional just makes it more obvious.
Yup.

His teeth, some of his pronunciation, and his attempts at scowling, were sometimes distracting, as they didn't fit Bruce or Bats. They were almost jokey.

[howyadoin]

I don't like the idea of a Batcar in the movies, and this one didn't change my mind. The exact same idea, with Batman running from the police across rooftops without the car would make me much more happy. It would be a challenge to have him carry Rachel the whole way, but it could be done.Except that it would take much longer, and then it would be too late for the antidote to work.

[meethraa]

Except that it would take much longer, and then it would be too late for the antidote to work.
That didn't do much for me either. I know it's a traditional comic book idea, but a race against time to give her an antidote so she didn't go insane was more of that extra silly, reminiscent of the Schumacher days. Although I did laugh (and not in a bad way) of that shot of Rachel rolling her eyes backwards as Batman jumps off the car, gets the antidote, and jumps back on just in time. It wasn't as suspenseful as it was maybe supposed to be, but after that horribly long car chase I could use a laugh.

[west3man]

That didn't do much for me either. I know it's a traditional comic book idea, but a race against time to give her an antidote so she didn't go insane was more of that extra silly, reminiscent of the Schumacher days. Although I did laugh (and not in a bad way) of that shot of Rachel rolling her eyes backwards as Batman jumps off the car, gets the antidote, and jumps back on just in time. It wasn't as suspenseful as it was maybe supposed to be, but after that horribly long car chase I could use a laugh.
Sounds like the "bad way" to me. :p

[Guts/Batman]

Looking back on the movie some of these flaws you guys are talking about make some sense in my head but they didn't when I was watching the movie.

[howyadoin]

That didn't do much for me either. I know it's a traditional comic book idea, but a race against time to give her an antidote so she didn't go insane was more of that extra silly, reminiscent of the Schumacher days. Although I did laugh (and not in a bad way) of that shot of Rachel rolling her eyes backwards as Batman jumps off the car, gets the antidote, and jumps back on just in time. It wasn't as suspenseful as it was maybe supposed to be, but after that horribly long car chase I could use a laugh.Ah, there's the problem - you don't like car chases.

[BlairH]

Am I the only straight guy who thought that Scarecrow was TOO good looking?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

According to Box Office Mojo...on Fridays estimate Batman Begins has made over 100 Million Dollars and Is at 103 Million US. It will pretty much make all Its money back In another week.

[Nega Knight]

Am I the only straight guy who thought that Scarecrow was TOO good looking?

Well, I'm not straight, but I thought he was way too good looking for the Scarecrow, as well. The Scarecrow is supposed to look like a gangly, evil, crazy version of Ichabod Crane. At least, in my head.

[meethraa]

Ah, there's the problem - you don't like car chases.
I actually like the Frankenheimer kind of car chase that puts you right there, and even some of it in this movie wasn't bad, like when he turned off the lights and became "invisible", that was cool. But yeah, I didn't like this one on a whole, not just because of the rooftop jumping and car smashing stuff, but because car chases are not something I like to associate with Batman.

[Gaz]

I actually like the Frankenheimer kind of car chase that puts you right there, and even some of it in this movie wasn't bad, like when he turned off the lights and became "invisible", that was cool. But yeah, I didn't like this one on a whole, not just because of the rooftop jumping and car smashing stuff, but because car chases are not something I like to associate with Batman.
So, I guess the Batmobile idea as a whole isn't your favorite?

[lboinyamouf4sho]

thread is too long, can somebody suggest a good jumping on point?? i just saw the movie yesterday and loved it. did anyone get the idea that one kid might become robin??

[The Joker]

did anyone get the idea that one kid might become robin??

Not really. No.

[meethraa]

So, I guess the Batmobile idea as a whole isn't your favorite?
Not in the movies, no.

[meethraa]

thread is too long, can somebody suggest a good jumping on point?? i just saw the movie yesterday and loved it. did anyone get the idea that one kid might become robin??
Someone else on the thread suggested it, yes.
I hope there's no Robin for a long, long time. At least the next two movies...

[boolean]

By the way, we're not supposed to believe that Lucius Fox hasn't yet figured out that BW is Batman, are we? All he has to do is see footage on the news of the Batmobile. Don't assume that he's an idiot.

Plausible deniability. If anybody ever asks him what Bruce is doing with all that stuff, he can honestly answer "I don't know, he never told me."

But yeah, putting two and two together wouldn't be hard.

[The Batman]

on the whole i really enjoyed this movie alot and by and large i agree with most of what everyone has to say. i thought Bale did an excellent job as Batman and even more so as Bruce Wayne. i liked the way we got to see the physical toll that crime fighting had on Batman's body as well as the methods that used to eavesdrop on people. Nolan gave us some very cool, very iconic shots of Batman watching over his city as well as some very gritty, very realistic, though poorly shot, action sequences. all in all it was a good film; good but not perfect.

my complaints are a little nitpicky but not overly so. i thought that Gordan driving the Batmobile was a bit cheesy; in fact alot about the final act of the film rubbed me the wrong way. the film went along and built up their "realistic" Batman and then the final act delves straight into an overly complex comic booky plot to destroy the city. Perhaps they didn't want to stray too close to the climax of the 1989 Batman film or to mimic that one episode of the Animated Series but i think it'd have been better to simply have Ras gas the city from a crop duster or blimp or something instead of the microwave weapon plot. the same climax could've been maintained with regards to Batman not saving Ras. i also didn't really care for the way that everything was figured out for Batman. it seemed that the "never take a life" attitude stemmed from Rachel and the decision to engage in a more theatric style of crime fighting came from Ras. i'm fine with Bruce training with Ras but i'd much prefered that he put things together for himself a little bit more. i might be wrong about how i saw the film but i prefer Batman to be much more of a self made man. i'm reluctant to make a Year One comparison because so many have already been made, but i prefered how Batman figured out for himself the importance of using fear and intimidation as weapons rather than having it told to him. maybe it's just me.

i liked the way the costume worked in the film alot more than i thought i would. i was very torn on the costume before going in to see the movie, in some pictures it looked really good while in others it looked off somehow. actually seeing it onscreen and in motion i found that it worked really well. the same goes for the tumbler/Batmobile; until i'd actually seen it in action i hadn't been completely sold on it. my only real complaint is that with this movie being a restart i wish that they'd gone for a costume that wasn't so close to the costume from the previous films. i understand the reasons for the black costume from a marketing and recognition point of view (for alot of people Batman's costume is all black now) and i'm not a black and gray purist but for a restart of the franchise i'd have liked to see something a little different. what i don't know (well actually i do) but just something different. that and i'd rather see Batman swing through the city than glide, i don't know why.

my final nitpick, i promise, is about Lucious Fox. i liked how he was close to Thomas Wayne and sort of pushed aside at Wayne Enterprises until Bruce comes back, but i didn't care for the tech aspect the character was given, it seemed unnecessary.

all in all though it was a good movie and an excellent restart to the Batman franchise. i don't consider it to be superior or inferior to the Burton films, only different. perhaps the best thing i can say about this movie is that i didn't want it to end and that the next film cannot be in theatres soon enough.

[Vaders shoeshine boy]

I loved it as well, the end was almost exactly the same as Batman: Year One, and I loved how they made his glove spikes actually useful, best quote "Its a black....tank"


Thank God you cleared that up-I thought he said..."d*ck!" :eek:

[DrewTheXenocide]

I loved it too, but I'm to sleepy to fully express my thoughts. Quick question though, and I hope it wasn't asked/answered in the past eighteen pages that I'm too lazy to read.

Didn't they specify somewhere that you're pronounce "Ra's" kinda liike "Rayshe" or something? Or am I just making stuff up here?

[Guts/Batman]

Didn't they specify somewhere that you're pronounce "Ra's" kinda liike "Rayshe" or something? Or am I just making stuff up here?

Well, there was some people they would have prefered is pronounced "Rayshe" instead of the way they did in the movie.

[west3man]

I loved it too, but I'm to sleepy to fully express my thoughts. Quick question though, and I hope it wasn't asked/answered in the past eighteen pages that I'm too lazy to read.

Didn't they specify somewhere that you're pronounce "Ra's" kinda liike "Rayshe" or something? Or am I just making stuff up here?The animated series pronounced it that way.

I've always preferred the "short 'a' sound" pronunciation.

[cactusmaac]

The way in the movie is how Denny O'Neill intended for the name to be pronounced.

[ElectraAlan]

Caped Fear
A lapsed superhero fanatic suddenly finds himself living in a world of fantasists

by Pete L'Official
June 17th, 2005 4:51 PM alert me by e-mail
write to us
e-mail story
printer friendly


illustration: Warner Bros. Entertainment
Related:


Cape and Scowl
Batman and sobbin': Orphan grief and existential questions in a grim franchise retake
Michael Atkinson reviews Batman Begins


Dear Detective Comics,
My name is David, and I have come to America from Israel four months ago. My father was invited to work here for two years. Back in Israel, and now here, I love your comics a lot, and I wonder why don't you send Batman to Israel to solve the Palestinian-Israeli problems. Believe me, we need someone like Batman in the Middle East. Thank you very much. —David

I have a confession.

And no, my name's not secretly David. I found this letter printed in the back of Detective Comics, late-June '93 edition, while doing some Batman "research." Despite its disarming naïveté, I'm not sure that the Middle East needs more obsessive, cave-dwelling vigilantes consumed with vengeance. Nevertheless, David will belatedly get his wish when the fifth film in the comic-book franchise, Batman Begins, starts its international theatrical run. But I know how he felt: I could've used a Separation Wall when I was a kid.

Oh, right, my confession:

There were no girls sitting at my eighth-grade lunchroom table. Not that there would've been room for any. Or for lunch, come to think of it. Instead, tattered sheets of notebook paper covered the green Formica. That these flimsy pages were filled with half-baked but painstakingly rendered (16 lines tall, son!) comic-book sketches fresh from my dizzy head made it easier to ignore the impact of aluminum foil balls on the back of my skull. Unless, of course, those neophyte marksmen left their bread crusts crumpled inside. Then it kinda hurt. Hence the need for a barrier, or at least a clearly marked demilitarized zone.

This was 1993—a dismal time for bookish young fantasists, and not merely because of the dangers inherent in cafeteria critiques. You could hardly flip a page without finding a beaten, bloodied pulp depiction of your favorite superhero. Doomsday bells tolled for even the most famous of all caped crusaders, Superman, in the guise of an overmuscled, sub-eloquent beast named, well, Doomsday. Some cried sacrilege. I collected multiple copies.

But what chilled every pitiless, capitalist bone in my body was the literal breaking of the Batman in the pages of DC Comics. In that year's story arc,"Knightfall," Batman fell victim to the machinations of Bane, a philosophical, drug-addled supervillain who loosed every criminal from Gotham City's Arkham Asylum, forcing Bats to round up all his old collars—Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, and others—before the final fight. Having watched Batman devote his life to inspiring fear in his prey, I blanched to see him go limp with terror at Bane's discovery of his dual identity. Bane broke Batman's back with all the grace and ease of Bo Jackson snapping his baseball bat. And with it, what some might call my childlike innocence.

Let me explain.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've always been Batman. Or rather, I was always a Bat-freak. Nearly everyone has pledged allegiance to a superhero at one time or another. My father was an Aquaman-Antman kind of guy, and my uncle was partial to the enveloping aura of Mr. Fantastic. I took after their closest cousin, Dan, with whom I share an affinity for certain winged mammals and men who dress like them. In much the same way that fans claim a favorite superhero, those devoted enough to one in particular can surely state their fave from among the hero's many renderings. And few superheroes have had more iterations than Batman.

"My theory is that there have been about five Batmans," said longtime Batman editor Denny O'Neil in a 1991 interview, "and I don't have any quarrel with any one of them. They were all right for their time, for the sensibility of the audience—or the perceived sensibility of the audience." There's the ur-Bat: Bob Kane and Bill Finger's May 1939 co-creation, then but one in a line of archetyped idealistic aristocrats (like Zorro and the Shadow) who deigned to protect the ordinary by solving crimes and busting perps while wearing flattering tights. But Bruce Wayne's traumatic backstory (he witnessed the murder of his parents at a young age) wasn't an original element; Finger added it six months later, articulating Batman's vigilante quest with psychological pathos and Sisyphean resolve. Birthed from a miasma of pain and fear, Batman sought to inflict both on Gotham's criminal populace.

From then on, Bats contained multitudes. His solemnity was lightened by the arrival of hi s gymnastically inclined companion Robin, which—holler if you hear me, Messrs. SquarePants and starfish—sent conservative-minded gaydar ludicrously haywire. Dr. Frederic Wertham, the psychiatrist so expertly rebuked by critic Robert Warshow, called Batman and Robin 's relationship a "wish dream" of homosexuality in 1954, a charge which, though leveled in the pejorative sense, actually sounds kinda nice. Regardless, for a brief period in the late '50s and early '60s, a gentler Batman tripped the light intergalactic, fighting an array of bizarre sci-fi baddies (in pulp camp stories like "The Valley of the Giant Bees" and "The Caveman Batman"). Necessitated by the establishment of the censorious, legally inert Comics Code Authority, this credibility-stretching move came partly as a response to Wertham's crusade, which doomed urban-detective story lines. The fundamental change to Batman's bleak nature was reflected in the KAPOW!erfully campy TV series—watching villains like Frank Gorshin's Riddler was more irresistible to me than mainlining Fun Dip. O'Neil and Neal Adams finally returned Batman to his grim glory in the 1970s.

But Batman literally ends and begins with Frank Miller. His 1986 The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One—the DC-sanctioned omega and alpha of Bat stories—redefined not only the "grim and gritty" nature of Gotham's volunteer vigilante but the comic form itself. Miller, while savagely satirizing Reagan-era America, eerily radicalized Batman's vengeful quest: In Dark Knight, even Superman called Batman's anti-crime crusade "a holy war."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, eight years after Joel Schumacher's Gay-Glo movie bomb Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan has undertaken chiropteran directorial duties. If there's a Bat for every time, as O'Neil suggests, what does ours look like?

Let's see . . . a wastrel with bottomless bags of cash, tormented by the desire to honor his family legacy, out to change the world through stubborn force of will by utilizing the power of fear to distort, disorient, and thus control his enemies? Sounds like B . . . ruce Wayne to me! (Jaws may drop when Rutger Hauer tells lil' Brucie, "We'll be watching the empire. When you grow up, it'll be waiting for you.") In all seriousness, fearmongering has always been an attractive part of the Batman ethos. Attractive because it wasn't just fear itself but an iconographic idea of fear that Batman used to scare the shit out of criminals, "a superstitious and cowardly lot." Attractive because we're always looking through the cowl—we're behind the mask with him.

But what happens when we're the ones stricken with fear—when we're the superstitious and cowardly lot?

Fear, and the power to control it, is the leitmotif of Nolan's Batman Begins, but also of The Power of Nightmares—a three-hour BBC documentary delineating the similarities between Islamic fundamentalists and American neo-conservatives' promotion of fear, directed by another Brit, Adam Curtis. In the picture Curtis paints, both neocons and Islamists cook up powerful, easily digestible myths—images of absolute evil—as eternal foils against which they must set their own philosophies, lest they collapse under the weight of their own radicalism. Here again, it is the idea itself, whether depraved Western liberalism, devious Communism, or a shadowy global network of terror cells poised to strike, that poses the fantastical threat.

Holy insidious mythmaking, Batman!

A recurring line of narration in Curtis's film runs, "Those with the darkest nightmares become most powerful," a cautionary proverb fit for Batman Begins as well, particularly suited for delivery by Liam Neeson's Wayne trainer Henri Ducard. Neeson's character is rich with such dark gems: "Theatricality and deception are powerful opponents. . . . Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding. . . . To conquer fear you must bask in the fears of other men." The most chilling line comes late, courtesy of the leader of the film's ancient terrorist organization, who threatens that, as with Rome, "every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence," they are there to hit the restart button.

Culture versus anarchy. Know anybody else who wants to set this decadent, imperialist civilization back to zero?

Hmm . . . maybe it's time I write a letter . . .



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Taltos]

Best Batman movie ever. I predict that it will breathe life into the dormant Batman inds.

[StoneGold]

Eh, thing I found most distracting in the movie, Bale's nose mole.


Well, that and Batman flying. I could take the gliding, but they basically had him moving like Superman at a certain point there.

Loved the CGI Fear Batman though.

[Catlin]

I must admit I am not a big Batman, or even DC fan. I am a Marvel girl ;) But I do know about the character and I found it amazing. I loved Alfred, I loved Lucius Fox, I loved Gordon (my what a change from an escaped wizard from Azkahban to a police officer), but I was so hoping Katie Holmes would die. Her character was so ditzy and annoying, all she was good for was the damsel in distress. *snore*

[Solaris]

We finally got to see this movie, and I have to say, I'm now a Batman Movie fan---at least for one. I *hated* how the others were done so campy... I like camp in some films, but not for something that's supposed to be "real" Batman.

This film *was* real Batman. Everything in the film was believable, within the realm of possibility, from his training to his car, suit, and stuff. Awesome performances by Bale, Nieson, Caine, Freeman, and the guy who played Gordon---not to mention the cold, compelling, slimy feel of the guy who played Crane/Scarecrow.

Scarecrow is a *fine* example of how they went for realism, rather than camp: instead of dressing the guy up in some full-fledged scarecrow outfit with hay and little light-up pumpkin bombs, they simply gave him a nasty, ratty, burlap bag with eyeholes for a mask---and it was truly scary looking, especially when the sfx from the drug would kick in.

One of my favorite things about the movie, besides the realistic treatment of everything, was that the people in the movie had BRAINS. They were SMART. In particular, Bruce showed brains by copping a nasty attitude (without missing a beat) to get his party guests out quickly, and later in sending Gordon to blow up the rail supports while *he himself* took care of jamming the train controls to "on" position. Beautiful. I'd hoped that's where he was sending Gordon---imagine my surprise and pleasure in seeing that it really *was* a character doing something smart. Realism came into that as well, when Gordon missed or got partial hits on his first few tries.

Compared to the other Batman films, whatever flaws might have been in this one were nitpicks indeed. It's the first time I've seen a DC character treated with realism and respect, the way X-men was done. Beautiful. I hope they forget the other movies were ever made, and go on to do more with Bale and these writers and producers, continuing with Batman where they left off.

They even hit on the idea of escalation, near the end, via Jim Gordon, when he mentions that the crazier crooks are now starting to develop dramatic characters of their own, in imitation/escalation of Batman. Beautiful.

Tim Burton and crew can keep Willie Wonka---so long as they don't give Batman back to 'em. Keep him with these guys. They rock.

[Solaris]

Eh, thing I found most distracting in the movie, Bale's nose mole.


Well, that and Batman flying. I could take the gliding, but they basically had him moving like Superman at a certain point there.

Loved the CGI Fear Batman though.


Not flying---hanggliding. It worked for me. :)

[StoneGold]

Not flying---hanggliding. It worked for me. :)
That's the thing, it started out as hang gliding, but by the end, he was basically just flying. And it's not so I'm going to go "ooo, he's flying, that sucks," but it's enough to make me go, "Mommy, why's Batman flying?"

[Solaris]

Forgot to mention... part of the reason this film works is because it's about the characters of the people. You don't just get the sketchy-sobby scene of the pathetic rich son seeing his parents gunned down, then the adult man out growling for vengeance and justice... you see all the stuff that came in between... and the ways Bruce's core persona were tested. He could easily have become a member of the Legion of Shadows; his training led him right up to it---but his core values and core personality were stronger. *That's* what showed his true moral fibre, as Bruce and as Batman.

Well, that and having the quick brains and *courage* to tell a room full of his family's lifelong friends that they're hangers-on and sycophants and throw them out, knowing that they're gonna think you're a jerk, in order to save their lives... all without one beat of hesitation. I think that's one of the hardest things Bruce did in the entire film.

Anyway, I loved the characters in this film, and how they ticked.

[Solaris]

That's the thing, it started out as hang gliding, but by the end, he was basically just flying. And it's not so I'm going to go "ooo, he's flying, that sucks," but it's enough to make me go, "Mommy, why's Batman flying?"


He's really a ninja, you know---maybe he has invisible propellers and silent engines hooked up to the cape... :D ;) Hee.

[Solaris]

I loved it as well, the end was almost exactly the same as Batman: Year One, and I loved how they made his glove spikes actually useful, best quote "Its a black....tank"


Easily one of the best quotes! I was pretty dubious, seeing the vehicle in pre-shots... then I saw it in some previews and thought "hmmm, it might work".. but having seen it within the context of the story, it absolutely works and rocks. It's a supermilitary vehicle---it's not supposed to look like some futuristic hot-rod a sixth-grader drew, like the other cars did.


Other best quote:

"I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you."

That just rocks.

[Solaris]

Batman Begins shows us what happens when the director and actors don't patronize their audience because they're making a "comic book movie". Excellent movie and a wonderful interpretation of Batman! Where would I possibly begin with what I loved about the movie?

Christian Bale, Neesam, Caine, Oldman, and Freeman, along with the rest of the solid cast? Yes, I want MORE Bale and Oldman, bring back Caine, give me a SEQUEL!

Would it be the interesting psychological study of a man tormented by old fears and guilt, frustrated by a corrupt legal system, nearly handicapped by his confusing revenge for justice? Bruce's inner struggle was so compelling to me. I was into those moments as much as the action scenes. The other characters played off this conflict quite masterfully--Alfred and Rachel trying to tether Bruce to what makes him a good man, Ducard/Ra's attempts at severing him from his humanity, Lucius' bemused cooperation, Gordon's desperation to meet one other honest person who wants justice in Gotham. Powerful work, and I hope films like this give a grand ol' FUCK YOU to intellectual snobs who don't see the possibilities of this genre.

The actions scenes complemented the story, instead of taking away from it. I also believed the gradual evolution of vigilante Bruce Wayne into the Batman, from his travels and studies, to the building of his arsenal. The violence was realistic enough and had consequences on those in the midst of it. I think particularly of the Batmobile chase and the Arkham inmates' rampage.

I read about the possible sequels and hope strongly to see more Batman movies from this creative team. I wouldn't mind seeing the next film be an adaptation of The Killing Joke or the Arkham Asylum graphic novel. Keep 'em coming, Nolan and Bale! :cool:


Me too.

Instead of being "Oh, let's go for campy, hokey, big flashy costumes and action sequences (and lots of 'em), because it's a comic book movie, they went for realism: "How would a man like this develop under real circumstances? Who would be his villains, and what would their motivations be?"

There was this whole complicated, twisted, tortured chain of events that, as is revealed in the end, started with Ras al Ghul and the Legion attempting to destroy Gotham via economics, which led to Wayne Sr. helping the city, an inference that perhaps the Waynes were killed by the legion because of it, their deaths starting Bruce on the long road which led to al Ghul's door, and al Ghul (in working with his favorite protege) forging the means to his own (and his society's) destruction, and the destruction of all their plans: Batman.

Beautiful.

[StoneGold]

He's really a ninja, you know---maybe he has invisible propellers and silent engines hooked up to the cape... :D ;) Hee.
Actually, that's where my problem lies, it felt too much like the Bat-Rocketeer towards the end. It didn't really make the movie bad, it just didn't quite feel like Batman to me. I like the concept of the cap as a deccelerated descent device, but the last scene was a little too much like actual flight for me, like they were trying to do something like the last scene in Spider-Man.

To me, Batman 1989 did two, maybe three things better than the new movie. One, the music. Elfman's score is still one of the best of all time. Two, and this one could actually go either way in my opinion, the Batmobile. The 89 one, while compeltly unfunctional, just looked cool. Three, the last scene. The last scene of the original, with Bats looking over Gotham, cape flowing, with the signal in the background, with Elfman's music rising to a crescendo in the background, probably the best part of '89.

[Solaris]

On the Batman animated series they say "Raish" or "Raijh", I'm not sure which. I've always assumed because of Denny O'Neil's involvement, that must be correct. I can't say I've ever heard anyone say "Razz" before. I'd be curious what it really should be in Arabic or pigeon Arabic or whatever.


I've always heard it as "Raas" (with the "a" sounding like "ah", as in "stick out your tongue and say 'ah'"), and "al" short like a very short version of "all", and "Ghul" like a shorter, more gutteral version of the word "ghoul." IIRC, that's how it was pronounced in the Batman animated series as well.

That pronunciation works for me: sounds like it's spelled, and has that Eastern tang to it, while the "ras" calls up connotations of both rajah's and snake hisses, and "ghul" that of ghouls and evil undead things, with "al" being (I think) "the son of", like "ben" is "the son of" in Hebrew.

[Solaris]

Actually, that's where my problem lies, it felt too much like the Bat-Rocketeer towards the end. It didn't really make the movie bad, it just didn't quite feel like Batman to me. I like the concept of the cap as a deccelerated descent device, but the last scene was a little too much like actual flight for me, like they were trying to do something like the last scene in Spider-Man.

To me, Batman 1989 did two, maybe three things better than the new movie. One, the music. Elfman's score is still one of the best of all time. Two, and this one could actually go either way in my opinion, the Batmobile. The 89 one, while compeltly unfunctional, just looked cool. Three, the last scene. The last scene of the original, with Bats looking over Gotham, cape flowing, with the signal in the background, with Elfman's music rising to a crescendo in the background, probably the best part of '89.

Well, he did seem to be gliding a bit much... but I think someone nailed it: they didn't want him doing too much wire-swinging, because it would remind people of Spiderman.

As for the car... It doesn't have to look cool, for me: instead, it looks functional, deadly, and scary, in a military way. In other words, like a "big... black... tank..." that's on caterpillar wheels rolling down your street at 220 mph and twisting like a snake, and looks like you could shoot a bazooka at it and it would still keep on coming when the smoke has cleared.

If I were Batman, and I had a choice between "flashy car" and "big black scary tank of a car"... I know which one *I* would choose! :D

[StoneGold]

With the car, that's why I said it could go either way. It's just the 89 car was so damn cool looking. And honestly, I've seen both cars in person, the new Batmobile really isn't that much larger.

One other thing, and this really isn't a knock against the movie, but you could tell Bale was trying so damn hard to do Kevin Conroy's voice when he was in the costume. Can you imagine how much more awesome the movie would have been with his voice?

[DOVETAILS]

Saw it last night. Mostly A + throughout. Really liked Scarecrow and Gordon! Actually, yeah.. All the characters were pretty much top notch now that I think on it. Only thing.. When Bruce was riding the train with his parents and his pop was explaining his hand in making the trains etc. Shouldn't he have already known that stuff? And what of the dead D.A.? Well whatever..

Certainly entertaining. Worth the time/money.

[HomerJay]

One other thing, and this really isn't a knock against the movie, but you could tell Bale was trying so damn hard to do Kevin Conroy's voice when he was in the costume. Can you imagine how much more awesome the movie would have been with his voice?

I read an interesting interview with Bale where he said that only about half of his voice change was intentional. He said something about that you feel like such a badass in the suit, you just feel like growling.

I thought he sounded more like the WWE's Triple H, to be honest...

[HomerJay]

When Bruce was riding the train with his parents and his pop was explaining his hand in making the trains etc. Shouldn't he have already known that stuff?

Shit, I'm almost 30 and I still couldn't tell you what my Dad does on a day-to-day basis because he doesn't "bring his work home" with him. Thomas Wayne's "more interested men" line led me to believe he was the same way. Yeah the train is a big deal, but he didn't strike me as being a guy who would discuss business matters with his family, especially his 10 year old son. No way I could have been able to tell you (outside of the vaguest terms) about my Dad's dealings when I was 10.

Just my impression...

[Steve]

From the Digital Bits' Rumor Mill:

Okay, we've checked in with our industry and retail sources, and have obtained what we believe will be the official street dates for a number of upcoming DVD releases for the end of 2005.

Look for 20th Century Fox's 2-disc Kingdom of Heaven to be released on 10/11.

Lucasfilm and Fox will release Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith on 11/1. They'll also release Star Wars: Clone Wars - Volume 2 on 12/6.

Warner Home Video will debut Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants on 10/11, with Batman Begins following on 10/18. Also, look for the new Batman live action special editions (all four films) to be released on 10/18 as well.

Finally, Sony will release MGM's remake of The Amityville Horror on 10/4.

Watch for official announcements on these titles to be made soon.

Not official yet, but close enough. At least we get a good indication of when those Special Edition DVDs will be released.

[Steve]

DVD specs here (http://dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=7452&n=1&burl=).

I'll be picking up the 2 disc version but wish they would've switched the cover art.

[heavysoul]

I finally saw this today. I'm not sure what all the hype surrounding this film was about. Is it a good Batman Movie? Yes. Is it better than Tim Burton's 1989 take on the character? Well, the best cinematic elements of this film are borrowed from Burton's vision. The best story elements are borrowed from a lot of the same source material Burton used. The opening sequence felt like a Marvel film.

Is it better than the Batman films following the first? Yes.

The only new element this film brought to the table is fleshing Bruce Wayne out more. In the end, it's good to see this franchise back in good form. I'm still waiting for DC to approach Frank Miller for a screenplay though.

[Gaz]

I finally saw this today. I'm not sure what all the hype surrounding this film was about. Is it a good Batman Movie? Yes. Is it better than Tim Burton's 1989 take on the character? Well, the best cinematic elements of this film are borrowed from Burton's vision. The best story elements are borrowed from a lot of the same source material Burton used. The opening sequence felt like a Marvel film.

Is it better than the Batman films following the first? Yes.

The only new element this film brought to the table is fleshing Bruce Wayne out more. In the end, it's good to see this franchise back in good form. I'm still waiting for DC to approach Frank Miller for a screenplay though.
The difference is, this is a Batman film first, and a Nolan film second.
Batman was a Burton film first.

[heavysoul]

I don't know Nolan's directorial style enough to qualify or disqualify that post. My main point for posting was to [maybe] get an explanation of what made this film so special when compared to the 1989 version.

[Greg Hatcher]

I don't know Nolan's directorial style enough to qualify or disqualify that post. My main point for posting was to [maybe] get an explanation of what made this film so special when compared to the 1989 version.

Story. The story has more internal logic. The 1989 movie succeeds more on style and atmosphere, because a great deal of it doesn't make any sense at all. I always figured this was due to the entire third act being cut and Hamm not being available to fix it because of the writer's strike. There was a lot of on-set improvising and so forth -- like almost all of Tim Burton's films, it's a collection of great SCENES, individually, but sort of pasted into a mosaic that may or may not make sense. The story itself is catch-as-catch-can.

Most of us at the time were so thrilled at getting the Dark Knight and not Adam West that we didn't notice or care. But I don't think it holds up over time. On the other hand, I think BATMAN BEGINS probably will.

That's my feeling, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

[west3man]

I really like Greg's explanation.

The "threat" to Gotham isn't something I can see holding up over time, but the film brought a certain amount of respectability that the franchise lacked, of late. I say "of late," because I don't think the first film hurt the "dignity" of character, ...but it is, continuity-wise, linked with those that DID.

[heavysoul]

Thanks for that explanation, Greg. I especially thank you for qualifying your explanation by using the words "almost all of Tim Burton's films".

I tend to put a lot more weight in the hype has to do with what west3man added though. I think the 1989 film was a bit tarnished [over time] by the sequels to it.

For me, the 1989 and 2005 Batman films are THE definitive cinematic visions of the franchise.

Thanks again, guys.

[cactusmaac]

I finally saw this today. I'm not sure what all the hype surrounding this film was about. Is it a good Batman Movie? Yes. Is it better than Tim Burton's 1989 take on the character? Well, the best cinematic elements of this film are borrowed from Burton's vision. The best story elements are borrowed from a lot of the same source material Burton used. The opening sequence felt like a Marvel film.

Is it better than the Batman films following the first? Yes.

The only new element this film brought to the table is fleshing Bruce Wayne out more. In the end, it's good to see this franchise back in good form. I'm still waiting for DC to approach Frank Miller for a screenplay though.

Personally I really like the Burton movies.

Granted they don't do tremendous justice to the character(s) of Batman and Bruce Wayne but musically and visually, they have a great sense of style and imagination to them.

I know I'll regard Furst's production design of Gotham and Danny Elfman's score to be the definitive ones. And the opening sequence where Bats faces down the two punks ("What are you???" "I'm Batman") still gives me pleasurable chills.

[west3man]

Personally I really like the Burton movies.

Granted they don't do tremendous justice to the character(s) of Batman and Bruce Wayne but musically and visually, they have a great sense of style and imagination to them.

I know I'll regard Furst's production design of Gotham and Danny Elfman's score to be the definitive ones. And the opening sequence where Bats faces down the two punks ("What are you???" "I'm Batman") still gives me pleasurable chills.
Until recently, I've always thought the first Burton Bat-suit was the best one. After seeing his first Bat-flick, again, I'm not so sure, but it gets extra points for being the first cool one.

That outfit (and the lower portion of Keaton's face) just WORKED in a way that the "upgrade" (from the sequel) did not.


Lotta style in the first one. Lotta substance in the most recent one. Imagine if they had a baby. Mmmm...

[west3man]

Again, it's shown that I have to read or watch certain things more than once to get a true feel for'em.

I just watched Batman Begins on dvd. Very good movie. I didn't even find the major threat/plot device as weak as I did the first time.


My only complaint (for now): The only "extra feature" is the doggone theatrical trailer. Lame.

It says to insert it into my dvd-rom drive for more extra features, but that's what I watched it on. We'll see.

[KenK]

Again, it's shown that I have to read or watch certain things more than once to get a true feel for'em.

I just watched Batman Begins on dvd. Very good movie. I didn't even find the major threat/plot device as weak as I did the first time.


My only complaint (for now): The only "extra feature" is the doggone theatrical trailer. Lame.

It says to insert it into my dvd-rom drive for more extra features, but that's what I watched it on. We'll see.

Shoulda bought the Deluxe Edition, jeffe!

[west3man]

Shoulda bought the Deluxe Edition, jeffe!
All I bought was a Blockbuster Movie Pass (more or less).

[Eliseu Gouveia]

My sole gripe with BB has to be the fight scennes,:


Has anyone here ever seen a french movie called Vidocq?
It´s directed by some guy named Pitof and stars Gerard Depardieu.

I was watching it the other day and the baddie, the Alchemist has a mirrorred mask and a black cape and I swear to God the moment I saw the way he moves and fights, my imediate thought was Batman.
THIS is how Batman should have moved in the film, a frightening, almost inhuman black blur.
A criminal would have to be insane to even get close to that swirling nightmare.

Awesomeness.

[KenK]

My sole gripe with BB has to be the fight scennes,:


Has anyone here ever seen a french movie called Vidocq?
It´s directed by some guy named Pitof and stars Gerard Depardieu.

I was watching it the other day and the baddie, the Alchemist has a mirrorred mask and a black cape and I swear to God the moment I saw the way he moves and fights, my imediate thought was Batman.
THIS is how Batman should have moved in the film, a frightening, almost inhuman black blur.
A criminal would have to be insane to even get close to that swirling nightmare.

Awesomeness.

You do realize Pitof directed Catwoman, right?!?

[Eliseu Gouveia]

You do realize Pitof directed Catwoman, right?!?


And Fincher directed Aliens 3. So? :)

My point is that visually, the way the Alchemist moved and fought is absolutelly stunning and I think would have worked wonderfully for Batman.

[darkkeeperjr]

Shoulda bought the Deluxe Edition, jeffe!

Do the DVD have extra or deleated scenes?

[west3man]

Do the DVD have extra or deleated scenes?
I don't think it's been released, yet.

[sir_snikt'alot]

Story. The story has more internal logic. The 1989 movie succeeds more on style and atmosphere, because a great deal of it doesn't make any sense at all. I always figured this was due to the entire third act being cut and Hamm not being available to fix it because of the writer's strike. There was a lot of on-set improvising and so forth -- like almost all of Tim Burton's films, it's a collection of great SCENES, individually, but sort of pasted into a mosaic that may or may not make sense. The story itself is catch-as-catch-can.

Most of us at the time were so thrilled at getting the Dark Knight and not Adam West that we didn't notice or care. But I don't think it holds up over time. On the other hand, I think BATMAN BEGINS probably will.

That's my feeling, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

i dont understand,how did the the 1980's batman movie not make any sense?

i thought it was a pretty standard storyline.

[Guts/Batman]

I don't think it's been released, yet.

Yea, it hasn't been released yet. I imagine we won't have to wait long for it to come out, however.

[J. W. Cornelius]

We've been watching it like crazy around here (because we can), and I'm still not crazy about rubber-suit Batman, but it's the way it is. It's uncomfortable to watch his face getting pinched by that mask.

His gear feels more like tools than toys, which is good. I do miss the more creepy, bat-like Batmobiles that have the same effect on the bad guys that his suit does. But, I think it's worth the trade off for a good explaination of his hardware.

But, best of all, we've been appreiciating the difference between this Batman vs. Burton's Batman.
This one threw vengence away to be the bat right away, Burton's fought his way all the way to the top of the tower to try to murder the man who killed his parents.

Just a few thoughts.
I read Dennis O'Neil's novelization since catching it in the theatre, I hoped it would make the story more interesting. It didn't. Lucky it was interesting to begin with.

I just hope the next one isn't called: "Batman Continues." Yuck!

[sir_snikt'alot]

We've been watching it like crazy around here (because we can), and I'm still not crazy about rubber-suit Batman, but it's the way it is. It's uncomfortable to watch his face getting pinched by that mask.

His gear feels more like tools than toys, which is good. I do miss the more creepy, bat-like Batmobiles that have the same effect on the bad guys that his suit does. But, I think it's worth the trade off for a good explaination of his hardware.

But, best of all, we've been appreiciating the difference between this Batman vs. Burton's Batman.
This one threw vengence away to be the bat right away, Burton's fought his way all the way to the top of the tower to try to murder the man who killed his parents.

Just a few thoughts.
I read Dennis O'Neil's novelization since catching it in the theatre, I hoped it would make the story more interesting. It didn't. Lucky it was interesting to begin with.

I just hope the next one isn't called: "Batman Continues." Yuck!


he didnt go up the tower to kill the joker out of vengeance,he went up there to save his women and to bring a madman to justice.

[Guts/Batman]

Speaking of Batman dvds...

I saw and ad in one of the Batman books this week that there will be a new release of the four previous Batman movies in a collection called...(I don't remember).

The set will have the four movies as two disc sets (with all the goodies the Batman movie dvds lack now).

Anyone else gonna get this set?

[J. W. Cornelius]

he didnt go up the tower to kill the joker out of vengeance,he went up there to save his women and to bring a madman to justice.

But, justice is balance and harmony according to the thinking of the new movie.
If he'd been interested in bringing the Joker to justice he wouldn't have been beating the $%^& out of him, threatening him, and knocking him off the roof.
He would have been trying to get him to the cops for a trial or something.

But, yes he did want to save the girl also. Who wouldn't?

[Steve]

Speaking of Batman dvds...

I saw and ad in one of the Batman books this week that there will be a new release of the four previous Batman movies in a collection called...(I don't remember).

The set will have the four movies as two disc sets (with all the goodies the Batman movie dvds lack now).

Anyone else gonna get this set?
It's called the Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology. I passed on it and decided to just get the Batman Special Edition instead. I watched Batman Returns a few weeks ago and didn't care much for it. The last two films is pretty much slef explanatory.

[Guts/Batman]

I was wondering if they put em out separately.

The only one I don't wanna get is Batman & Robin SE.

When did it come out? I didn't pay much attention to the ad.

[J. W. Cornelius]

I saw a review on some bat-site about a fan-edit called "Batman and Robin:Deassified".
Sounded promising. There's nothing they can do about most of the content, they simply chipped away at one-liners and such.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it still sucks.

[Steve]

I was wondering if they put em out separately.

The only one I don't wanna get is Batman & Robin SE.

When did it come out? I didn't pay much attention to the ad.
It came out Tuesday, and they do put them out seperately as well as a box set.

[StoneGold]

But, yes he did want to save the girl also. Who wouldn't?
He would have been more focused on that if it was Robin.

[west3man]

I picked up the two-disc deluxe edition.

Pretty good, so far.

[Davideaux]

I think I should have seen this in the theaters. I saw the DVD on saturday and I was underwhelmed. Maybe I was too tired to watch the flick but I kept falling asleep and waking up again. Yet I don't think I missed much since I caught all the major plot elements. The movie's still at home and I might give it another shot but I doubt it.

I liked Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. I thought the build up was too slow. I thought Wayne Sr. was too much of a saint/exalted figure (is he considered so highly in the comic). The movie was very pretty though. Wayne Manor looked great and it made me wonder why Bruce would risk so much physically. This is a perpetual question behind the character but the movie really brought it to the fore.

[Guts/Batman]

I liked Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. I thought the build up was too slow. I thought Wayne Sr. was too much of a saint/exalted figure (is he considered so highly in the comic)

Yep.

He is generally considered a saint in the comic to my knowledge. We'll have to see how much of a saint he is after Gotham Knights #72, however...

[Ontir]

I am hoping we don't see the Joker in the next film. I'd like to see Batman pursuing him, and maybe see a hyena or two, along with a body with a Joker card sticking out of it's face, telling us that he's been after him, but hasn't caught up with him, teasing the impending battle, while being distracted by a more immediate concern - like the Riddler, handled more along the lines of Saw's Jigsaw, rather than the over-the-top guy Carrey played.

[Lex]

I am hoping we don't see the Joker in the next film. I'd like to see Batman pursuing him, and maybe see a hyena or two, along with a body with a Joker card sticking out of it's face, telling us that he's been after him, but hasn't caught up with him, teasing the impending battle, while being distracted by a more immediate concern - like the Riddler, handled more along the lines of Saw's Jigsaw, rather than the over-the-top guy Carrey played.I'm not sure how that would work for a movie. It would be weird to have all that Joker-related stuff happening during the course of the movie but not resolving any of it. It would have to be very subtle so it doesn't distract from the main plot.

We'll have to see how much of a saint he is after Gotham Knights #72, however...I saw the solicitation for that and it really pissed me off. I really dislike that book.

[Ontir]

It wouldn't be distracting if it were in the opening, and ended with Batman having no idea where Joker got to, then returned to the cave, etc. It's kind of like a Bond film, where he's finishing something, which then segues into the action and story of the film.

[Paroxysm]

I finally saw Batman Begins, and I have to admit that was a good over-the-top action film, but... NOT a Batman film. This movie gets my "Special Brownies" rating.

1. Bruce Wayne is over the grief that his parents are dead, but his new motivation is to be a 'symbol' of 'hope' and something 'good' in the City of Gotham of old, by dressing up as a lunatic vigilante in a scary bat costume... (yeah, that inspires hope and goodness) I feel safer already. Also, going back to his 'new' motivation, it's SO frickkin' OBVIOUS that his 'fear' is a set-up for the antagonist of the film: The Scarecrow... Man, I almost retched when I heard him talk about fear because it was the most obvious foreshadowing... EVER! Where's the angry bitter dark knight of vengence that was spurred on to deal justice not because like most criminals, "Mommy and Daddy Didn't Love Me"; but in Bruce/Batman's case "Mommy and Daddy Never Got a Chance To Love Me!" But people are eating those brownies up! They can't make enough of them or fast enough to keep up with their hunger.

2. Batman rescues the girl and stands in clear view in the bright lights so she can see him and really just to impress her. "So... You live around here? Wanna get some coffee? I just saved you're life, gimme them digits."

C'mon, even in the animated series, Batman would save you, but disappear or remain in the shadows so you don't really know if he's human or not. He never really (but on slight occassions) even let Jim Gordan see him directly in the comics or the animated series. The Batman is a 'boogey-man' and when he get's down, he get's down. Someone got a camera? Batman just boogies; he's gone before the flash hits.

3. Why does Batman drive a SUPED-UP GAS-GUSSLING HUMMER? I mean, really. How did he get that thing into the city without getting pulled over? Where did he park it? HOW could he park it? There's no alley big enough for that thing ! I'm assuming that's just appealing more to the Americans need for oversized cars that run people off the road and hold up the gas-pump. As you'll see later. Anyone GOT MILK! You can't enjoy the deliciousness of a good brownie without a glass of good old American FDA-Calcium-Enriched wholesome Nectar of the Sacred HOLY COW.

4. Batman want's the people of Gotham to know that he's a protector. In the scene where he's driving on the highway like a mad-man, of course trying to save "The Girl", he causes more destruction and death than the Flash could at rush-hour! Oops! Sorry several fellow drivers, I'm saving this one woman's life though I've probably just destroyed several generational lines doing so. I would find this more acceptable if this were the angry, bitter, Bruce/Batman it might be more plausiable that innocents were hurt, but still Tim Burton's Batman had chases and no one was directly hurt. So we'll take ONE brownie off for that one.

5.Batman has always been portrayed as having a private war on crime. He explains, or rather IT is explained because Batman doesn't have to explain himself. that the gear and costume are to strike fear into his enemies. So why is it that when Bruce and Alfred are building the Batcave and Bat-things, Bruce tosses a 'Batarang' and smiles at Alfred.. "Cool."...Like their building a "Bat-Treehouse" or something!

Yeah, okay... it IS cool, but Batman isn't about 'cool'. He's hell bent on dealing with the 'scum' of Gotham with his own brand of no-mercy- no-holds barred- beat his ass before the cops get a hold of em- tough love mommy and daddy didn't give 'em- JUSTICE!!!! It's not about the coolness.

But hey, here's another batch of brownies fresh out of the Bat-Oven... Alfred's so happy you're enjoying them!

And there's more, but I think that's enough... I figure you kids are pretty full off of them brownies... Huh? Yeah, I thought so.

So, I guess now you're wondering WHY do covet this movie with my rating of "Special Browines"?

Well, let's put like this in the rehearsed conclusion I have here.

Batman Begins is not a 'bad' movie to me. It's a great action movie, but not a Batman Movie. Too far a departure from the character we have known and... uh,... related to.

Now as I said, it's a great action movie and by the points I've just given a lot of people leaving the theatre suddenly realized my points past the sensationlism that thrilled them and inspired them to test the limits of their bladders after buying the Jumbo Sprite with the popcorn combo. They step off, not come off, the peak of euphoric high just slightly... It's like looking at the behind the scenes of Seame Street; seeing the guy in the Big Bird... (hard to say it)... costume... (Big Bird is real... He's real... So is Mr. Snuffalufagus... However the hell you spell his name)...

I summerize it up like this... Let's say I just gave you some brownies and they're the best brownies you've ever tasted. You keep begging me to tell you what's in it? What's the secret ingredient?

"I can't tell you. It'll ruin it for you." I tell them.

"C'mon man! Ummm-MMM! What's this made of?"

"Okay... You really wanna know." I cave, but testing them for certainty.

"Yes!" they shout in unison and begin scarfing down a fresh batch....

"Huh. You're sure. I mean reeeeeally sure?"

"YES! PLEASE!!" they beg.

"Okay... It's Bulls**t. Bulls**t. And it was DEE-LICIOUS, wasn't it?"

"... ... ... Wha-?"

"Yeah, that's right. Bulls**t. I just fed you some Bulls**t, and you ate it all up. Just like the bulls**t they fed you in the movie; all the traditional American glamourizing of explosions, destruction, and confusing, albeit realistic, fighting, and just basic over-the-top Bulls**t. Now, even though I just pointed it out... You're still loving them brownies now aren't ya? Uh-huh. Sure you are.

[kmeyers]

Now, even though I just pointed it out... You're still loving them brownies now aren't ya? Uh-huh. Sure you are.
Still delicious. Can I get another one?

[Davideaux]

Well done.

Do another!

[West Mantooth]

No offense but I think you saw what you wanted to see.

1. The motivation was still his parents. More so his father. His father tried to help people and now he wants to do the same. Hope to the good citizens and fear to the criminals.

2.What girl? Rachel? Yeah, Batman revealed his ID even in the Burton films.
He trust Rachel the same way he trust Gordon.

3. A Hummer versus a limo with wings.

4. Movie magic! Batman can drive his tank without hurting anyone, and he can crash land a plane in a city street without hurting anyone( 1989).

5.That's your opinon. It represented their relationship. A humours smile between friends.

You're are right about one thing. It wasn't a Batman film. It was a great Bruce Wayne/Batman film. I'm defending this and I wasn't even super in love with it. Go figure.

[Indigo Al]

Seriously man! When are people going to FINALLY wake up and realize Batman and Robin is THE definitive Batman film????

[Cyke]

How can the movie be too far of a departure of a character, if the movie is much more character driven than the original four?

His psychological motives, his origins, even how he chooses his friends, were given far more depth than the original Burton film, and I liked that one.

[Silliw 2]

No offense but I think you saw what you wanted to see.



Agreed.






.....

[kalorama]

I finally saw Batman Begins, and I have to admit that was a good over-the-top action film, but... NOT a Batman film. This movie gets my "Special Brownies" rating.

1. Bruce Wayne is over the grief that his parents are dead, but his new motivation is to be a 'symbol' of 'hope' and something 'good' in the City of Gotham of old, by dressing up as a lunatic vigilante in a scary bat costume... (yeah, that inspires hope and goodness) I feel safer already. Also, going back to his 'new' motivation, it's SO frickkin' OBVIOUS that his 'fear' is a set-up for the antagonist of the film: The Scarecrow... Man, I almost retched when I heard him talk about fear because it was the most obvious foreshadowing... EVER! Where's the angry bitter dark knight of vengence that was spurred on to deal justice not because like most criminals, "Mommy and Daddy Didn't Love Me"; but in Bruce/Batman's case "Mommy and Daddy Never Got a Chance To Love Me!" But people are eating those brownies up! They can't make enough of them or fast enough to keep up with their hunger.

2. Batman rescues the girl and stands in clear view in the bright lights so she can see him and really just to impress her. "So... You live around here? Wanna get some coffee? I just saved you're life, gimme them digits."

C'mon, even in the animated series, Batman would save you, but disappear or remain in the shadows so you don't really know if he's human or not. He never really (but on slight occassions) even let Jim Gordan see him directly in the comics or the animated series. The Batman is a 'boogey-man' and when he get's down, he get's down. Someone got a camera? Batman just boogies; he's gone before the flash hits.

3. Why does Batman drive a SUPED-UP GAS-GUSSLING HUMMER? I mean, really. How did he get that thing into the city without getting pulled over? Where did he park it? HOW could he park it? There's no alley big enough for that thing ! I'm assuming that's just appealing more to the Americans need for oversized cars that run people off the road and hold up the gas-pump. As you'll see later. Anyone GOT MILK! You can't enjoy the deliciousness of a good brownie without a glass of good old American FDA-Calcium-Enriched wholesome Nectar of the Sacred HOLY COW.

4. Batman want's the people of Gotham to know that he's a protector. In the scene where he's driving on the highway like a mad-man, of course trying to save "The Girl", he causes more destruction and death than the Flash could at rush-hour! Oops! Sorry several fellow drivers, I'm saving this one woman's life though I've probably just destroyed several generational lines doing so. I would find this more acceptable if this were the angry, bitter, Bruce/Batman it might be more plausiable that innocents were hurt, but still Tim Burton's Batman had chases and no one was directly hurt. So we'll take ONE brownie off for that one.

5.Batman has always been portrayed as having a private war on crime. He explains, or rather IT is explained because Batman doesn't have to explain himself. that the gear and costume are to strike fear into his enemies. So why is it that when Bruce and Alfred are building the Batcave and Bat-things, Bruce tosses a 'Batarang' and smiles at Alfred.. "Cool."...Like their building a "Bat-Treehouse" or something!

Yeah, okay... it IS cool, but Batman isn't about 'cool'. He's hell bent on dealing with the 'scum' of Gotham with his own brand of no-mercy- no-holds barred- beat his ass before the cops get a hold of em- tough love mommy and daddy didn't give 'em- JUSTICE!!!! It's not about the coolness.

But hey, here's another batch of brownies fresh out of the Bat-Oven... Alfred's so happy you're enjoying them!

And there's more, but I think that's enough... I figure you kids are pretty full off of them brownies... Huh? Yeah, I thought so.

So, I guess now you're wondering WHY do covet this movie with my rating of "Special Browines"?

Well, let's put like this in the rehearsed conclusion I have here.

Batman Begins is not a 'bad' movie to me. It's a great action movie, but not a Batman Movie. Too far a departure from the character we have known and... uh,... related to.

Now as I said, it's a great action movie and by the points I've just given a lot of people leaving the theatre suddenly realized my points past the sensationlism that thrilled them and inspired them to test the limits of their bladders after buying the Jumbo Sprite with the popcorn combo. They step off, not come off, the peak of euphoric high just slightly... It's like looking at the behind the scenes of Seame Street; seeing the guy in the Big Bird... (hard to say it)... costume... (Big Bird is real... He's real... So is Mr. Snuffalufagus... However the hell you spell his name)...

I summerize it up like this... Let's say I just gave you some brownies and they're the best brownies you've ever tasted. You keep begging me to tell you what's in it? What's the secret ingredient?

"I can't tell you. It'll ruin it for you." I tell them.

"C'mon man! Ummm-MMM! What's this made of?"

"Okay... You really wanna know." I cave, but testing them for certainty.

"Yes!" they shout in unison and begin scarfing down a fresh batch....

"Huh. You're sure. I mean reeeeeally sure?"

"YES! PLEASE!!" they beg.

"Okay... It's Bulls**t. Bulls**t. And it was DEE-LICIOUS, wasn't it?"

"... ... ... Wha-?"

"Yeah, that's right. Bulls**t. I just fed you some Bulls**t, and you ate it all up. Just like the bulls**t they fed you in the movie; all the traditional American glamourizing of explosions, destruction, and confusing, albeit realistic, fighting, and just basic over-the-top Bulls**t. Now, even though I just pointed it out... You're still loving them brownies now aren't ya? Uh-huh. Sure you are.


So ... to summarize: You're reeeaally kewl and suh-mart. And anybody who has an opinion different than your is, like, a loser?

Couldn't you have just said that in the first place and saved us the trouble of reading all those lines of ... brownies?

[CaptainAwesome]

So ... to summarize: You're reeeaally kewl and suh-mart. And anybody who has an opinion different than your is, like, a loser?

Couldn't you have just said that in the first place and saved us the trouble of reading all those lines of ... brownies?
So ... to summarize: You're reeeaally kewl and suh-mart. And anybody who has an opinion different than your is, like, a loser?

[kalorama]

So ... to summarize: You're reeeaally kewl and suh-mart. And anybody who has an opinion different than your is, like, a loser?

Nope. Well, I am cool and smart. But I'm not the one who spent half a page leading up to a lame punchline about how anybody who liked a movie I didn't was dumb enough to eat sh*t, was I?

[Paroxysm]

So ... to summarize: You're reeeaally kewl and suh-mart. And anybody who has an opinion different than your is, like, a loser?

Couldn't you have just said that in the first place and saved us the trouble of reading all those lines of ... brownies?

Hey, DUDE, you're all good with that! You're opinion and all that... I just wanted to express my opinions on the film as I did when I did on the premiere when I stepped out of the theatre.... Almost literally everything I said DID actually happen. Except for the eating of the proverbrial brownies...

But this is a perfect example of America's youth being exposed to what they think is "NEW" but it's just rehased... Like: "Charlies' Angles", "Dukes Of Hazard", Phoenix Rising, Batman Begins, Superman Returns"; ect, ect. ...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's a bad thing that it's a sign of the loss of originality... And I believe that a sign of BLATANT loss of originality is a sign of the so called "End of All Times"... With this... What more do we have to inspire the youth of tomorrow? Does history really have to repeat itself?
__________________
I do what I can, because I can. I have the ability to do so, so... why not?

[Mia]

No offense but I think you saw what you wanted to see.




Naw, I think he saw the film through the haze of blunt.

[DC/Marvelfan]

I don't know why some think this film got everything right.

None of the characters were done right.

They made Gordon look perfect, yet he was a total wimp, Gordon is a tough S.O.B.

Batman seems to have no brains, he just goes to Fox for everything, he could have come up with that anit-toxin himself.

Alfred was okay but not as proper as he should have been, he seemed like too much of a smart ass.

Which Alfred is at times, but he didn't hold up that Butler additude.

Loeb should have been an old white guy with a memorabelia collection, it just added something to him the right way in Year One.

Flass should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron.

They should have just done a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City. BB is too dull. I hate to see what's coming next with that horrible looking Joker.

Ra's got it bad too, he lacked his Pits and all around character.

[Armless Penguin]

I respectfully disagree. As good as YEAR ONE was, I feel BEGINS worked much better as a film than a straight adaption of the comic would have.

[PunkPoserStyle]

I don't know why some think this film got everything right.

None of the characters were done right.

They made Gordon look perfect, yet he was a total wimp, Gordon is a tough S.O.B.

And he was...
He chased Bruce when he was wearing his prototype outfit...
he went inside Arkham Asylum by himself even though backup was on the way...
He was able to carry Rachel through the Asylum filled with flying bats...
He knocked out Flass and locked him up with his own handcuffs...
and he drove the Batmobile to help stop the train from causing Gotham to tear itself apart through mass panic.


Batman seems to have no brains, he just goes to Fox for everything, he could have come up with that anti-toxin himself.

I have no doubt that he could have, but he didn't have the time! He was out cold for two days after he was first hit by it, then he had to watch over Rachel at Arkham as well as nail Crane. Once he got back he had to have Fox manufacture the antidote on a wide scale because he had to keep up his playboy persona at his birthday party. At that point, Fox had more access and more knowledge of the rescources needed to do so. Plus, he didn't know he'd run into Ra's Al Ghul then either. And no brains? When he returns to Gotham we see him doing detective work (when he sees that blessed bat, he goes to Wayne Enterprises and he knows immediately to go to Applied Sciences). Even though Alfred helped, he made his batsuit, and he equipped himself with his arsenal. Even though he didn't make them himself, he knew what he needed. After a few trials-and-errors of course. Then in the finale he has two plans. One being going face to face with Ra's and stopping the train manually, the other having Gordon in the Batmobile to blow the tracks up. Both of which he made pretty much on the spot, probably in the time between he went into the Batcave and then suited up.

Alfred was okay but not as proper as he should have been, he seemed like too much of a smart ass.

Which Alfred is at times, but he didn't hold up that Butler attitude.

Well when we see Alfred he's always with Bruce. And that's how he is with Bruce, a smartass of sorts, yeah. When we don't see him he's in two peculiar situations. One is when he's putting an unconscious Rachel in his car to take her home, how was he gonna explain himself? And then when he knocked out the guy guarding the burning Wayne Manor, he just said it to himself. Alfred seems like the guy to make quips to himself.

Loeb should have been an old white guy with a memorabelia collection, it just added something to him the right way in Year One.

That would've been neat. But he was hardly in the movie, so there'd be no point dwelling on him.

Flass should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron.

That I agree with.

They should have just done a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City. BB is too dull. I hate to see what's coming next with that horrible looking Joker.

Year One page for page wouldn't have been epic or grand enough for a big summer movie that WB wanted. The beauty of Year One is not only Miller's writing, but Mazzuchelli's art. It wouldn't be as much of a classic as it is if Miller drew it himself, or if like Jim Lee drew it or something.Year One isn't Year One to me without the art.

Save your final reservations on the Joker until you seem him fully, smiling, and in motion.

Ra's got it bad too, he lacked his Pits and all around character.

Yeah you're right, but he fit well in the movie's context I guess. I'm not saying they got everything perfect in the movie, but not nearly as wrong as you think they did. The could've added more to make the movie more faithful, but it's great as it is.

[StoneGold]

Maybe you could just make an all-purpose "why I think superhero movies should follow the books exactly" thread?


There's something about these that make me want to point and laugh.

[Testament_X]

This was BEGINS, do you understand the concept of character development? Bruce isn't going to start off with knowledge of all the technology of his company but eventually will, Gordon isn't as good as he will be YET, but also isn't Commissioner either. I am surprised anyone takes issue with this honestly....

[kmeyers]

I don't know why some think this film got everything right.

None of the characters were done right.

They made Gordon look perfect, yet he was a total wimp, Gordon is a tough S.O.B.

Batman seems to have no brains, he just goes to Fox for everything, he could have come up with that anit-toxin himself.

Alfred was okay but not as proper as he should have been, he seemed like too much of a smart ass.

Which Alfred is at times, but he didn't hold up that Butler additude.

Loeb should have been an old white guy with a memorabelia collection, it just added something to him the right way in Year One.

Flass should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron.

They should have just done a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City. BB is too dull. I hate to see what's coming next with that horrible looking Joker.

Ra's got it bad too, he lacked his Pits and all around character.

How DARE someone create their own awesome origin story! Wait, isn't that exactly what Frank Miller did with Year One?

What were we arguing about again?

Oh Yeah, Nolan is awesome.

[marshal99]

I don't know why some think this film got everything right.

None of the characters were done right.

They made Gordon look perfect, yet he was a total wimp, Gordon is a tough S.O.B.

Batman seems to have no brains, he just goes to Fox for everything, he could have come up with that anit-toxin himself.

Alfred was okay but not as proper as he should have been, he seemed like too much of a smart ass.

Which Alfred is at times, but he didn't hold up that Butler additude.

Loeb should have been an old white guy with a memorabelia collection, it just added something to him the right way in Year One.

Flass should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron.

They should have just done a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City. BB is too dull. I hate to see what's coming next with that horrible looking Joker.

Ra's got it bad too, he lacked his Pits and all around character.

When will you stop whining about comic book movies ? Sheesh , seemed like you have a bone to pick with every single comic book movie there is.

[The Xenos]

I will agree on some gripes.

Wayne didn't seem as well educated or as smart as I hoped. Though he did do some detective work in finding out what cops were crooked. This lead him to Jim Gordon. Still, I wish we saw much more of his training. Conversely, I like the touch of how he lived on the other side of the law to see how crime works.

Gordon was quite good. Sure, not perfect, but he felt pretty good. My only complaint was that he was there the night Bruce came in as a kid. It wasn't needed. They could have left his origins in Chicago as unsaid even if they never touched on them in the films.

My biggest gripe was Flass. Yes! He should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron. He looked too much like a sloppier and more corrupt Bullock or that cop in the 89 film.

As for Ra's, yes, I miss the Lazarus Pits. At the same time, the trick with Ubu and the con was quit enjoyable and I think fit the character.

As for "a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City". Becareful what you wish for. Miller did write a Year One script. Yet him himself made many changes and made it too Sin City, so Warners rightfully rejected it.

I think this was a good amalgam of the O'Neil and Adams Batman, Year One, and hints of Long Halloween.

Supposedly, early drafts were closer to long Halloween with Gordon, Batman, and Dent making a deal to take down Falcone. Sadly, the studio demanded a female DA and love interest, so that was scrapped.

Also, what about Falcone? Wasn't that amazing? When I first heard the casting, I didn't like it. Then I saw him on screen and he was amazing.

[DC/Marvelfan]

BB was nothing.

[Cyke]

BB was nothing.

Yeah, damn that character development and for making Gordon a full-fledged, realized person instead of the silly, ineffectual head of the Keystone Cops from the first four movies.

And, as pointed out earlier, in BB Gordon was a cop who could keep up with Batman as well. Even in Batman Forever, Robin couldn't do that, he just kept messing up.

[The Xenos]

Not only that, getting a Gordon who's not just keystone cop fodder, but it was Gary Oldman playing him. That was amazing.

Now, yes, it wasn't page for page Batman Year One. Yet I think it was a damn good effort. They wanted to fit in more than just Year One. Like I said, they also tossed in fan favorites like Long Halloween and the O'Neil and Adams Batman. I belive there was also a touch of that Batman Shaman mixed in with the Ra's storyline.

Oh and of course the worst part of the whole film was Katie Holmes. I don't care if it was a total sausage fest, that should have been Harvey Dent. Well, you know, without the kissing and all that. It would have been just like Long Halloween if Goyer had his wy. Can't blame Goyer and Nolan for the bullshit the studio makes him do. At least he tried fighting them.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

I was unhappy that Katie Holmes had a role and felt Rachel wasn't necessary as a character. I've seen the movie four or five times, though (got it on DVD) and while I still don't like Holmes I was willing to forgive her presence in the film because I thought just about everything else worked and I would rather have Nolan get a well-cast Harvey Dent than to pick someone who wasn't that great or just servicable. I don't know if Nolan fought with the studio. He said in a commentary that 90% of what he wanted for the film made it into the final production and that the stuff that didn't make it didn't make it because it was impractical, not because the studio wouldn't let him try it.

And now that Gyllenhal is playing Rachel and Aaron Eckhart is Dent I may just forgive the shortcomings I saw in Batman Begins, which were relatively few. If the studio intervened maybe that gave Nolan time to find a really solid Harvey Dent. I haven't seen Eckhart in anything but friends have told me he should do a good job.

I thought Oldman was perfect as Gordon, not the tough sob cop but the morally compromised cop who has given up hope of being able to change things until he finds he has an ally on the wrong side of the law. It all depends on what vision of Jim Gordon we're talking about. By my reading of Year One Oldman is more than good casting.

[Ult. Fireboy]

My favorite has been Batman Begins. It was close though between that and the Batman with Keaton, but I liked Begins better. But it was close!:)

[The Batman]

I don't know why some think this film got everything right.

None of the characters were done right.

They did a great job with Alfred. The Scarecrow was about as interesting as he's ever been.


They made Gordon look perfect, yet he was a total wimp, Gordon is a tough S.O.B.

Agreed, he looked perfect. I don't know that I'd call him a total wimp though he did seem to side with the crazy guy in the batsuit pretty quick.


Batman seems to have no brains, he just goes to Fox for everything, he could have come up with that anit-toxin himself.

This is probably my biggest complaint with the film and where I agree with you the most. The Batman in Batman Begins was a guy who was a really good fighter but not much else it seems. Nearly every step in his journey required direction from someone else, be it Rachel Dawes, Carmine Falcone, Lucius Fox, or Ras Ah Ghul. The only reason he isn't a murderer is because of circumstance. I think Bale was great as Bruce Wayne and alright as Batman but alot of the story steps that brought him to that place felt off to me.


Alfred was okay but not as proper as he should have been, he seemed like too much of a smart ass.

Which Alfred is at times, but he didn't hold up that Butler additude.

See above. I liked Caine as Alfred and thought he did a good job of lightening things up when necessary.


Loeb should have been an old white guy with a memorabelia collection, it just added something to him the right way in Year One.

For the amount we saw Loeb in the film, This wouldn't have mattered much.


Flass should be a tall well built ex navy seal, not some fat moron.

I suppose he could've been. I think that Nolan and Co. felt that Flass's obese, slovenly appearence would be a good visual shorthand for showing us that the character was corrupt and undisciplined.


They should have just done a faithful Year One movie with input from Miller like Sin City. BB is too dull. I hate to see what's coming next with that horrible looking Joker.

A more faithful Year One film might've been interesting. I thought that this movie kind of went off the rails a little when we got to the big climax with Ras's "Gotham City must be destroyed" Rube Goldberg microwave weapon plan. It just felt unever given all the smaller, more interesting stuff we'd gotten before. Maybe a more fathful Year One story would've felt more even. I'd definately have been interested in it, Year One is probably my second or third favourite Batman story.


Ra's got it bad too, he lacked his Pits and all around character.

I suppose the Pits didn't fit into Nolan's world.

Overall I though Begins was alright. A good movie and an okay Batman movie. I realize alot of what I'm saying is probably fanboy nitpicking but I'm going to let myself nitpick Batman.

[jesse_custer]

The biggest flaw in Batman Begins was Katie Holmes and a couple of cheesy lines about who Batman is on the inside that defines him or whatever.

The plot wasn't adamantium, but at least the characters were interesting, and at least the movie had a clearly defined beginning, climax, etc.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

i can't believe i never commented on this film yet,but yeah BB=TEH AWESOMENESS.

[The Xenos]

This is probably my biggest complaint with the film and where I agree with you the most. The Batman in Batman Begins was a guy who was a really good fighter but not much else it seems. Nearly every step in his journey required direction from someone else, be it Rachel Dawes, Carmine Falcone, Lucius Fox, or Ras Ah Ghul. The only reason he isn't a murderer is because of circumstance. I think Bale was great as Bruce Wayne and alright as Batman but alot of the story steps that brought him to that place felt off to me.


True. That was a flaw. I chalk it up to that he's young and he's not perfect yet. Plus I guess they tried to make him a little more real and a little less Bat-god.

Though we did see some of his failures in the book. We didn't get the scene in year where Bruce gets taken down by a bunch of hookers and barely makes the drive home. Then again, I guess we did get that when Scarecrow gassed him and he had to call for Alfred. We also saw that in that scene in Mask of the Phantasm.

Still, yes, he should have been more of a self made man instead of relying on others so much. Well, here's hoping he grows more into that Bat-god who can do anything, the penultimate human.

[The Batman]

I'm fine with Batman not being Morrison's Batgod, it's kinda fun seeing an inexperienced Batman sweat it out, I'd just prefer him to be alot more of a self-made man. I mean, that bit where he's going to kill Joe Chill but Falcone's hitwoman beats him to it and Rachel has to literally slap it into him that a killer isn't what his parents would've wanted for their son because it's wrong just didn't ring true to me - he should've been able to put together for himself that that sort of thing isn't right.

[Pyro]

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I watched this for the second time tonight (first time was in theatres). I enjoyed it more this time around, however, at this point, I've read more Batman comics (including Year One) and seen more of the animated series, so I guess I had more to pull from. That said, I still think this movie has quite a few flaws.

I have never been a fan of this Batman's costume nor the Tumbler. Well, the cape was kind of cool, but the cowl is too chunky and the the suit is too rubbery looking. I suppose it's overall more practical, being made for military use, but personally I think it's all less cool.

Batman/Bruce Wayne - I loved the character introspection that we hadn't seen in previous movies. But I definitely felt there were a few parts of his characterization that were missing. This Bruce didn't seem to be a genius in either science or deductive reasoning. His detective work consisted of yelling at people with a raspy voice (another thing I didn't like), or coming to the obvious conclusion, which isn't too terrible, seeing as this movie was more about action than mystery. A bigger error was the recklessness Batman had. Someone mentioned the irony of him refusing to kill the guy, but blowing up the entire monastery, and I hated seeing him tear up police cars in the Tumbler. Perhaps this was all done intentionally, since Alfred pointed it out and Bruce is probably not yet at the point where he's fighting as cleanly as possible. I also didn't like the way he first talked to Gordon.

I prefer my Alfred to have a more proper accent, but that's a nitpick, as his acting and role was good.

Ra's Al Ghul. I really liked Liam Neeson's performance and the plot switch has always worked for me. What didn't work for me was his motivations. "We must destroy Gotham just as we destroyed Rome and Constantinople. Why? Because this is what we do." Why Gotham in particular? Because it was overrun with crime and bad people? But wasn't that Ra's' fault in the first place, because he had been controlling it economically? Perhaps if there was a line saying Ra's had gone crazy from one too many Lazarus pit submersions, I would have understood his motives. Targeting Gotham just seemed odd to me; I missed the world-conscious Ra's of old.

Katie Holmes - Not bad. But I do not buy her as a tough DA. And I hated her lines at the end about Bruce being the mask... There definitely were times where this movie could have been more subtle.

I thought that shanty-town island where Arkham was was a bit ridiculous.

There were some awful movie one-liners. And I can think of at least three instances where one character knowingly repeats a line another character said earlier. And they all made me want to gag. I'm not sure doing that is necessary to bring a plot line full-circle.

I thought the score was unimpressive, which is very disappointing coming from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard. Honestly, I wasn't paying attention to much of it. Perhaps they purposefully made it understated, but history shows that Batman lends itself to awesome orchestral arrangements. The one theme I took any notice of sounded too similar to Danny Elfman's Spider-Man theme, and still wasn't as good.

I think it's easier to list the things that I didn't like and then say I liked the rest. But some things I really liked: Gordon's idea of "escalating crime" and the way it lead to the Joker, and the way everything tied together (conquering fear, becoming an icon of fear, the Scarecrow, ...and Ra's plan--the weakest part of the chain) I also thought this movie did a good job explaining the reasons behind becoming a costumed hero (being more than a vigilante and becoming a legend, using theatricality, striking fear into that cowardly lot, and of course, protecting loved ones).