*** Official BATMAN BEGINS Discussion Thread - Page 2

I don't know about that. I just got done a couple of weeks ago rereading the early Bob Kane issues and back then, Batman (or rather, "the Bat-Man") was a pretty mean dude, always willing to blast a crook with a gun or snap the neck as soon as disable him, and there's a great deal of horror movie/German expressionist imagery (for all its misguided faults, the first Tim Burton movie sticks pretty close to this). Even when Robin is introduced and Batman gets noticeably more friendly, they're still casually knocking crooks off skyscrapers.

I think what the post-Frank Miller stories introduced was a world that wasn't dark so much as endlessly bleak, to the point that no one's allowed to show any emotion except anger or depression, and Batman has pretty much turned into an insufferable asshole.

"Really, this "dark knight" obsession did not take off until that Frank Miller graphic novel"

People think Miller reinvented Batman, making him a dark character, but its not true.

I remember reading comics during the 70s and early 80s - before Miller that were dark,scary,and twisted as hell.

I had some 70s issues that scared me as a kid.

Miller given credit for turning the character around but The Neal Adamas and Gene Colan issues were favs of mine and some of those issues came close to being horror. (At least thats the way I remember them. Might see it different now that Im older)

While other heros were fighting guys who were meglomaniacs, bent on world domination Batman was fighting psychopaths.Disturbing villians with serious mental issues - and who wielded knives and axes.Look at these covers.....
http://www.genecolan.com/batmancovers.htm

Much as I generally despise AICN, "Neill Cumpston"'s review for the flick had the best quote so far:

Found this in the REVIEW thread. Am I wrong or has a major plot point just been SPOILED?

I know very little about Batman character and was hoping to go in completely green .

--
H

That prob should be in spoiler tags in the review thread. I suspected this "plot point" because of something I read, but wasnt sure.

I tried to stay spoiler free for this film too.

There was a great Batman cover from the late 80s or early 90s... featured an over-the-shoulder perspective of some thug holding a knife in front of a frightened woman...but reflected on the knife was the image of Batman leaping for the criminal.

Was awesome, and from what I've read, the movie seems to be in the same vein: Batman turning fear back on the criminals.

H,
You got screwed a bit. I avoided these threads today for just that reason. But it's a minor point.

I do intend on involving spoilers in here, so BE FOREWARNED. Mayer's post have spoilers, damn him!

I disagree with James B. take on Holmes. As the "love interest", she's not meant to click with Bale. As I said in the review, her character was fine.

I would have liked Gordon to not the "Gimli" of the series. He's much too good a character (and Oldman far too talented an actor) to not use a bit more intelligently.

Staying spoiler free for the film really helped me.

Great film, I look forward to the conversation.

Take care,
Chuck

Of course, tis a discussion thread .

I got no business here yet anyway, me out!

--
H

just got back.
leaving the show, i was tempted to duck into Mr & Mrs Smith, a film i would like to see eventually, but i came to the conclusion that BB just stuffed me like a turkey dinner.
i'm full.


MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!


only one real surprise after spoiling myself with the script- and thats just how affecting the material with Wayne Sr and Alfred was to me.
even though its done in pretty simple, broad strokes, whenever "your father" is referenced again (and again and again) it resonated with me.
i believed that Bruce would look up to this man, and not only that, but the way that others looked up to him would have an effect on Bruce.
it was also a very smart move to make Bruce feel guilt (and not only justifying that from a childs pov, but in weaving that with the whole bat-motiff...bloody brilliant i thought) over their deaths and not just unresolveable anger.
that may have been the key component for me buying the lengths the guy goes to in the begining of the film.
just as having Bruce's fear of bats be the inspiration for the symbol he adopts, rather than the "criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot- so my disguise must strike fear into them... a bat! thats it!."
in this regard, the bat becomes a symbol of a character arc.
Bruce conquers a childhood fear that had taken on grandiose implications (if anyone had a cause to be superstitious of bats, its Bruce).
i dunno if the 'purists' will be annoyed, but i for one have no problem with the 'event' that brings the Waynes out, not being the Mark Of Zorro.
that was a sound concept for the comics, but the way it plays out in the movie is far richer thematically.

although i do understand some reviewers (most notably the ones over on CHUD) complaints about the second half being far weaker, it did work much, much better for me than Spider-man's 2nd half debut.
ironically, if there is a weak link i see, its that, just like in Spider-man, there is a costume that just will always look pretty damn silly in full light.
although unlike Spider-man GG costume, its only a distraction here when he is having a conversation with someone.
there isn't a very well defined line that i can see, between Batman having a conversation with Gordon on the porch, or Rachel on the roof, or him showing up at a charity benefit.
the grandiose costume just seems foolish and over the top in all cases.

but the biggest complaint i had afterwards, was exactly waht i had feared when reading the script- the one-liners SUCK.
and they suck because they are ususally out of character, or just plain witless.
i can buy the car chase, and the roof hopping, but hearing a cop ask "what am i supposed to be looking for" in regards to a high speed chase is just lame.
and not funny.
Gordons "i have got to get me one of those" was equally insipid and better left for something like ID4.
lines like that were beneath this film.

one other thing- beautiful use of titles.
i was expecting a big bombastic opening titles showcase and when it didn't come i was thrown, however when the words Batman Begins finally do come up on the screen at the endof the film, my first thought was "Indeed!"

I tend to agree with Paul's nits...except the costume. Bale sells it. In full light, it can be silly. Which is why the director did his job

The one-liners seemed like they belonged in a different film. And seemed odd coming from Oldman. They weren't terrible, just out of place.

I also agree that I missed "The Mask of Zorro" a little, what tooks it's place improved the character. That says a lot for the pre-production work on the character.

I can't emphasize again how important Linus Roache's small role as Thomas Wayne served the story. The trifecta of Roache, Bale, and Caine really sold Bruce Wayne's choice. Over and over. Three best performances in a film of excellent performances.

And lastly, to Bale. I merely mentioned him in the review thread, knowing I'd come back to him. I could care less if this film makes him a "star" (and I think it will). He took to the character in a way that showed understanding, not blank reverence or apathy. I wanted him for his talent and physicality. But he delivered a lot more. I didn't see Bale...just Bruce Wayne. That level of acting is rarely seen in these "geek" films. It should be treasured when it is.

Worth the long wait. Worth the psychological scarring of Batman and Robin.

The next few years will be a bit of a wait.

But probably worth it.

Take care,
Chuck

agree with you about the acting here.
Stellar across the board.

i even thought Holmes did a decent job aquiting herself.
theres still a teenish squeak in her voice with certain lines, but on the whole she was never something i had to 'look past' to stay in the film.
in fact, i would say that the relationship between her and Bruce came across much better on film than it did on the page.
felt much more natural on the screen.

just read your review Chuck and i agree with you about Katie- and especially about what you wrote about Gotham being a character- and a character with a heart and a soul.
so true.

this movie just wipes the floor with the other four, and its about time.

Wow, thank you WB and DC for finally doing it right! In my opinion, Batman Begins is the best of the Batman films, if not the best super hero film, even besting Superman.

Gotham is the way I always envisioned it to be when I was kid reading Detective Comics; No oversaturated neon, no permeated gothic. Just a gritty, corrupted city.


My favorite lines in the film:

Fass: "I...I don't know! I swear to God!"
Batman: "Swear to ME!"

8^B


P.S. Like Gordon, I want a Tumbler....

I'm glad everybody is liking this movie. I saw it last week at the Warner Bros. Employee screening and just thought it was amazing. I've been telling everyone for almost a week that they HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE. Then yesterday I started reading bad reviews. Mike Clark at USA Today did not get it as far as I am concerned. But the message boards have been praising it. I'm going to see it again this week. I usually never re-see a movie until it hits DVD. Everything about this movie works and yes BATMAN BEGINS Indeed!

I would counter that Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams put the dark in the Dark Knight in their run of the character in the 1970's. Frank Miller just pushed the envelope, but O'Neill and Adams deserve some credit as well. The naturalistic/realistic art of Neal Adams added so much atmosphere and edge to Batman and the stories they were telling at the time. For me, that was a nice run of stories, as were the shorter run of Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers on Detective Comics (in the #460-#480-ish range) in the late 1970s, early 1980's or so.

I would imagine reviewers who know Batman primarily from the show, Super Friends, or the previous films might not understand the gravity with which this film takes place. Those looking for a summer action film might very well be disappointed. I don't envy them, because Batman is a far richer character as portrayed here.

I understand why Bruce chooses the path he does. I understand what drives him. I understand why Alfred helps him, believes in him. I understand why he loves Gotham so much. This film is much richer for it's non-action scenes, though those do a fine job displaying the skills that keep Batman alive while doing the job.

Frankly, I really liked the direction of the action scenes. Putting Batman at the borders, in and out of scene showed the disorientation someone would feel around him, a feeling Batman would WANT. It keeps him safer, in and out of the shadows.

I can think of numerous touches that the film simply nailed, but it's overall tone just GOT IT. I keep saying that, but I frankly shocked it was that dead-on.

I do understand how the script might look on the page. A little cheesy and hackneyed, but this is where Bale and Nolan and the supporting cast, and the cinematographer (and so on) earn their money. This film realizes the best of the script, smoothing over the rough spots, and enhancing the good ones.

I'm a bit in love with the new Batmobile myself. The chase scene, particularly the roof scenes, are extremely energetic and exciting.

More as I remember

Take care,
Chuck

Caught a matinee and would have no problems seeing it again and soon! I think reviewers pointing out its "humorless" approach probably go home and enjoy the Batman TV show.

I liked Rachel's double slap to the face. Something very powerful about that.

The murder of Wayne's parents was very moving.

Morgan Freeman, awesome as always.

Gary Oldman was a bit underused, but his first scene with child Wayne was wonderful. His facial expressions said so much!

I liked the whole villain's scheme and twist. I didn't really see that coming.

Fight scenes could have been shot wider. I accepted it for the fight on the docks, since that is Batman's first appearance and much in the POV of the criminals. But I was a bit frustrated with later scenes.

Andy Sheets, you wrote:


Having actually read some of the very early appearance of Bat-Man in Detective Comics from the DC Comics reprints I can say that based on the reaction to the film, the producers have done a masterful job of replicating the "feel" of these early Bat-Man comics, even though it's placed in our contemporary times. It was dark, but not too dark like what Tim Burton did for the his later Batman films.

Just got back from seeing it...wow. I spoiled myself with the script last summer and thought that there was no way that script would turn up on the screen. I am thrilled that I was wrong.

I do agree that the one-liners where horrible and that Oldman was poorly used, but the rest of the movie was just amazing.

This Batman was just angry and I loved every bit of it. The mood was amazing and the story just sucked me in. Even the girl that I went to see it with, who I had to drag to the theater, fell in love with it. She wants to go see it again tomorrow. The reaction of the audience (which amazingly I seemed to be among the youngest at 25) was enthusiastic. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) the place went nuts and all I heard on the way out was how crappy the other Batman movies are compared to this one and who would possibly play Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) in the next movie.

i could trip on about this film all night, there are just so many strong points to it...and that's kind of the problem as there is so much there that's worth remembering, mulling over, dissecting.

i love how people saw Batman flying over head in their drug induced state- not the way the effect was rendered, but rather the idea that here is the character, finally exposed to a wide swath of people, and the first impression they get of him is as some kind of sentinal demon.
this to me 'sells' the idea that a good element of the population of Gotham will have an image of this character that finally fits the way fanboys have always described him.
i can now accept that he will be/is known as a terrifying figure to many people.
(though i think its a flaw of the film that we don't get a sense of any kind of resolution as to the effects on drug on the hundreds, if not thousands of people that would have been exposed to it- not even a conversational aside as to how that all turned out- a weak point, but not a deal breaker)

the double slap was great. it felt honest, not just a cliched confrontational move.

i was surprised that we never saw how Rachel saw Batman when she was in the throes of the drug. i was expecting something very freaky, very frightening but the only thing we got from her POV after Batman got her was tripping on the shiny lights as they roar down the street.

"you'll never have to"
beautiful.

loved seeing Fox in Waynes bedroom. i don't remember reading that, but it makes sense that Alfred would call him, and i love the fact that Wayne is not fooling the most intelligent people closest to him, but that they have the integrity to not broach the subject any more than is neccessary.

and when i read the scene with Batman and Rachel on the roof, when he reveals his identity thru parroting back the phrases that Rachel used with Bruce, i thought it sounded really lame, and when he started to open his mouth to say it in the film i was thinking "groan...oh please don't get cheesy", but when he finished the line i actually had a much different reaction. i almost got a chill because Bruce, with the reveal, seemed so desperate to connect with this woman, and to regain her respect...it was not cheesy at all.
it was moving.

these critics that are panning this movie, especially while playing up how much more interesting/entertaining the previous ones were (like my local paper, where the reviewer compares BB unfavorably to the first Burton film) are just f#*%ing clueless.

in addition to a brain and a heart, this is the first Batman movie to finally possess a soul.
there is an animating force in the interactions of characters here, not just some vapid "oh, wouldn't it look cool if this character was doing this while that character did that..."


sadly the 12:30 show i went to this afternoon only had a couple dozen people in it.
great for me, 'cause i hate crowds, btu i really hope this does well enough to vindicate the brass going in this direction and taking the chance they did with this material.
its really kind of remarkable this particular movie ever got green lit as it was.

Based on the crowd reaction (mine was small as well, though pretty diverse age and gender wise), I actually think this film will do pretty well. I was thinking $225-$250, and now I'm thinking it'll crack $275M. It might take a while (all summer), but I think it'll connect. Like Spidey, when you do the character right, people respond to it.

I don't think "dark" is the right word to describe the film. Frankly, it's a rather hopeful tale, and shows how Batman CHANNELS his feelings. The specter of his father looms over him, but not as a patriarch. As an example of love and understanding. Alfred plays on this perfectly. Like Paul, I loved the double slap scene. It made her words more than "trailerspeak" to describe the city...it made her character serious. It's deserved. It's harsh. The scene that followed was equally important in the lesson. Beyond the physical training sequences, the emotional build-up to the decision to become Batman works better than I've ever seen it work, including the equally brilliant Year One comic. You can almost feel the neurons firing in this guys brain. It must be more than revenge. It must be more than a super-vigilante placing judgement on the criminals.

Through it all, Bale just carries every scene. He manages to convey a playful side, next to his moral side, next to his brutal side. Batman deserves a real performance, and damn, does he get it Bale has a presence that most actors, even the Seagals and Schwarzeneggerscan't dream of, don't. A tightly coiled spring, a grace, a sense of skill that really carries the physical aspects of the role. It worked to great effect in Equilibrium, and even better here.

SPOILERS (this one time)
The Ducard angle was perfectly played in the teasers/trailers. I can't believe I didn't see it coming, but it makes the casting MORE brilliant. I had a huge smile when the realization hit (same time as it hit Bruce). I love it when the film works.

Quite a few Year One nods, without being overt or showy or exclusive to non-comic fans. Just the ending, which everyone loved, and a few names here and there. Flass, Loeb, Falcone.

Like Paul, I really want to talk about this, but I need to see it again to collect my thoughts. I admit to being close to the material, but the feeling is like something getting a book that you love deeply (because of the themes and characters) exactly right in an adaptation. I'm simply babbling now, bubbling over with excitement. I probably haven't felt this way about a movie (and I've seen some great ones, frankly some better films than this, but this is personal for me) since Reloaded two years ago. And FOTR before that.

I can't wait for a second viewing,
Chuck

I loved everything about this film. I actually liked the oneliners. I thought the acting was above the normal superhero fare. Batman became real to me. It was awsome.

Despite all the popular revisionism about this character, Bob Kane's original Batman from the 1930s was hardly a "dark creature of the night." <<




Jack,
he was pretty dark and grim during the first year of the comic, before Robin was introduced in April, 1940. He dropped criminals into vats of acid, snapped necks with one kick, and was pretty humorless. I love the new film because it took the best of all possible Bat eras-the darkness and grim feeling of the first year, the Batman with a social conscience that developed in the forties,the masked detective who worked hand in hand with Commissioner Gordon from the O'Neal/Adams era, and the driven vigilante of Miller.

Yes, I loved the movie!

Chuck,

You're above assessment of the film is dead-on, especially when it comes to the Dawes character.

Even more than Revenge of the Sith, this film hit me hard and one viewing isn't enough to totally grasp what Nolan, Goyer, and the WB pulled off with this film.

I mean, this is more than a great comic book movie. This is a great film in almost every aspect. This is serious stuff done to almost perfection in it's execution.

And about Batman negating his moral code with his plan at the end with Ducard, I'm not buying the criticism there. I don't think he broke it at all.

As an amusing sidenote, I read Larry's review (and I know how he feels ), and then skimmed the tread.

Of the 10 reviews, the lowest rating is by the "hater" ThomasC, who gives it 3.5/4 The other 9 are running max scores (4/4 or 10/10). I'm sure that won't last, as I imagine ThomasC's negative vibes will bring everyone down, but that's pretty amazing.

Take care,
Chuck

EDIT: Thanks, Cory. I found myself quite moved at the opera scene and alley scene. I did NOT expect to tear up, but I did. That's probably why I am pumping Linus Roache's performance so much. He (and the good young actor playing Bruce, AND the scene with Gordon) made it seem real, seem tragic, seem as awful as it would be.

Chuck,

Yeah, the Opera Scene was very good.(What's with Opera Scenes this year?...this one and Sith's). And what makes the scene even better is what happens to Bruce in the police station. Gordon arrives and comforts him and that trust begins there. That hit it home for me.

Do you know what the greatest little snippet in this film is? They explained the Bat ears on the cowl. Any film that goes into that much detail is aces in my book....

Sorry. I'm being cautious. I hesitate to give a perfect score to any movie after only one viewing. I wasn't a big fan of the score and the lack of a real theme at first, and the score can weigh heavily in any film I see. It has grown on me, though. It took me three viewings to realize how good Spider-Man 2 was. There were distractions that took me out of the film (including a strong ketchup/salt scent; can't theaters just sell pop and popcorn?), and this film definitely needs more than one viewing for it to all soak in. There were so many things that stood out in this film, making it hard for it to truly flow on the first run. That should change with repeated viewings, one of which will take place tomorrow or Friday.

Well, I had a smelly guy sit right in front of me just before the lights went down, and even that didn't spoil the movie for me!

I know Thomas I was just teasing you. For certain some folks won't like the film (or certainly won't rate it as highly as we did). And I wasn't thrilled with the score either. Oddly enough, one of the weaker elements, and my opinion usually follows the score somewhat closely.

Just funning,
Chuck

The score was sort of non descript, but it did have some nice moments(especially the little emotional bits with Alfred).




At least it was better than the Eliot Goldenthal stuff from the Schumacher films.