aight so i've seen this movie twice now and will now proceed to post a very (very) extensive review of/list of comments about it. a couple of things worth noting before i continue:
1) i'm not as well-versed in the batman comics as i am in superman, but i like to think i've read enough of the most important stuff (aka jeph loeb/tim sale, loeb/jim lee, frank miller/dave mazzucchelli, miller/miller/
klaus janson, and even greg rucka's work) to have enough background to comment on it without sounding like a *complete* moron. though anyone is free to step up and correct/educate me about things i got wrong.
2)i'm really really really diggin this flick.
the following is my original "review" of it that i wrote the night i saw it at about 1 am (if parts are rambly that's why, and i apologize)
[asteriks mean that i'm going to add something at the end of the review]:
_______________________
I highly, highly recommend Batman Begins. If you haven't seen it yet, you should. Well okay, here's the deal:
It's amazing if you're into comic books. It's like candy for your eyes, it really is like "watching" a comic book. It's pretty much true to the Frank Miller "Batman: Year One" story*; or at least, enough to keep me happy. Excellent plot line, stunning visuals/special effects (what an awesome and well-done image of Gotham), pretty good acting. There wasn't much room for Christian Bale to explore the Bruce Wayne/Batman relationship and how he seeks to reconcile it, though*; maybe they'll work on that. Well they should, cuz he sure could do it from the brief interludes shown in this film. I never really imagined Alfred with a (borderline) cockney accent(but rather more prim and proper) but Michael Caine pulled it off; gave the character some extra color. Jim Gordon had some excellent scenes and Gary Oldman did a good job of 'em. The Rachel Dawes character was okay; I can't recall if she's Miller's work (or any other, for that matter), but I didn't think Katie Holmes did that much for the film. The character was okay (she had some good lines and was a good way to provide some background story for Bruce); it was the performance by Holmes that I found somewhat lacking. A great choice of villains and the actors who play them; Cillian Murphy just emits that creepy-guy vibe needed for the Scarecrow*. And of course, Liam. What's there to say? He's Liam. (Although, he's better than he was as Qui-Gon Jin; or maybe those movies were just so bad I couldn't find any consolation.) Christopher Nolan did a pretty damn good job on both directing and helping to write the movie*; like I mentioned earlier, some very pleasing visuals (lots of good "archetypal Batman" shots; good execution of "nice darks" aka good use of lighting throughout the movie; just generally quite a breath-taking "view").
Oh, definitely worth mentioning; the tone and/or mood of the entire film was very much in tune with how Batman comics have been written in more recent endeavors (e.g., Miller's work of course, but I'm also thinking particularly of stuff like Jeph Loeb's "The Long Halloween" and "Dark Victory," and just generally the more recent runs of the regular Batman books [Edit: Check out dccomics.com; they have a whole section of graphic novels that inspired the movie. Turns out I was right on target*; though I should definitely have included Jim Lee's name among this list for his absolutely outstanding work on "Batman."]). The whole movie is very moody; not dark like Tim Burton's dark or dark like "really really tortured Batman" dark, but there is a certain tint to it. Moody actually is the best word to describe it. This translates from story to visuals to character development, which is certainly the mark of some great film-making.
The only semi-bad thing is that it fits the (new) standard comic-book-movie structure: the first half is focussed on character introduction/background/ development, while the second half is the thriller/action/special effects half. Think The Matrix (the original). I mean, it didn't bother me very much, but it's noticeable; some seamless transition would help.
Sure, there are probably more flaws in this movie than I've listed, but it's still one of the best Batman movies ever. (Oh, for instance, I definitely expected them to play up the "graphite mask can get smashed easily" factor a bit...you know, to come full circle with that. Okay well at least I was expecting it to get smashed when he landed on that car after being poisoned by Crane.) Sorry, but Tim Burton and Michael Keaton's original is gonna be hard to beat. (All right, all right; here's the real deal: Begins sticks true to the comics and so it is like watching a comic book; Burton and Keaton both took Batman and remade his character in their own images, which wasn't bad, it's just that as a result the two movies have different vibes. Probably part of this is due to the fact that today's audiences have new expectations for superhero movies after the great success of Marvel Comics in their theatrical endeavors; back in '89, there just weren't that many precedents for superhero/comic book films.)
So, go see it. It was definitely worth the $9.50 I paid at prime time on opening night to see all the terrible Joel Schumacher damage be undone! I'm off to re-read Frank Miller.
__________________________
now there are some things i'd like to add/subtract since i've seen the movie a second time:
*1: after seeing the movie for the first time, i went back and re-read frank miller's "year one," just like i said i would. the movie actually isn't as totally based on that book as i thought it was (hey i read that book a long time ago okay?), but the movie makers definitely took some things from that book. (most obviously, the scene where rachel is poisoned and gordon, batman, and rachel are all in that old decrepit house and batman uses the hypersonic device to get the bats to come as "backup.") so maybe i was remembering more from somewhere else (loeb/sale's "dark victory" maybe? i'm going to re-read that too soon as i get the chance.) seriously though, it does shine through that the writers of the film definitely looked to the comics for inspiration. which is awesome.
*2: obviously they'll work on the batman/bruce conflict in the sequel(s), as that conversation with rachel at the end of the film implies.
*3: i stand by my claims about cillian murphy. he was definitely perfect for the role. yet i think i will never look at tom welling quite the same way again...
*4: yeah, whoever wrote that script and screenplay did a first rate job, particularly for a superhero movie. in such a film it's all too easy to focus on the action scenes and special effects and (as a result) let the dialogue slip through the cracks (see star wars episodes I-III--whoever told Lucas he could write a screenplay should be shot). yet these writers came up with not only a phenomenal action plot line, but also some great dialogue infused with subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) wit (think of the "drunken billionare burns down house" headline, the "spelunking/base-jumping" remarks, etc.). not to mention these people did a good job of choosing some themes and actually employing them as themes throughout the film, without making it seem *too* cheezy ("why do we fall?"). yada yada yada, i could go on praising these people all day, although honestly i can admit it's not the best-written film i've ever seen (i'm just saying, for a superhero flick it's great).
*5: "i was right on target"...way to sound like an arrogant jerk...but oh well. comes of being a fangirl (or -boy). :p
okay now for things i've observed/re-examined the second time around/responses to earlier posts:
1) i actually did notice what BanAnna's talking about with the fight scenes. they're not as well-filmed as i thought they could be. but then a few things occurred to me: 1. the last movie with fight scenes i watched was "hero," so of course that focussed on making the fight scenes extraordinarily aesthetically appealing; i mean, that's the point of the kung-fu genre. so what we see in "bb" is a bit more "western" in it's style. (i'm talking in comic book terms for those unfamiliar.) there's a definite emphasis on a western style of both comic book writing and filmmaking in this movie, and there's nothing wrong with that. 2. i recently read an article in rolling stone which included an interview with whats'isface, the dude who played anakin skywalker in episodes II and III. anyway, he talks about how he was concerned he didn't move gracefully enough while dressed up in the darth suit. and george lucas tells him, it's okay, anakin's not used to being darth either yet, so it's actually better that you look a bit clumsy. so that's how i justified the fight scenes in "bb" being not so awesome: whether or not nolan did it intentionally, it kind of emphasizes that batman really is a novice at this crime-fighting stuff during this film. in the sequel(s), he may or may not train some more and thus improve his fighting technique, which may or may not be reflected in the filming of that(those) flick(s).
2) in response to BanAnna's remark about the lighting issue: obviously anna is not an "angel" fan (no offense). compared to some of the shots they stuck into "angel," *all* the lighting in "bb" is *awesome*. sure, those shots may seem a tad dark for the normal eye, but after spending many a long hour being addicted to "angel"--i mean, watching "angel" only every wednesday as the episodes came out
--you learn to actually appreciate those dark(er) shots for their aesthetic value. so ultimately, i stand by my claim that nolan used the lighting well to create what joss whedon once described as "nice darks...cuz [batman] needs nice darks."
3) the batmobile...is okay. it makes sense/is more practical, okay i get it and, i agree. but you know, there's lore, *lore i tell thee!* okay that's the fangirl in me. i can let it slide though, cuz that really was some "damn good television."
4)*this is a big one!* since when is ra's al ghul an irish man with an english accent whose character in the movie is nicknamed the *french* name "ducard" but actually is playing a man born in the deserts of northern africa (i forget his nationality, i'm sorry; egyptian? moroccan maybe?)? so could you follow that at all? good, congratulations, you truly deserve a prize. anyway, i do love liam, so i am thinking about letting it slide. if only his complexion were just a tad darker... (ah well, irish skin, can't be helped, i know all about that...)
5) i cannot agree more about the excellent casting. just thought i'd mention that *one* more time lol.
6)i am really finding it hard to argue for the '89 "batman" over this one (omg, did i really just say--type--that?! the horror!), but it's just so darn good. i'm re-watching burton's "batman" tomorrow night; hopefully i'll be able to go back to the whole "they're about tied" stance that i held before seeing "bb" a second time.
7) please please please don't bring any dick and barbaras in here! i mean, i like their characters okay in the comics, but i don't know that i could watch a repeat performance of schumacher's debacle(s). i need at least one more batman-working-solo flick under nolan's direction with the same cast before i could even think about bringing in robins, batgirls, or even nightwings. [sorry emily!]
8) i did hear rumors of a young bruce appearing in smallville at some point...the 5th season seems like a good time, as there's no one left in smallville to advance any plotlines (except for that pesky one about the clark/lana relationship)! i'll keep my fingers crossed...
all righty, i'm finally gonna shut up and let someone else put in their two cents.
-ug
ps-am i wrong about the cockney accent thing or are other people hearing it too? am i just hearing things? (and is cockney spelled correctly?)
pps-sorry about writing a *novel* about this movie...
