Batman Begins = Awesome

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:45 am

I just returned from the 12:05 AM showing of BATMAN BEGINS and I'm pretty freakin' tired. But I need to let you all know one thing. I can assure you that BATMAN BEGINS is incredible.

Going into the theater, I had enormous expectations for this film and the movie really could only let me down. But it didn't. It matched my expectations and in some cases even exceeded them. It was very, very, very good. Even if you're indifferent to Batman as a character - or disliked the previous films - you will still enjoy BEGINS, I'd wager.

The greatest part about the film is that not only does it care about the title character, but it also takes him quite seriously. In the Burton and Schumacher flicks, Batman's purpose in the film was to merely defeat the star villain. That isn't the case here. There are a plethora of villains - Carmine Falcone the mob boss, Ra's al Ghul, the Scarecrow, Mr. Earle the slimy CEO, Joe Chill - but the story isn't about them. It's about Bruce Wayne. And although you think you've probably seen/heard Batman's origin story enough times, BEGINS not only manages to make it refreshingly interesting but also completely unlike any other origin story that's ever been done about the character before.

Still, there were some things that worried me before I saw it. My biggest worries going in were: 1) Katie Holmes; 2) the ugly bat-suit; 3) Bale's Batman voice.

Well, 1) Holmes is barely a love interest at all. Aside from the kiss at the end, there's no traces of a romantic subplot. In fact, she isn't completely worthless as a character and does actually have some bearing on the story. Katie Holmes was essentially a female version of pre-scarring Harvey Dent, but I still would've rather had Harvey Dent in her place.

2) Nolan is smart to keep you from ever really getting a good look at the suit. The action is fast paced and the Batman scenes have an almost horror movie quality to them as he picks off the crooks one by one in the darkness. So the suit wasn't an issue and it actually looked damn good in certain lighting. I was afraid the whole realism aspect of the film would be lost when you see Batman as a silly rubber hero, but it doesn't happen.

3) I still wasn't very happy with Bale's voice, but it did grow on me as the movie went on. Bale differs from previous interpretations of Batman's voice, which in the Burton/Schumacher films and even in B:TAS was portrayed as a harsh whisper. Instead, Bale sounds more like an angry Clint Eastwood and the Batman's voice is a continous growl. Sometimes it really works and sometimes it doesn't ... it certainly takes some getting used to, but it grew on me, like I said. Overall, however, Bale's performance was amazing. He is undoubtedly the best actor to play Batman yet, no question.

All in all, I was very pleased with the film. It had every opportunity to completely disappoint me, but it didn't. A fantastic movie by all accounts and certainly worthy of your money and time.

Go see it, goddammit.

Kishi · Post by **Kishi** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:41 am

Well I'm glad to hear this; I had a feeling it was good, but I wasn't sure because some of the previews made it look stupid.

So there's no Joker, like I thought?

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:53 am

Ah-hah! Well I just got back from an 11:59 showing, Grant. So there.

Also, it was fucking awesome.

Post by **Squirrelknight** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:30 am

Amazing Grant wrote: Katie Holmes was essentially a female version of pre-scarring Harvey Dent, but I still would've rather had Harvey Dent in her place.

But Katie Holmes has boobs.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:38 am

There are some things even boobies can't replace.

But yeah, I was worried about those 3 things also, so now I'm really looking forward to watching this.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:50 am

plasticwingsband wrote:Ah-hah! Well I just got back from an 11:59 showing, Grant. So there.

Good thing my midnight came before your midnight, California Boy.

Nyah.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:04 pm

I'll be seeing it next Monday.
~Neo

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:09 pm

Amazing Grant wrote:
plasticwingsband wrote:Ah-hah! Well I just got back from an 11:59 showing, Grant. So there.
Good thing my midnight came before your midnight, California Boy.

Nyah.

Californian midnites are far superior to Ohio-ian midnites. SK will back me up on this.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:05 pm

I'll probably go see it next Wednesday when I get a weekday off. It's cheapter than on the weekends.

Post by **Popcorn** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:29 pm

This film gets my approval. Best movie I've seen in ages.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:35 pm

I just saw it again (yes, twice in the two days since it's been out) and my thoughts are this:

I've decided I like Bale's Batman voice. A lot, actually. It just plain takes some getting used to, since we all have that preconceived notion of what Batman's voice should sound like and Bale's voice is plenty good on it's own merit. There's a particular scene when Batman interrogates someone upside down, and he is insane in that scene. The voice is downright scary.

I also noticed a few little plot holes - Does no one boil water in Gotham? - but they're mainly just quibbles and could be easily explained in my head.

There was only one thing that genuinely bothered me slightly at the end - the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" line. Aren't they the same thing, especially since it was Batman's idea to derail the train in the first place? Seemingly, this contradicts the character that the film built up. They could've just as easily had Batman say, "come with me or die" and Ra's refusing, "I don't fear death" or something like that. At the very least, it puts him more in the gray. . But again, it's mainly a fanboyish sort of thing and it's my only real gripe with the flick.

Anyway, it's awesome. Go see it.

Again.

Post by **Popcorn** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:54 pm

My only real gripe with the film was the feasibility of the villain's dastardly scheme to destroy Gotham. Not only is his desire to kill everyone in the city pretty damned difficult to understand-- considering we're meant to see him as someone with an ideal taken too far, rather than just a psycho with a penchant for destruction-- but the means he went to in order to fulfil it were just implausible.

VGJustice · Post by **VGJustice** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:43 am

Gah! 4 good reviews in one day! Ok, gotta see it gotta see it gotta see it....

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:21 am

Popcorn wrote:My only real gripe with the film was the feasibility of the villain's dastardly scheme to destroy Gotham. Not only is his desire to kill everyone in the city pretty damned difficult to understand-- considering we're meant to see him as someone with an ideal taken too far, rather than just a psycho with a penchant for destruction-- but the means he went to in order to fulfil it were just implausible.

While I agree that the means were rather implausable, I get the feeling that Ra's is pretty much meant to be portrayed as an arrogant asshole anyway.

Post by **Popcorn** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:50 am

plasticwingsband wrote:
While I agree that the means were rather implausable, I get the feeling that Ra's is pretty much meant to be portrayed as an arrogant asshole anyway.

I dunno, I still think it was kind of bizarre. His actions were such a blatant display of faulty logic it became difficult to take the character seriously anymore, when, as I said, he's clearly intended to be more than just a psychopathic villain.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:04 pm

I don't know if the logic was "faulty," so much as it was "movie logic." Within the context of the film, the logic definitely wasn't faulty and Ra's wasn't being portrayed as just another nut, if you ask me. Since Ra's and the League of Shadows were clearly meant to represent the modern post-9/11 terrorists, I quite liked the (albeit somewhat cheesy and movie-ish) doomsday plot of trying to destroy Gotham (which was supposed to represent modern day America, I think, through the eyes of it's critics) with chemical warfare. So although I agree that the plot was very "movie," it wasn't banal.

Protodude · Post by **Protodude** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:36 pm

I saw this movie last night, and of course, it ruled. I especially liked watching the people hallucinate.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:54 pm

Good movie. I enjoyed it a lot and think it's far better than any of the previous Batman movies. However, I did have some gripes.

GRIPE #1: Joe Chill
What's the deal with this? How come both the original Burton Batman and this movie get this one fundamental piece of Batman's character so very, very wrong? Batman isn't supposed to ever find his parents' killer. Hell, he's not even supposed to ever see the guy's face. It's great because he's the world's greatest detective and he can't solve his biggest mystery. It was handled all right in this movie (better than Joker in Burton's), but I still didn't like it much at all. This isn't nitpicking, this is really something they got wrong. Again.

GRIPE #2: Rachel Dawes
I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with Grant here and sum up her character in three words: Useless, wasted potential. Replacing her with Harvey Dent would have been a perfect set up, not to mention make a lot more sense. Batman doesn't need a freaking romantic interest, much less a stupid one that knows his identity. At that part when she asked him for his name, I was really hoping he would just say "I am the night." Instead, he gives away his identity with that stupid smarmy sentimental inspiring crap. LAME.

GRIPE #3: American Director Action Sequence Syndrome
Seriously, what the hell? The fight scenes were near unbearable to me. This movie suffers from far too much of the American-styled "lots and lots of fast cuts of shaky camera footage to give the illusion of violent fast-paced action". It sucks and unfortunately this movie has lots of it. Most of the fight scenes were very hard to follow because of this. I guess they did it since seeing Batman more in action would make him appear less ninja-like, but it's still disappointing, especially the last fight with Ra's. Why?

GRIPE #4: Crazy Hollywood Villain Plot
I'm going to agree with Popcorn here and say that Ra's plan to destroy Gotham was wholly implausible and ridiculously complex, but at the same time completely transparent and predictable. I saw it coming a mile away. This isn't so much a major gripe as it is a minor quibble, because it didn't bother me until after the movie was over. Oh well.

Interesting stuff:
-Poor Ken Watanabe. He had all of three scenes in this movie, and about as many lines. Sucks to be him. Also, no mention of Lazarus Pits.
-So does Katie Holmes never wear a bra?
-Jim Gordon got a lot more screen time than I thought he would, which is great because he was a badass. Gary Oldman for the win.
-Michael Caine is the best Alfred ever.
-Cillian Murphy was excellent as Scarecrow, and the fear effects were awesome.
-I really liked the way they set up pretty much all of Batman's major villains what with the Arkham escape. I especially liked the Joker reference.
-Did anyone else notice Barbara Gordon eating dinner at Jim's apartment?
-What's with the opera? What happened to The Mark of Zorro?

All complaints aside, I still loved this movie and consider it up there with X-Men 2 (not better). The quirky fight scenes bring it down to on par with X-Men 2, which had absolutely amazingly awesome action sequences. (I think I'm going to watch that movie over again soon)

Great movie, and up there with Sin City as my current best movies of the year. I'm going to see it again maybe tomorrow with my brother.

Post by **Popcorn** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:20 pm

The reason I didn't 'buy' Ra's aim of destroying Gotham is because the rest of the film did such a good job of making his extreme views seem logical. The dialogue between him and Bruce at the beginning of the movie was phenomenal, verging on philosophical-- Ra's no-tolerance attitude to criminals is awful and yet believable and rational, if you're able to stomach it. But his determination to actually destroy the city just wasn't believable as the product of the same once-seemingly-rational mind.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:09 pm

Segaholic2 wrote: GRIPE #1: Joe Chill
What's the deal with this? How come both the original Burton Batman and this movie get this one fundamental piece of Batman's character so very, very wrong? Batman isn't supposed to ever find his parents' killer. Hell, he's not even supposed to ever see the guy's face. It's great because he's the world's greatest detective and he can't solve his biggest mystery. It was handled all right in this movie (better than Joker in Burton's), but I still didn't like it much at all. This isn't nitpicking, this is really something they got wrong. Again.

Completely, whole heartedly disagree. Only in the past ten years have the Batman comics changed it so that Batman never finds his killer. I MUCH preferred the film's version in which he's confused at first and has thirst for only vengeance, but is denied it. Through this way, he learns to channel his rage into a desire for justice, which Rachel explains is completely different. It also ties into his hate for guns, which is given a better motivation here because he nearly used the weapon that took everything away from him. I thought this part of the film was a HUGE improvement over what's currently in the comics, as it balanced Kane and Finger's original origin story with the current comics. I loved it.

GRIPE #2: Rachel Dawes
I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with Grant here and sum up her character in three words: Useless, wasted potential. Replacing her with Harvey Dent would have been a perfect set up, not to mention make a lot more sense. Batman doesn't need a freaking romantic interest, much less a stupid one that knows his identity. At that part when she asked him for his name, I was really hoping he would just say "I am the night." Instead, he gives away his identity with that stupid smarmy sentimental inspiring crap. LAME.

Well... I don't know if I'd call her useless. I would've preferred Dent there, but then you'd have no females in the cast at all and adding Talia would just be another character with an already busy ensemble. Rachel is probably my favorite Batman love interest besides Catwoman because Rachel isn't a love interest. She's his best friend, the only one he can connect with that's his peer (since Alfred and Gordon are more of father figures), not to mention one of his few ties to his innocence before his parents' murder. So, she's not great but I would like her to return if there are sequels. Imagine how great it would be if she were Harvey Dent's girlfriend in the next one, which would maybe complicate Bruce and Harvey's friendship a little bit, so they'd be friends but also slightly rivals. Heck, maybe Dent could even kill her when he becomes Two Face...

GRIPE #3: American Director Action Sequence Syndrome
Seriously, what the hell? The fight scenes were near unbearable to me. This movie suffers from far too much of the American-styled "lots and lots of fast cuts of shaky camera footage to give the illusion of violent fast-paced action". It sucks and unfortunately this movie has lots of it. Most of the fight scenes were very hard to follow because of this. I guess they did it since seeing Batman more in action would make him appear less ninja-like, but it's still disappointing, especially the last fight with Ra's. Why?

I think it worked for Batman's first appearance at the docks, but I agree that there were certain scenes that I would've liked to see what was going on, such as the one you mentioned. However, it's kind of funny that you say this is an American phenomenon since Chris Nolan and almost everyone involved in the production is English.

GRIPE #4: Crazy Hollywood Villain Plot
I'm going to agree with Popcorn here and say that Ra's plan to destroy Gotham was wholly implausible and ridiculously complex, but at the same time completely transparent and predictable. I saw it coming a mile away. This isn't so much a major gripe as it is a minor quibble, because it didn't bother me until after the movie was over. Oh well.

I generally agree, though I think it works better thematically than practically. Anyway, ridiculous doomsday plots are genre staples of superhero movies. All of the Superman movies had them, both X-Men movies, both Spider-Man movies, etc...

Interesting stuff:
-Poor Ken Watanabe. He had all of three scenes in this movie, and about as many lines. Sucks to be him. Also, no mention of Lazarus Pits.

I'm glad they didn't mention the Lazarus Pits, which are pretty hokey to begin with. They did subtley allude to Ra's al Ghul's immortality, though, when he mentions how the League of Shadows burned Rome and London to the ground. He makes it sound like he was actually there.

-Cillian Murphy was excellent as Scarecrow, and the fear effects were awesome.

I really didn't see the demonic looking Batman coming, so that was awesome to be surprised with.

-What's with the opera? What happened to The Mark of Zorro?

Again, this is something I think they actually improved from the source material. In the comics, the Waynes just go to see a movie and leave and they're shot. Why does Bruce feel so guilty and so upset about something he had no control over? Here it's given a plausible motivation. I love that his parents died because he was afraid. It adds a whole lot of guilt and a lot of "If only I hadn't..." angles. This is something I hope they incorporate into the comics.

Kishi · Post by **Kishi** » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:37 pm

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:01 pm

Saw it, loved it. Dances in happiness. Even if I still perfer the sleek Batmobile car then that hulking hummer/tank thing. Not to mention his Batman voice was too...throaty for my taste.
~Neo

chix0rgirl · Post by **chix0rgirl** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:31 pm

Amazing Grant wrote:
-What's with the opera? What happened to The Mark of Zorro?
Again, this is something I think they actually improved from the source material. In the comics, the Waynes just go to see a movie and leave and they're shot. Why does Bruce feel so guilty and so upset about something he had no control over? Here it's given a plausible motivation. I love that his parents died because he was afraid. It adds a whole lot of guilt and a lot of "If only I hadn't..." angles. This is something I hope they incorporate into the comics.

Yeah, I liked that part a lot. It made sense and helped explain why he couldn't just grieve his parents' death and let go of it eventually.

Also, hello peoples. I forgot how interesting your posts are to read.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:11 am

WOW BOTH MY PARENTS HAVE BEEN SHOT DEAD BUT IT WAS IN NO WAY MY FAULT, OKAY I'M FINE NOW.

In other news, I enjoyed the movie except for:

1) Joe Chill
2) Rachel Dawes (most especially at her finding out Batman's identity, which was not at all needed)
3) The fight scenes

Post by **Segaholic2** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:11 am

Like I explained to Grant in IM, it's not the scene I had a problem with, it's simply the fact that the opera wasn't The Mark of Zorro as per the comics. I liked the way the scene worked; that wasn't my complaint. It's just a small, nitpicky comic nerdy thing that bugs me is all.

The GHZ Forum

Batman Begins = Awesome

Batman Begins = Awesome

Re: Batman Begins = Awesome