Batman Begins

[Darth Stujitzu]

Spoiler Alert:
For those who liked Joel Schumaker's Batman, do not go and see this film, there is no neon or bat-nipples anywhere!!!!!

IMO this is the best comic adaptation so far. Next to Sin City this is the darkest comic adapt so far. So what makes this movie so enjoyable? What Chris Nolan has achieved is the most plausible super hero story to reach the big screen so far. For those of you who feel that other movies in this genre are watered down to appease young kids, rejoice, for Nolan has unleashed the most tortured,sadistic,vengefull Batman upon us.
This is an ultra-realistic Batman, even the villans of the piece are scarily realistic,especially mob boss Falcone and Cillian Murphy's brilliant if slightly underused Scarecrow. The pace of the film can be a little slow, especially the set up story which takes up most of the first hour, but unlike previous attempts, we learn so much more about how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and the journey that lead him there.
On the whole this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for, dark, gothic, sleek and believable. Bale is superb, he handles the duality of his role with relish, and is by far the most realistic caped crusader to date. The supporting cast is excellent as well, great performances from Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson, and a special mention for Morgan Frreman, he excells as Lucious Fox.
There is a twist at the end, and it does set up the sequel nicely, can't wait to see what Nolan does with this franchise.

[Dazed&Confused]

Spoiler Alert:
For those who liked Joel Schumaker's Batman, do not go and see this film, there is no neon or bat-nipples anywhere!!!!!

IMO this is the best comic adaptation so far. Next to Sin City this is the darkest comic adapt so far. So what makes this movie so enjoyable? What Chris Nolan has achieved is the most plausible super hero story to reach the big screen so far. For those of you who feel that other movies in this genre are watered down to appease young kids, rejoice, for Nolan has unleashed the most tortured,sadistic,vengefull Batman upon us.
This is an ultra-realistic Batman, even the villans of the piece are scarily realistic,especially mob boss Falcone and Cillian Murphy's brilliant if slightly underused Scarecrow. The pace of the film can be a little slow, especially the set up story which takes up most of the first hour, but unlike previous attempts, we learn so much more about how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and the journey that lead him there.
On the whole this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for, dark, gothic, sleek and believable. Bale is superb, he handles the duality of his role with relish, and is by far the most realistic caped crusader to date. The supporting cast is excellent as well, great performances from Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson, and a special mention for Morgan Frreman, he excells as Lucious Fox.
There is a twist at the end, and it does set up the sequel nicely, can't wait to see what Nolan does with this franchise.

Nice review although I do have a problem with idea that a comic book adaptation is "ultra realistic". Surely that's an oxymoron.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Spoiler Alert:
For those who liked Joel Schumaker's Batman, do not go and see this film, there is no neon or bat-nipples anywhere!!!!!

IMO this is the best comic adaptation so far. Next to Sin City this is the darkest comic adapt so far. So what makes this movie so enjoyable? What Chris Nolan has achieved is the most plausible super hero story to reach the big screen so far. For those of you who feel that other movies in this genre are watered down to appease young kids, rejoice, for Nolan has unleashed the most tortured,sadistic,vengefull Batman upon us.
This is an ultra-realistic Batman, even the villans of the piece are scarily realistic,especially mob boss Falcone and Cillian Murphy's brilliant if slightly underused Scarecrow. The pace of the film can be a little slow, especially the set up story which takes up most of the first hour, but unlike previous attempts, we learn so much more about how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and the journey that lead him there.
On the whole this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for, dark, gothic, sleek and believable. Bale is superb, he handles the duality of his role with relish, and is by far the most realistic caped crusader to date. The supporting cast is excellent as well, great performances from Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson, and a special mention for Morgan Frreman, he excells as Lucious Fox.
There is a twist at the end, and it does set up the sequel nicely, can't wait to see what Nolan does with this franchise.
Spoilerphobia kept me from all reviews of this til I'd seen it and written my own, and here I see I was unwittingly echoing you. :)
Agreed on all points, especially about the stylised reality of the film making this one more relatable.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Nice review although I do have a problem with idea that a comic book adaptation is "ultra realistic". Surely that's an oxymoron.


Oxymoron, you show-off. Good point, Batman is the most plausible of all the superhero genre because he doesn't have special powers, and instead rely's upon wit and invention. Nolan has been clever in that the film reflects the current climate and use of chemical weapons, all of which are more believeable then anything Joel Schumaker ever did.

It was my first post, so I shall improve over the course of time. Cheers for the reply.

[Dazed&Confused]

Oxymoron, you show-off. Good point, Batman is the most plausible of all the superhero genre because he doesn't have special powers, and instead rely's upon wit and invention. Nolan has been clever in that the film reflects the current climate and use of chemical weapons, all of which are more believeable then anything Joel Schumaker ever did.

It was my first post, so I shall improve over the course of time. Cheers for the reply.
The post was a good one but isn't Frank Castle (The Punisher) the most realistic superhero of all? He's just a guy hellbent on revenge without any superpowers of any kind. All he has is his lust for revenge and his smarts...

[Escape]

Good film. I had only a couple problems with it.



The reason behind liam neesons' character in that he wanted to cleanse the city simply because of the corruption. How can he get so bent on cleaning up the garbage while killing the innocent. I just thought it was a little over the top.

Also, when Batman was fighing him on the train. How was Batman even coming close to loosing? He had on this bullet proof suit of his. Most of the blows didn't appear in any of the vulnerable areas of it, perhaps such as the joints.
It seems he was on the loosing end of the scrap until he pointed out to neeson that the train was not gonna stop.

And why were these people attacking batman, if they were all full of that fear drug. Instead of going at him, they should have been running the other way.

[Terminator734]

Escame come on his plan wasnt over the top hes an Evil Villian and thats wat they do come up with evil plans that dont necesarry make sense to others and the fight remember who tought batman how to fight ....


and i simply loved this move its going on my top list as the best comic book/ action movie ever!!!!!
it was just amazing i left the theater simply stunned and amazed at how brilliant it was

WOW just perfect comic book fan or not its a MUST SEE!!!

[Escape]

and the fight remember who tought batman how to fight ....


I understand this but i'm not sure He was that much better then Bats near the end. And with added protection, he should have the edge.

[Sedai]

The post was a good one but isn't Frank Castle (The Punisher) the most realistic superhero of all? He's just a guy hellbent on revenge without any superpowers of any kind. All he has is his lust for revenge and his smarts... Not really. Batman has no powers either, and is just a far more interesting character, IMO. All Batman has is his vengence (can't get revenge) and his smarts...and his money. The dual nature of Batman is what makes him interesting to me. Crane mentions the Jungian stuff in the film, which ties in to Bats and his rogues gallery nicely. But, to be fair, I have had only minor exposure to the Castle stuff, and he is a somewhat interesting character. Batman ujust has so much more interesting mythos attached...


Some news on the sequel today:

Saucer-eyed actress dropped from Batman sequel (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2072.asp)

[nigel101]

i went to see this film with my gf, after hearing all the hype i told her i had to see it, half way through you could tell people where getting bored, its the only film ive ever seen where at the end when the credits begin everyone says wa-hay! thank god its over. Batman vs the joker is the best and the $400,000,000+ at the box office shows it.

[Darth Stujitzu]

i went to see this film with my gf, after hearing all the hype i told her i had to see it, half way through you could tell people where getting bored, its the only film ive ever seen where at the end when the credits begin everyone says wa-hay! thank god its over. Batman vs the joker is the best and the $400,000,000+ at the box office shows it.

Yeah this film is not going to everyone's cup of tea, but I hate movies where things just happen out of context with no reasoning. Remember, this is the set up movie,so I'm expecting a more action packed sequel. This film is more of an adult themed comic adapt, but I would never want to sit through Batman and Robin again, I would rather rub salt on my eyeballs!!!! Shame you didn't enjoy it, but intresting to hear negative reviews about the film too.

[Darth Stujitzu]

The post was a good one but isn't Frank Castle (The Punisher) the most realistic superhero of all? He's just a guy hellbent on revenge without any superpowers of any kind. All he has is his lust for revenge and his smarts...

Fair point, the Punisher is more of a vigilante than superhero IMO. Haven't enjoyed either of the Punisher movies, Dolph was too wooden in the first one, I like Thomas Jane as an actor, my main problem with the recent movie was the sub story involving the other residents of his building. I didn't feel any sympathy for them, and instead wanted to beat them senseless with a blunt object, didn't think Travolta was great either, and Rebecca-R- Stavros always looks good , but I'm still unconvinced by her acting.

[Sedai]

i went to see this film with my gf, after hearing all the hype i told her i had to see it, half way through you could tell people where getting bored, its the only film ive ever seen where at the end when the credits begin everyone says wa-hay! thank god its over. Batman vs the joker is the best and the $400,000,000+ at the box office shows it.
Stating something like that as fact is ridiculous. It's your opinion, that's all. So, half-way through the film you started to gain the ability to read minds? You were bored, that much is clear, but you had no idea what others were thinking. You just didn't. Also, comparing box office numbers between a film that has been out for just one week, and a film that has been out since 1989 is sort of like apples to oranges, isn't it? Did you see the original Batman? I did, and it's not about the Batman character, it's about The Joker. Batman is relegated to almost a side role, while the cartoon-clown Joker attempts to dominate every scene. As a milestone in art direction and atmosphere, the first Batman flick is exceptional, but as a character driven piece about Batman, it doesn't hold up very well.

The cast of Batman begins is also just more talented across the board. Unless of course you believe people like Jack Palance, Michael Wootkins, Michael Keaton, and Robert Whul are better thespians than Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson and Christian Bale. I don't even see a comparison here. Nicholson is always good, but this just reinforces my point that this is The Joker's film, and not Batman's.

That said, I like the 1989 release. It's a fun watch and the set design is fantastic. It has a great score and other pros that make it a DVD to have in my collection. But, Batman Begins does does Batman better, big time, IMO.

[Yoda]

i went to see this film with my gf, after hearing all the hype i told her i had to see it, half way through you could tell people where getting bored, its the only film ive ever seen where at the end when the credits begin everyone says wa-hay! thank god its over. Batman vs the joker is the best and the $400,000,000+ at the box office shows it.I saw it with two different crowds and didn't experience anything of the sort. Also, the $400 million gross you talk of is actually worldwide, rather than domestic, and while it's certainly impressive, and can even be used as a quasi-argument for the film's quality, it cannot be compared to the current film, which hasn't had anywhere near enough time to potentially match that gross.

This is, of course, setting aside the possibility that a superior film (and make no mistake, Batman Begins is a superior film) can gross less money. It's not unheard of, you know.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

There was loud applause when the credits rolled, when I saw it.

[darkhorse]

It was a good movie. However, for some reason, I still think Batman Forever with Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman was more enjoyable, if only for pure entertainment value. After all, that was the movie with Jim Carey playing the Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face and Chris O'Donnell as Robin, the boy wonder. I still can't forget Nicole Kidman practicing on that punching bag and Val Kilmer breaking down her office door! Hilarious, if totally over the top! And, of course, Jim Carey's performance was outrageous as usual! Good stuff!

[Holden Pike]

It was a good movie. However, for some reason, I still think Batman Forever with Val Kilmer and Nicole Kidman was more enjoyable, if only for pure entertainment value. After all, that was the movie with Jim Carey playing the Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face and Chris O'Donnell as Robin, the boy wonder. I still can't forget Nicole Kidman practicing on that punching bag and Val Kilmer breaking down her office door! Hilarious, if totally over the top! And, of course, Jim Carey's performance was outrageous as usual! Good stuff!

I know an "opinion" isn't supposed to ever be wrong, but you're an idiot.

[MovieMaker5087]

Although this is a rare event, I will have to agree with Pike on this one.

[darkhorse]

I know an "opinion" isn't supposed to ever be wrong, but you're an idiot.
I guess that makes you opinionated and wrong! lol!

[MovieMaker5087]

I guess that makes you opinionated and wrong! lol!

Opinions are not always right! But facts are! You're an idiot! LOL!!!!11!!11!111!!!1!!111!!!!!!

Guess that makes you insultinated, huh?

[darkhorse]

Opinions are not always right! But facts are! You're an idiot! LOL!!!!11!!11!111!!!1!!111!!!!!!

Guess that makes you insultinated, huh?
The only fact proven by your words are that you are an idiot, not me!

That's all I have to say here. This argument is rapidly falling below my personal standards of intelligent discourse.

[MovieMaker5087]

The only fact proven by your words are that you are an idiot, not me!

I guess that makes you opinionated and wrong! lol!

My words are merely poking fun at your words, my friend.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review, it captured the essence of the movie. http://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/3.gif

[Terminator734]

ok anyone who says Batman and Robin or Batman forever was a good or enjoyable movie or anything positive about it deserves to be burned in hell


l8r

[Darth Stujitzu]

ok anyone who says Batman and Robin or Batman forever was a good or enjoyable movie or anything positive about it deserves to be burned in hell


l8r

You betcha!!! :furiousdevil:

[Escape]

ok anyone who says Batman and Robin or Batman forever was a good or enjoyable movie or anything positive about it deserves to be burned in hell. No, the actual Batman and Robin film should go to Hell first, followed by the actual Batman Forever film. As for anybody who thinks they were fun and enjoyable, well they just deserve a good whipping. ;)


Here is my pic for the Joker in the next flick. The one and only......George Mcfly.

http://www.villainousvamps.com/crispinjoker.jpg

[Sinny McGuffins]

I just finished reading Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, and I must say, I'm glad they didn't go with that story for the film.

[dolarhydecb]

This is agreeably the best commic book adaptation to date, but it goes too into the story and changes a character (Katie Holmes) which somewhat ruins the movie. I thought this movie was dark, but nowhere close to as good as Sin City at the directing style. The beginning of this movie was like rewatching the trailer, which should not happen. The dumb twist with was obvious. However, that said, the Batman guy was pretty good at his role, and Michael Caine was amazing. The movie was very long for a comic book adaptation trying to become an Epic, which should not have happened. Maybe if the Joker was in it, it could have achieved such a status, but the villans were horrible. The whole movie was a development, like the title suggests, but this is where the faults lie. B+

[LordChuchu]

i loved the movie. im still purely attached to burtons batman and batman returns. but this film is purely excellent. ive been a batfan for ages and i have enjoyed seeing it all three times ive attended. cant wait for it on DVD and the special editions of the older movies. Also for those who did not like batman forever (i thought it was mediocre) its coming out as a directors cut DVD in october along with a directors cut of the three other movies. then youll get to see how batman forever was originally supposed to be portrayed because the scenes on the ones out right now were not done in order and had a lot of bad editing in them. also tons of footage is missing including how two face broke out of arkham assylum.

[ZombIe=LoVeR]

This is agreeably the best commic book adaptation to date, but it goes too into the story and changes a character (Katie Holmes) which somewhat ruins the movie. I thought this movie was dark, but nowhere close to as good as Sin City at the directing style. The beginning of this movie was like rewatching the trailer, which should not happen. The dumb twist with was obvious. However, that said, the Batman guy was pretty good at his role, and Michael Caine was amazing. The movie was very long for a comic book adaptation trying to become an Epic, which should not have happened. Maybe if the Joker was in it, it could have achieved such a status, but the villans were horrible. The whole movie was a development, like the title suggests, but this is where the faults lie. B+

LOL with Pike, and this guy is stupid ^^, the bad guys were excellent

[dolarhydecb]

LOL with Pike, and this guy is stupid ^^, the bad guys were excellent
The bad guys, being Scarecrow and Ra's Al-Ghul, lasted for about 20 minutes of the movie. It was like Dr. Doom in fantastic 4 but Scarecrow became nothing and Ra's, well I don't want to ruin anything, but really, these guys weren't comparable to Jack's Joker.

[Yoda]

The bad guys, being Scarecrow and Ra's Al-Ghul, lasted for about 20 minutes of the movie. It was like Dr. Doom in fantastic 4 but Scarecrow became nothing and Ra's, well I don't want to ruin anything, but really, these guys weren't comparable to Jack's Joker.You're right, they weren't; that's the entire idea. In recent Batman films, the villains had become the main attraction. But the character of Bruce Wayne is plenty compelling on its own. You can't do an origin story and not focus almost exclusively on the protagonist. Not to mention that Wayne is still getting the hang of things, and thus more polished villains would probably, you know, win.

I think Nolan handled it the right way for about 246 different reasons. I agree with the logic of your complaints, but actually think the things you're talking about are what made the movie so fantastic. Nicholson was entertaining and all, but he completely overshadowed Batman and wasn't an interesting character; just an amusing one.

Also, not to quibble, but I can't help but notice that you will criticize a film very heavily, yet still give it a B, as if that were anything but a fairly positive rating. I don't know if you're using a different sort of grading system than the rest of us, but around here, a B is an above-average grade.

[Sedai]

This is agreeably the best commic book adaptation to date, but it goes too into the story and changes a character (Katie Holmes) which somewhat ruins the movie. I thought this movie was dark, but nowhere close to as good as Sin City at the directing style. The beginning of this movie was like rewatching the trailer, which should not happen. The dumb twist with was obvious. However, that said, the Batman guy was pretty good at his role, and Michael Caine was amazing. The movie was very long for a comic book adaptation trying to become an Epic, which should not have happened. Maybe if the Joker was in it, it could have achieved such a status, but the villans were horrible. The whole movie was a development, like the title suggests, but this is where the faults lie. B+ The villains were horrible? What movie did you see? Cillian Murphy was great as The Scarecrow, and this film wasn't about the villains anyway, it was a Batman origin story, and it was crafted with expertise, clarity, and conviction. Liam Neeson as Ras Al Ghul was fantastic. Please explain how they were horrible. Really most of the above claims are totally groundless. Watching the beginning was like watching the trailer? Again, not seeing how this statement makes any sense. So, the movie was a development (??), like it was supposed to be, but that is where it's faults lie? This makes the least sense of all. It nailed what it was trying to do, and that makes it a failure? Sorry, but this post just looks like yet another person claiming they didn't like a film because it didn;t fit into the little, tiny, boring box they had built for it before seeing it.


these guys weren't comparable to Jack's Joker.
SO watch that movie again. Really, Did you want the same film again? Also, Jack's Joker wasn't that good, and was way over the top, he tried to steal every scene (succeeding most of the time) therefore ruining what was supposed to be a Batman film, not Joker film. At this point in time, I can watch Burton's film for the production design only, as they trash almost every character. It's funny, you complain about a minor difference in characer in Batman Begins, with Rachel, who is a totally unimportant part of the Batman mythos, yet praise The Joker from the first film, which totally destroys the Joker as a character, rewriting his origin, AND rewritting Batman's origin to fit around the Joker charatcer. So which is it? If you dislike changes in the mythos, Burton's batman is the clear big offender, yet you cite Batman Begins as being the offender, when it actually tried to tell the story as it was originally portrayed in the comic.

Also, comparing Sin City and Batman Begins? Of course this was going to happen, but it seems like you are comparing the production design of Sin City (which is sick, btw) to Nolan's direction in Batman, which was top notch as well, but it's apples and oranges. Of course the comic style slick design of Sin City is unmatched in comic films, but the direction is great in both. What were some of the direction problems you noticed in Batman Begins? They were little to none IMO.

[dolarhydecb]

You're right, they weren't; that's the entire idea. In recent Batman films, the villains had become the main attraction. But the character of Bruce Wayne is plenty compelling on its own. You can't do an origin story and not focus almost exclusively on the protagonist. Not to mention that Wayne is still getting the hang of things, and thus more polished villains would probably, you know, win.

I think Nolan handled it the right way for about 246 different reasons. I agree with the logic of your complaints, but actually think the things you're talking about are what made the movie so fantastic. Nicholson was entertaining and all, but he completely overshadowed Batman and wasn't an interesting character; just an amusing one.

Also, not to quibble, but I can't help but notice that you will criticize a film very heavily, yet still give it a B, as if that were anything but a fairly positive rating. I don't know if you're using a different sort of grading system than the rest of us, but around here, a B is an above-average grade.
This is true, I do agree because I think Nolan did a great job directing, and I agree with your comment that Bruce was the main character, which was great, specifically for a development film. I gave it a B because it was good for it's genre and it held together throughout. I was just pointing out some things that I noticed. The biggest complaint I had on this film is Katie Holms should not have been in it. That's it, other than that, other things are just my personal opinions on taste, not really criticizing the movie, but just pointing out how I saw it. My grading on the film is based not on my opinion but on how it compares amongst others. I do understand, however, that people will disagree with me and that's why it is an opinion, no more no less.:cool:

[dolarhydecb]

The villains were horrible? What movie did you see? Cillian Murphy was great as The Scarecrow, and this film wasn't about the villains anyway, it was a Batman origin story, and it was crafted with expertise, clarity, and conviction. Liam Neeson as Ras Al Ghul was fantastic. Please explain how they were horrible. Really most of the above claims are totally groundless. Watching the beginning was like watching the trailer? Again, not seeing how this statement makes any sense. So, the movie was a development (??), like it was supposed to be, but that is where it's faults lie? This makes the least sense of all. It nailed what it was trying to do, and that makes it a failure? Sorry, but this post just looks like yet another person claiming they didn't like a film because it didn;t fit into the little, tiny, boring box they had built for it before seeing it.
Well responding to this, the beginning of the film was cut down sufficiently, which is why it felt like a trailer. If you don't agree, don't, but i'm just pointing out that it was a lot of small scenes, not large ones. I was also saying that at points it failed at working the development of Batman, it was not horrible at this and I haven't watched this movie for awhile to make specific comments, but I do know it could have been a bit better paced in that sense. (Check out the first Godfather for good character development and change). Last but not least, I'm someone that put this movie into a tiny, boring box, well lets think about how you are questioning my semantics and then you make a comment like that. Now when people go to see a movie they have expectations. If someone goes into a movie that is claimed to be the movie that will save hollywood this summer, you're expecting a lot, this could have been why I was somewhat disappointed, but really I'm just critiquing the movie, I'm not bashing it if you think that's what I am doing. I did give it a B+ because it was not a horrible movie, and in fact it was good. I just thought that people who read these threads are knowledgable of what is to come and I want to give them some pointers and opinions on how I viewed the flick. :cool:

[Sedai]

Well responding to this, the beginning of the film was cut down sufficiently, which is why it felt like a trailer. If you don't agree, don't, but i'm just pointing out that it was a lot of small scenes, not large ones. I was also saying that at points it failed at working the development of Batman, it was not horrible at this and I haven't watched this movie for awhile to make specific comments, but I do know it could have been a bit better paced in that sense. (Check out the first Godfather for good character development and change). Last but not least, I'm someone that put this movie into a tiny, boring box, well lets think about how you are questioning my semantics and then you make a comment like that. Now when people go to see a movie they have expectations. If someone goes into a movie that is claimed to be the movie that will save hollywood this summer, you're expecting a lot, this could have been why I was somewhat disappointed, but really I'm just critiquing the movie, I'm not bashing it if you think that's what I am doing. I did give it a B+ because it was not a horrible movie, and in fact it was good. I just thought that people who read these threads are knowledgable of what is to come and I want to give them some pointers and opinions on how I viewed the flick. :cool:
Well, you have absorbed the first volley of counter-posts on MoFo like a true vet, and for that I commend you. It's a tough gig at first, but the site is well worth it. You make some good points, and please realize, I AM just disagreeing with you (as you stated) and am not attacking you personally, as that would be lame. :)

Still, can you honestly compare The Godfather to Batman Begins. The Godfather is seminal, and almost a perfect film. It IS perfect to some, although I don't count myself amoung that crowd. Compare it to something like Spiderman II or X2, and you see how Nolan almost totally broke the mold. I say almost, because the film did slip a bit in the final act, content and editing wise, but I think they are small quibbles, considering. I guess I liked the small scene nature of the film, as it gave us a closer look at Bruce/Batman that had been absent from the over-blown Batfilms of the past, IMO.

Anyhoo

Welcome to MoFo

You roll with the punches quite well....

[squeezyrider]

My other half commented after seeing this that we should buy it when it comes out on DVD. I of course agreed and she went on to suggest that we could collect the other Batman movies. I agreed partially, advising that I would not let the stinking pieces of excrement the were Batman forever and Batman and Robin touch my shelves. She stated that we should have them for the sake of completism. Do any of you venerable movie folk have any truly poor films of the shelf for this reason?

[dolarhydecb]

Well, you have absorbed the first volley of counter-posts on MoFo like a true vet, and for that I commend you. It's a tough gig at first, but the site is well worth it. You make some good points, and please realize, I AM just disagreeing with you (as you stated) and am not attacking you personally, as that would be lame. :)

Still, can you honestly compare The Godfather to Batman Begins. The Godfather is seminal, and almost a perfect film. It IS perfect to some, although I don't count myself amoung that crowd. Compare it to something like Spiderman II or X2, and you see how Nolan almost totally broke the mold. I say almost, because the film did slip a bit in the final act, content and editing wise, but I think they are small quibbles, considering. I guess I liked the small scene nature of the film, as it gave us a closer look at Bruce/Batman that had been absent from the over-blown Batfilms of the past, IMO.

Anyhoo

Welcome to MoFo

You roll with the punches quite well....
Hey man, I respect you too and I know you're not attacking me and I welcome criticism. I was not comparing this movie to Godfather either, I was pointing out the similar movie structure character wise. I was just stating that Nolan could have developed Bruce a bit better, maybe by eliminating Katie Homles, but who knows. Thanks though for the welcome and I'm looking forward to more reviews down the road. :D

[dolarhydecb]

My other half commented after seeing this that we should buy it when it comes out on DVD. I of course agreed and she went on to suggest that we could collect the other Batman movies. I agreed partially, advising that I would not let the stinking pieces of excrement the were Batman forever and Batman and Robin touch my shelves. She stated that we should have them for the sake of completism. Do any of you venerable movie folk have any truly poor films of the shelf for this reason?
Yes, Matrix Reloaded/Matrix Revolutions(this one wasn't too bad, no rave scene) - - Jurrassic Park 3 - Godfather 3(Even though has the greatest line out of all of them) - hmm I'm gonna say Chronicles of Riddick even though Pitch Black wasn't amazing, I just like those low budget films and supporting them, Chronicles was a gift too. I don't know, it ranges more in my cd collection, but really those Batman movies, for the sake of arguement, are not unwatchable, like some movies are, and even though they are for the purpose of making hollywood money, if your spouse wants them, just get them, can't be too expensive, check ebay for used ones.

[Sedai]

Hey man, I respect you too and I know you're not attacking me and I welcome criticism. I was not comparing this movie to Godfather either, I was pointing out the similar movie structure character wise. I was just stating that Nolan could have developed Bruce a bit better, maybe by eliminating Katie Homles, but who knows. Thanks though for the welcome and I'm looking forward to more reviews down the road. :D
Now, here is our common ground. I think the tweak I would make to the film would be getting rid of Miss Holmes... Casting her in a film with Caine, Freeman and Bale....not the best idea...

[MrZeldaFan]

From what I heard is it beats Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. 9/10.

[coreyk21]

nolan's interpretation of Batman is definitely a step in the right direction in this post-schumacher world of Batman. yeah i'd have to agree with all the criticism surrounding Holmes as rachel dawes, as insignificant as that may have been to the total feel of the movie. finally somehow has created a Batman atmosphere to fill the darkness created by such Batman works as Hush and the Long halloween. Long live DC comics. what about the revamped and reinvented portrayal of an early Batmobile, many of my buddies absolutely hated it, not for any particular reason other than it wasn't the sports car they had seen in the original Batman. i thought it was a pretty good interpretation of a vehicle for a man intent on fighting crime. function over fashion.

[ZombIe=LoVeR]

what about the revamped and reinvented portrayal of an early Batmobile, many of my buddies absolutely hated it, not for any particular reason other than it wasn't the sports car they had seen in the original Batman. i thought it was a pretty good interpretation of a vehicle for a man intent on fighting crime. function over fashion.

I agree totally, as my friends didn't like it either. I thought the old one is kinda lame looking, compared to this one.

[Sedai]

The new Batmobile was the bomb. At last, a utilitarian vehicle thatfit the style of the dark knight. The old corvette-ish, mid-life crisis mobile had to go. The old mobiles looked like something Bruce Wayne might drive, not Batman. Yup, this film still gets my vote for best super-hero film yet. Best comic film in general goes to Sin City, which edges out Batman Begins and Unbreakable for me....

[coreyk21]

The old corvette-ish, mid-life crisis mobile had to go. The old mobiles looked like something Bruce Wayne might drive, not Batman.


Yeah, i would definitely have to agree with that. Batman's (and Bruce's for that matter) garage's are, for the most part, filled with the same style, sleek cars in most of the more recent comics, so i was really glad someone went outside the lines to imagine this one, definitley a risk worth taking.

[CountCristo]

this movie was good but it seemed so long, not that a great movie isnt worth the time but damn, my ass hurt after sitting there in the freezing cold theater for what felt like eons. but yea, kick ass movie, i just dont want to ever see it again.....ever

[Misirlou]

i just dont want to ever see it again.....ever I've seen this movie three times in theatres now! Sure it was a bit long, but its a long time well worth it. I can't wait to watch this movie again when it comes out on DVD. :)

[birthday cake]

I agree, this film is the best of all Batman films. I like the trend of re-telling comic book stories in a more realistic way. One of the few things that bothered me was the way Bruce growled whenever he was Batman; seemed unnatural and forced.

[SpoOkY]

This quite dark adaptation of the batman series is a huge leap back into the realm of quality after the shock disgrace of Batman Forever and it's twin Batman and Robin. Returning to the great batmans of the past this film is directed really well and the story is compelling and different in its approach to super-hero movies.

Comparing it to Spiderman or X-men, this movie takes on a realness that makes everything really stand out. It's similar to Unbreakable in this respect but outdoes it in terms of it's awesome action scenes and no hold barred villains (that scarecrow guy was scary!). Liam Neeson was good as the master warrior villain but as others have suggested Katie Holmes was par at best and added little to the movie except for her star status. If you're a fan of action, adventure or thriller movies give this one a go and I'm sure it'll be worth your while. http://www.red-colored.org/lazysod/stars/three-half.gif

[TheFilmCritique]

"Dark and Sinister. The first batman movie that doesn't compare Bruce Wayne to Clark Kent."

Quite different from the Ka-Pow! and Ker-Plop! seen in the 1960s Adam West version, “Batman Begins” puts the cheese and humor aside and shows the real batman we remember from the comic books.

Batman has always been my favorite superhero, he was always the darker and more troubled character. I was most surprised when I saw this film, we finally get a realistic approach to this story. As the title tells us, much of this film focuses on how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and why. Introducing more background information makes us closer to the character as well as knowing information such as his troubled childhood, his parents brutal murder and his fear of bats. Thus putting us on a more emotional level with the character, possibly relating to him in some way.

Directed by Christopher Nolan who, since that film has been nominated for 3 academy awards, is known for his success in “Memento,” “Inception,” “The Dark Knight” and “Insomnia.” His films have always shared similar dark, ominous vibe; an example being “Insomnia” when Al Pacino is tiptoeing through a foggy Alaskan forest in search for a killer. In my opinion using fog, smoke and shadows have always been more disturbing than any other special effect. This is one of the main reasons I liked “Batman Begins.” Similar to way Daniel Craig portrays the new cold, heartless and emotionless James Bond, Christian Bale gives a similar performance as Batman. Staying away from the special effects, Nolan manages to give both Batman and Gotham City an eerie disturbing aura by using the elements found at night; fog, shadows, sudden movement and whispers.

The film opens in some foreign prison cell. We see our main character, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) being subject to the horrors of prison; random beatings, tortures and frequent fights with other inmates. After the scenes of brutality, Wayne is rescued by the equally mysterious character of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). It is Ducard that trains Wayne in the jiu jitsu style of fighting, mind control, weapons training and the art of surprise that batman uses. Ducard attempts to enlist Wayne in his gang, “The League of Shadows.” Similar to a gang initiation, Bruce must kill a man to show he has the guts to be a member of this crime fighting organization. When he declines, Ducard goes from the rescuer to the villain.

Upon his return to Gotham City, which is loosely based on the city of Chicago, Bruce lives the life of a hermit seen reminiscing with only his butler, Alfred (played by Michael Caine) and his childhood friend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). While Bruce walks throughout his home, decorated in the same manner as his parents before their deaths, Bruce has the tendency of having childhood flashbacks. As Bruce walks through his fathers study, he notices various objects which have intrinsic value to them which causes these memories to be uncovered. While looking at his fathers Stethoscope, Bruce remembers playing with it as a child and remembers all the good his father did for the city of Gotham; showing us that Bruce was not only attached to his father (played by
Linus Roache) but the Stethoscope represents physical healing as well as the healing of Gotham. As Wayne turns into the character of Batman, that is one of his parameters - healing Gotham City.

Not only was Bruce’s father a medical doctor, but he (Wayne Enterprises) was also responsible for constructing a free railway system that ran through Gotham and weeding out the local government corruption. During Bruce’s childhood, under the close protection of the evil world by his father, Bruce had to witness his parent’s brutal murder and the killers lack of justice. That lawlessness has a large impact on Batman's character.

After his parents died, Wayne Enterprises is given a greedy and power-hungry associate (Rutger Hauer). We see a nasty transition in Gotham City after the companies new management; we see it riddled with drugs, crime, poverty and rampant, “Mad Max” style gangs. With the help from his late-father’s top science advisor, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Bruce becomes the masked vigilante. Inspired by a childhood well accident, Bruce turned into the one thing he was most afraid of, Bats. He eventually overcomes that fear and incorporates it into his character.

During the day, Bruce assumes the role of the Hugh Hefner type bachelor. He is rich, handsome and often gets drunk at parties and makes a fool of himself. Although he always leaves the party with a new girl in his arm, he has never managed to have the same feelings as he does for Rachel. Since there childhood, Dawes has managed to become a lawyer, assuming the role as Gotham’s ADA. Attempting to end the corruption, Rachel and Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) attempt to take on the local syndicate leader, Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). What Rachel and Gordon do not realize is that the main source of corruption is not from Falcone but from inside Gotham’s government. Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) a.k.a Scarecrow is a corrupt psychiatrist who, similar to other psychiatrists, likes to lock his enemies up and declare them insane. Crane plans to release a deadly hallucinogenic toxin into Gotham's water supply using an enormous vaporizer that, when inhaled, will tear Gotham from the inside out.

In the second half of the film, the actual character of Batman (more alter-personality) is introduced. In the previous batman films, Clooney, Kilmer, Keaton and West all show batman as this proud, perfect individual that never take chances and always fights for others, never himself. In “Batman Begins” we get a different approach. As seen lurking in the gloomy and foggy heights of Gotham City, Batman is more of a clumsy, risk-taker. Often taking chances, doing rash things and attempting to revenge his parents. The previous films were also always obsessed with special effects and excessively choreographed fighting scenes. “Batman Begins” has only a few fight scenes and uses many dark and ominous shots rather than cheery and courageous scenes. Batman is not supposed to be like a superman character, he is a more cold and mentally unstable. Bale does a perfect job at depicting this. Depicted as the Ted Bundy type serial killer in “American Psycho” and as a paranoid schizophrenic in “The Machinist” he has proven to be perfect for this role.

[ollanik]

I cant wait for a title ,,Batman finish,, or ,,Batman dies and leaves movie industry forever,, or ,,Batman is finally over,,

[Yoda]

Batman Finishes would be a hysterical title.

I remember meatwadsprite once posted some list of his favorite Christopher Nolan movies, but intentionally got all the titles a little wrong. I think he went with Batman Starts.

[ElmoLovesYou]

Batman Finishes



hahahaha I could just picture this

[The Rodent]

Batman's Big End would be even better.

[Yoda]

Batman Big Day Out.

[gandalf26]

Batman Finishes would be a hysterical title.

I remember meatwadsprite once posted some list of his favorite Christopher Nolan movies, but intentionally got all the titles a little wrong. I think he went with Batman Starts.

Batman Finishes Until the Inevitable Reboot in 10 Years

[jeev7882]

★★★★★ (out of 5)

Batman Begins is quite simply the greatest comic book movie ever made, and one of the greatest films ever made. With the trilogy now completed, it’s appropriate and easy to look back and realize the full brilliance of the film. The introduction of Ra’s Al Ghul and The League of Shadows as the villains allowed the final chapter to feature Bane in a plot that came full circle. To know Bruce, Alfred, and Gordon at the beginning of their careers allowed us to appreciate Bruce transforming into Batman, Alfred’s growing father figure role, and Gordon’s climb to commissioner.

The plot is complex. When Bruce witnesses his parents’ death, he travels to Asia to learn about the criminal underworld. Along the way he meets Ducard and The League of Shadows who train him in the ways of ninja. Bruce escapes The League after learning of their plans to destroy Gotham. He returns to Gotham and takes on the alter ego of Batman to fight crime and return Gotham from the cesspool of criminals that rule the city.

The hero origin story has been seriously overplayed over the past 10 years. They’re a dime a dozen and follow the same arc. What makes Batman more compelling than the others is that he’s just a human that actively acquires his powers. He wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider, or shipped off from Krypton, or born as the God of Thunder. He’s a tortured soul who finds relief in this alter ego he creates. The story of Batman isn’t about Bruce Wayne, it’s about Batman.

Batman Begins does the best job of showcasing the central character whereas TDK focused heavily on The Joker and TDKR on Bane and Lieutenant Blake. Christopher Nolan’s touch is on every element of every frame. There’s a scene after Bruce returns to Gotham where he has to act like he’s having fun running around town in his sports car with European Supermodels. Leaving a party at a hotel, he runs into his oldest friend, Rachel Dawes. He tries to convince her that what she sees isn’t him, but it’s all for naught as the women in the background yell “We have some more hotels for you to buy.” Nolan decides to drown out the sound, choreographed perfectly with the visuals as the sharp focus is on Bruce’s tortured face, with the car and women heavily blurred in the background. It’s one of the greatest shots ever captured.

Director of Photography Wally Pfister deserves much of the accolades. He frames Gotham in an almost sepia hue without the Instagram cheesiness. It works to showcase the poverty and depression of the city yet give it a very comic book feel. This may be a realistic version of Batman, but it is still Batman. Much has been made of the action sequences being the largest weakness of the film. I agree that the hand-to-hand combat scenes are disappointingly weak. They’re shot too close and edited too choppy. The rest of the action, mainly the Batmobile chase sequence, is skillfully handled. The fear in Bruce’s voice channels to the audience as Rachel fades further and further from reality after being blasted with Scarecrow’s fear toxin.

For the aforementioned chase, Nolan relied on no visual effects, even as the Batmobile flew across rooftops and through narrow underground roads. Nolan found a sort of empty playground in Chicago’s upper and lower Wacker Drive that allowed for the chase to come to life as realistically as possible.

Much of the realism is thanks to the incredible cast. There’s no over the top scene stealing actors here. There is terrifying amounts of talent. Christian Bale is the perfect choice to play the dark, brooding Batman and emotionally detached playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne. One of my favorite actors, Michael Caine, plays his butler/confidant/father figure, Alfred. Caine is so detailed that he gives Alfred just a slightly different tinge of his cockney British accent so as to be more appropriate for a butler. The cast is filled out with pitiful lesser actors like God, a.k.a. Morgan Freeman, perennial bad ass Liam Neeson, accent chameleon Gary Oldman, and ol’ blue eyes Cillian Murphy.

Aside from the action scenes the biggest complaint has been the casting of Katie Holmes. After seeing TDK, I’m sure a lot of people wanted Mrs. Holmes back. The truth is that much of her negative press was centered around the Tom Cruise Scientology scandal. The character of Rachel Dawes was one of the weaker points of the first two films. Holmes isn’t to blame. If anything she held her own against some of the greatest names in the industry.

Begins plays much like a great gangster film with all the right hints of comic book fantasy. Even if TDK and TDKR were never made, Batman Begins exists fully in its own skin. There is the Joker cliffhanger at the end, but you don’t feel like the rest of the movie was setting you up just for the cliffhanger like every other big blockbuster these days. It’s these subtle differences and detailed touches that make each frame of this movie such an absolute wonder to behold.

[kinosis]

I still think Batman Begins is the best Batman movie (and I liked TDK and TDKR) and probably the best Superhero movie.

[Critics]

Batman Finishes would be a hysterical title.

Sounds like an adult movie.

[The Prestige]

Batman Begins does the best job of showcasing the central character whereas TDK focused heavily on The Joker and TDKR on Bane and Lieutenant Blake.

Excellent review, but I The Dark Knight did not focus on The Joker. He was the antagonist. I know it feels like he's a big focus because of how dominant Heath Ledger was, but I would argue that both Batman and especially Harvey Dent were the focus of that awesome film.

Rises is definitely a Bruce Wayne centered film, though. Again, Bane's a villian, and yes, you get a backstory, but only a briefish one.

[Critics]

I truly enjoyed The Dark Knight the most though. Ledger and Eckhart stole the show for me. Sure Bale was great, but Ledger's acting was superb.

[The Prestige]

The Dark Knight is indeed sublime. I really like Batman Begins, too. But I have quite a few problems with it. Not sure if I prefer TDKR to Begins yet. That middle film, however? Absolutely wonderful. Very few problems with it.