Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Batman Begins: Spoilers Inside

DC finally got their act together, and they've actually done it right! In case you can't tell, I loved the movie. There were a few nit-picky things that could have been better, but overall it was really good.

Things I liked:

1. They stayed true to the comic. Now, I'm not as well versed in Batman as I am in some other comics, but as far as I could tell, it was pretty close.

2. They started early, and stayed there. Some other comic movies (The Hulk and Daredevil to name two) started with the childhood and then zoomed forward to where the hero becomes the hero. Batman Begins did that, but they did it without getting to where the comic book takes place until the last few minutes of the movie.

Case in point, Commissioner Gordon is not yet the Commissioner. Wayne Manor is not yet directly connected to the Bat Cave. The villians are not yet as campy as the hero.

3. The Batmobile. Rocked. First the whole "Does it come in black?" scene. Then the chase. Then Gordon driving it. It was just so freakin' cool!

4. The casting. Morgan Freeman, need I say more?

Christian Bale was perfect casting. Michael Keaton didn't have the sex appeal. Val Kilmer was a pretty boy. George Clooney was close, but not tough enough, and the fourth installment just sucked anyway. Christian Bale managed to be tough and scary, but was likeable and had his humorous moments. And if I do say so myself, he has the sex appeal thing down pat.

Michael Caine, Tom Wilkenson, Gary Oldman, the kids who played the young Bruce and Rachel, and most of the other minor players I thought were also really well cast.

I could have taken or left Liam Neeson or Katie Holmes. Liam is awesome, but it was hard not to see him as Qui-Gon. I know that's not his or the movie's fault, but still. Katie I'm just not a big fan of. She was just okay. I didn't think either was terrible casting, just not really great.

5. John Williams is the man.

Things I didn't like:

1. The directing of the fight scenes. They were well choreographed and executed, but sometimes, especially in the prison at the beginning, it was hard to tell who was hitting who and who was winning. Everyone looked so similar and the shots were so close on the action that it was hard to pick out Bruce Wayne.

2. Everything was so dark. And I literally mean dark, as in no lights, hard to see, lots of blackness. Yes, I know that that's part of Batman. He's nocturnal, he's a vigilante, etc., but a movie that makes your eyes strain to pick out shapes is not always fun to watch.

Okay, that's my dissertation on the subject. Anyone else? Comments? Oscars? Tomatoes?

~Anna

I liked the movie... certainly better that Joel Schumacher's although that wasn't difficult

I had the same problem with Liam Neeson... Qui-Gon

One thing...



From Imdb:
The music was to subtle and that's not JW's style ... sigh... missed Danny Elfman's theme however

Batman is the man... period!

This guy Bale... he rocks. He is very scary but thats how he shold be. I dont like the sexy stereotype because batman is not suppposed to be sexy but scary. Bruce wayne on the other hand was and it really pleased me.

I dont like that dawson's creek girl, but oh well... morgan balances the equation.

Batmobile is awsome! I really liked it and it seems pretty modern and rough.

the bat cave thing was really cool too!

I may confess I wasn't going to watch it because I'm getting sick of this DC/Marvel tons of movies all in once... but I am glad i went to watch it..

The movie is the best one from the Batman series.


MDL.

Saw this movie with a friend yesterday. I really enjoyed it. I liked Michael Keaton's movie, but this one was better. I'm also not a huge Katie Holmes fan, but her role worked okay.

The Batmobile rocked. IMHO, it's a bit more realistic to have it as a tank the army didn't want, rather than some souped-up sports car. And yes, I loved the expression on Jim Gordon's face when he turned on the weapons systems. Totally believable.

If they have a sequel, I'd like to see Dick Greyson & Barbara Gordon, but without the campiness of the Batman & Robin movie.

I wonder if they are going to have a young Bruce Wayne in the Smallville series? That would totally rock.

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...

I do like the character of Dick Grayson. I've read some of the Nightwing comics, and I like how he's changed. Unfortunately, it seems that the movie franchise (at least so far) hasn't been able to bring him in without the campiness. If they could manage to do it, I think it'd be interesting.

Or, heck, why not just make a separate Nightwing movie?

yeah, actually a nightwing movie would be really great now that you mention that. i've always been a fan of dick grayson in the comics, and particularly as nightwing.

so yeah, i'll agree that if they can bring him in without the "campiness," that'd be okay. but i still think batman should have one more solo flick first!

-ug

Well, following this movie, they can't have Barbara for awhile. They actually showed her in this movie, in Gordon's apartment, as a little girl. I didn't even notice until I watched the credits.

I just got back from this movie, and I'm impressed. This will definitely bring the franchise back from the hell that was Schumaker. It was dark, as Batman movies are supposed to be. The action was good, I thought. It helps that Christian Bale had previous background in fighting.

This movie wasn't really the time to get into balancing Bruce and Batman. You have to break them apart before you can try to put them back together.

We were discussing Ras al'Ghul after the movie, and my take was this: They've mentioned that Ras is immortal. But Ducard/Ras was also pushing the "man can be killed, legend cannot" aspect. So, perhaps Ducard is another in the line of people taking up the mantle of the legend. I can't say anything about the Irish man with a french name, though.

I'll definitely be interested if they do sequels. Considering what it made in the box office this past weekend, I think they will. I just hope all of the main actors will come back. (I'll have to check out).

As a side note: They showed the Dukes of Hazzard trailer. I don't think so

I saw it on Friday and WOW, I absolutely loved it. I've been recommending it to everyone and anyone who will speak to me :p I loved that it was dark, but not... gothicly bizarre like Burton's stuff, especially Batman Returns.

And Karen, I have read that Christian Bale is contracted for two sequels, so assuming that this does well enough that the WB pushes a sequel (and based on initial earnings, I'd say the WB will be going HECK YEAH in short order), at least there won't be any Batman swapping

Yeah, I think I'll avoid the new DoH movie, at least until it's on DVD.

I liked the original, but this just doesn't seem to have the same flavor. John Schneider and the other former actors must be shaking their heads.

Well, I finally got the free time to go see BB. My male companion, who isn't into comics, and only really remembers the 60's campy TV show, said "the acting was great, it was way better than I thought it would be, but it was so dark!"

Of course I told him that Batman is supposed to be dark and brooding, why else would a man dress up like a bat unless he was fixated and obsessed?

Now I happen to like Katie Holmes, from years of watching Dawson's Creek, and it struck me that Rachel and Bruce reminded me of Dawson and Joey in the Series Finale, when they hadn't seen each other for five years. Somehow Katie always ends up playing the "girl that got away that I was in love with but didn't realize it at the time" role.

I really liked Gotham City, and the raised train railway was really cool. The action was fast, the flashbacks to his childhood kept things interesting.

The action scenes were very hard to follow. That's my only complaint. But I guess we're used to the 60's campy TV series where they would stop the action and put in an action balloon: THUD! POW! HA HA

I didn't think I would find Christian Bale attractive after looking at the magazines of him, but he has a presence when you watch him in person. (Actually, I'm really hoping that I feel that way about Brandon Routh, because right now he has zero sex appeal for me, whereas Tom Welling....yowsa!!)

I'm thinking of going to see BB again, in an IMAX theatre. THat would be soooo cool!

GO SEE IT

okay so i just thought i'd add this. since everyone's been making the complaint about the fight scenes, here's a comment i found in wizard magazine:

"'Overall, we had 15 to 20 fights to do in BB,' says stunt coordinator Paul Jennings. 'And Chris Nolan was quite specific about wanting the fighting to be real, as opposed to martial artsy for martial arts' sake. If Batman can take someone out in a simplistic way, he'll do it--he won't do a jump-triple-twist just because it looks good. We didn't want Batman to look like this superhuman being--we wanted him to be a man, so we were able to make the fights very gritty.'"

you ask me, that makes a lotta sense. similar thoughts crossed my mind so it was good to know i wasn't way off. (of course, the whole thing could be just a bad [clark-like] excuse :p )

Finally saw it last night. Absolutely loved it.

I thought Christian Bale was wonderfully cast. He worked equally well for the Bruce Wayne persona and Batman, and he was able to pull off a younger Bruce Wayne who was so bitter and disillusioned then mature into the older, more confident Bruce.

What I especially loved was how this movie was grounded in reality. Well, reality in as much as it involved a man who flew around in a batsuit. Gotham came across as a real city that might honestly exist in the world we know. Too, the villains weren't campy (dressed in guady purple suits or so deformed as to be a cartoon character a la The Penguin). If this franchise continues into sequels, I hope they keep the villains "real" - have good excuses why they are called The Joker and Catwoman and The Penguin that don't involve ridiculous costumes.

Loved, loved loved Alfred. He and Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox provided the perfect amount of comic relief.

I was only the tiniest bit disappointed that Katie Holmes/Rachel didn't prove to be a love interest in the end. I mean, I always love a good helping of romance in my movies, but this wasn't about romance so it didn't bother me so much. The last Batman installments insisted on pairing Bruce/Batman with a girl and working the dual identity/revelation angle a little too often.

My only problem, and this could be the fault of the theatre I went too, was that the score was very, very loud. Quite often it drowned out critical dialogue, and during action scenes you could barely stand the extreme volume.

I agree with Anna about the fight scenes. I kept wanting the camera to pan back so I could see what the heck was going on.

Best of all, my husband was really against going to see this because he had so much disliked the previous Batmans, especially III and IV. I kept trying to convince him this was completely different, and I felt vindicated when he claimed this was by far the best Batman he'd ever scene.

So...when's that remake of Superman coming out?


Lynn

I absolutely loved it and so did Hubby. Much better than any of the previous Batman movies. Also more involving than "Sith". My comments pretty much echo everyone elseses except for a few differences.
Liam Neeson was very good, but he is forever "Rob Roy" for me.
I never saw "Dawsons Creek", so had never seen Katie Holmes. She did better than I expected her to after all the "TomKat" hype. Interesting her character was "Rachel Daws."
Ditto on not being able to see the fight scenes.
I loved driving the car under the waterfall to the Batcave.
I loved the primitive Batcave and the historical background of use in the Underground Railway.
I loved the background with Jim Gordon. I had to check the credits to see that was really Gary Oldman. Such a departure for him.
I loved the way the tools of the trade were developed with the Bat shaped sirikin, the spelunking gear and the memory fabric for the winged glider. That meant a lot more than naming something the "Batknuckler" or somesuch.
I loved Christian Bale. He did a great job and is smooth in the tuxedo. One interesting thing to me was that one time as Batman he told off one of the bad guys (I think the bad cop but could be wrong) and showed a lot of teeth. He almost looked like a wolf. I thought it was very effective.
I'm looking forward to the sequel.

Artemis

Okay, just a quick flyby here. Should be asleep right now.

Before I forget:

Karen, the "Barbara Gordon" in the credits wasn't the little girl. It was Jim's wife. Assuming they stick to comics continuity on this one, anyway. I don't want to spoil things, so I'll just say that the Barbara who becomes Batgirl is Jim's niece, and she's older than the girl you saw.

Anyway...

Just saw the movie tonight. Finally. Really liked it. Could have done with a bit less violence and a slower pace, but there was a lot of story to tell.

Loved seeing Lucius on screen, not sure how I feel about him being in on the secret. I guess it works.

My sister was annoyed at the lack of women in the movie and at the cliche usage of the Mysterious Far East for training and martial arts. I say Bruce training in the Far East is canon, and, more importantly, R'as and the League of Shadows' ties to the Far East are canon. If you're going to have R'as train Bruce as his successor (which is kind of cool), then it has to be there. There was also the rougher, less mysterious East where R'as found Bruce. Can't really disagree about the lack of women, though. They could have put more in. Leslie, for instance, or Montoya, or even Sara Essen, and a few more scattered in the background (Harley working at Archam, some female board members, etc).

Not sure about the Batmobile. It's cool and it makes sense, but darnit, it's not the Batmobile. And just what is a bridging vehicle doing with rockets and all that stuff? Not to mention the position change for the weapons systems.

I do like the explanation of where the stuff all came from, and in that context, the Tumbler makes a lot of sense. So does the gliding, which is kind of surprising.

I agree about the fight scenes. I had the same problem. I had that problem with Attack of the Clones, too. Darkness, not enough distinguishing features, and too many closeups and quick cuts. It's just too hard to keep track of what's happening and who's doing what to whom.

They used Joe Chill!! Woo-hoo!!

They also used Zsasz. Weird, but kind of cool.

Scarecrow makes perfect sense. Acts as a great foil for Batman (using fear, making people think of him as inhuman, etc). And using his fear toxin for ransom money is very much like him.

Loved the ultrasonic bat-caller in the bootheel. Recognized it right away, and loved how they used it.

Nice work with Falcone giving Bruce the idea to start on his quest.

Didn't like Batman setting R'as up to die and justifying it as simply not helping him. But it's okay. We know R'as isn't dead.

BTW, what's up with pronouncing it "Rahz"? It's Arabic for "head," right? The Hebrew word is pronounced "rosh" (with a long o). I'm used to hearing "R'as" pronounced as "Raish," which is fairly similar to the Hebrew. I don't speak Arabic, though. Anyone care to help?

Anyway... wow. There's a lot of stuff where I can just point to it and say "they finally got it right!!" Too much to list, really. The important thing is that they nailed the spirit of what Batman and his origins should be.

Really looking forward to seeing what they come up with next (and how they explain Joker's appearance).

Paul

BATMAN BEGINS MOVIE CUTS A WIDE SWATH.
This from the L.A. Times, Wednesday, July 6.
(It's not just a movie anymore.)

Artemis

Nice article.

Reminds me of a fun thread from another board I visit:

10 Reasons Batman Comics are Liberal (or Conservative) Propaganda

Paul