HTF REVIEW: Batman Begins - Two Disc Deluxe Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). - Page 15

Finally got around to watching this last night. I'd heard good things, but I wasn't really pumped about it.

Wow, what a great film. The Burton versions (my previous go-to when it comes to ol' Batty on film) had style and mood but no depth. This one had it all. Brilliant acting all around, great set pieces, an excellent script....

...and oh yeah, who didn't love The Joker bit at the end? "I'll look into it." Priceless!

A very nice surprise. Christopher Nolan continues his amazing track record.

No kidding. He's an extremely talented filmmaker, IMHO.

I'd like to share this Q&A with the Washington Post's DVD critic from an on-line chat I participated in:

I just don't understand how she can be a DVD critic and not be aware that 2.35:1 films will still yield some mattes on a 16:9 display. I'm not sure I like the choice of words she uses "an aspect ratio that wouldn't work on a 16:9 TV" And there's the part about how she appreciates films that are shot in 16X9 because of the money she spend on her set. Also, what are "letterboxes"?

I would say that her credentials as a DVD reviewer for a major newspaper seem a bit suspect.

Just a bit?

A lot of people feel this way, and I see nothing wrong with that. As long as she isn't advocating changing movies to fit her screen, she is perfectly entitled to preferring one aspect ratio over the others. I prefer 2.35:1 myself.

She obviously dislike "black bars" (letterboxes ). I do as well, but I like the wider AR more than I dislike black bars.

Now something peculiar in what she originally wrote:
Uh... 2.35:1 is as large an AR as it typically gets... a large AR would produce even thicker bars and use even less of her display . It seems she understands "large AR" as screen surface.

She really needs to work on the terminology.

The problem is, studios may have read the orginal article since it showed up in a major newspaper - leading some to believe perhaps that we want movies changed to fill our expensive 16x9 displays. I very much doubt they are aware of her corrections in that chat.

--
H

Great. So when HD starts becoming more the norm we will have cropped HD flicks probably because of ignorance like this. "Hey I finally went and BOUGHT a dang HD set to get rid o' dem' damn black bars!!!" Already on cable, 1/2 the films I've looked at in HD were cropped to 16x9 like "Lawrence of Arabia".

Yeah, and I'd appreciate it if my car ran on snow instead of gasoline. You're fired.

The sad thing is that Jen Chaney actually earns a paycheck from The Washington Post because of her "expertise" and that her review made it all the way through the editorial process with no red flag being raised. It's amazing to me how many truely clueless people are employed as "professional" DVD reviewers.

Newspaper DVD reviews aren't written for people like us. The Dallas Morning News "reviewed" the new Honeymooners disc without mentioning at all that it was available in full-screen only. They basically reviewed the movie alone. "It's better than its reputation. Check it out!"

This is a cop out in my opinion. I think that a newspaper or magazine has no less of an obligation to educate the public and provide accurate, relevant information to their readers in a DVD review than in a feature article. It's sloppy journalism, plain and simple.

Yes, but I'm sure you prefer 2.35:1 for artistic reasons, aesthetic reasons as it relates to composition. She prefers 16:9 simply because it fits her 16:9 display. I'm just trying to point out that it is a provincial attitude from a "professional" DVD reviewer.

True, she does not go as far as to express a desire for MAR, but the spirit of what she says is not much different than people who prefer 1.33:1 because it fills their paticular set.

I'm not saying it's an acceptable reason. But, at least in the case of the Dallas Morning News, PQ and AQ doesn't usually even enter into it. They're basically movie reviews with maybe a mention of the special features if they are noteworthy.

NOTE: Doing a search I didn't see where anyone had made a guide to direct access to the supplements, but if so, my apologies.

OK, so I finally got around to checking out the extras on this DVD and like others, I was really put off by the menu design, and lack of a play-all option. In fact, I'm getting far less tolerant of DVDs which basically take one long documentary and simply break it up into multiple segments without also offering a play-all option.

In the case of this DVD, they made it even less convenient by scattering all the segments within over a dozen menus. At least they have an index, which frankly is almost necessary addition due to the illogical layout of the menus, but unfortunately, they placed the index at the very end of the menu chain thus requiring you to flip through about fifteen menus before reaching the index pages.

One solution I have used in the past for similar DVDs with multiple special features and no Play-All option is to use my DVD player to program a series of titles and chapter associated with the special features I would like to see without having to continue to cycle through countless menus.

I've made a chart listing the Title and Chapter for each special feature and Easter Egg, as well as the index menus so you can either jump straight to the index or special feature, or as I do, program playback of all the special features I am interested in.

Menus

• 15:1 Main Index Menu
• 15-2 Still/Slideshow/Notes Index Menu
• 17-1 Allies & Mentors Menu
• 18-1 Criminals Menu
• 19-1 Hardware Menu
• 20-1 Art Gallery Menu

Documentary Segments

• 1-1 (14:16) Batman: The Journey Begins
• 5-1 ( 8:18) Cape & Cowl
• 7-1 (12:48) Gotham City Rises
• 9-1 (14:13) Path to Discovery
• 10-1 (12:49) Shaping Mind & Body
• 11-1 (14:53) Genesis of the Bat
• 12-1 (13:39) Batman: The Tumbler
• 13-1 (13:01) Saving Gotham City

Easter Egg Features

• 3-1 (1:57) Secret Script
• 6-1 (1:06) CGI VS Real Batman Test
• 8-1 (2:29) Tumbler Test Footage

I hope this is some use for those who prefer to access features directly, and/or those like me who like to program them in a series so you don't have to mess around with the remote after each feature ends.

Great movie and alot better than Forever and Batman&Robin, but Batman (the first one) remains to be my favorite of them all. I think Keaton was very good as both the Bat and Wayne.

Bale in Batman Begins well.....sometimes i just couldn't take him too serious as Batman, his face at times looks rather funny and kinda off, especially at this scene where
he's having a criminal hanging on a rope that he's holding, or maybe not rope...but something he used to grab the criminal, he then screams something and that looked rather weird. But apart from those things the movie was nice.

Although Bale's face does look a little . . . um, cheeky . . . when in the cowl, I think you're referring to the terrific "Do I look like a cop?" scene in which Bale demands that Flass "Swear to [him]!"

I was too busy enjoying his badass factor to be concerned about Bale's cheeks in this scene.