Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Batman Begins Discussion ... SPOILERS!

Batman Begins has restored my faith in DC movies and gives me greater hope for Singer's Superman. If Singer can at least match with Supes what Nolan did with Batman I think DC will knock Marvel off the top, movie adaption-wise.

Lee and I are going in just a few minutes! Wa-hoo!!!

Kewl! I need to see this ASAP! Maybe Sunday!

i'm going to see it, Thursday afternoon !!

and i'm really looking forward to it now !! i had always intended on seeing it on it's release but i wasn't planning of rushing out on it's first day, but from the MTV special that i saw and the reviews i've read, i think it's gonna be great !!

i'll let you know, tomorrow ....

Matthew.

Just came back from the theater. Loved it. Easily the best Batman movie yet. And Alfred is a hoot.

I agree. I do have a few minor nitpicks, but I always do. Like Scott, I hope this sets the new DC movie standard.

I just edited the subject so we can discuss spoilers here, should anyone want to.

It has been 11 hours since I saw it and it is still fresh enough to make an impression on me. It was great in so many aspects that the little things that bothered me can easily be overlooked. And I can't believe the twist I had no idea of. That just made the movie for me. As did Cillian Murphy as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Perfect!

I also was struck with a thought that never occurred to me before. Did Fraiser get the last name Crane on "Cheers" as a nod to Jonathan Crane? Or is it just a coincidence that they were both psychiatrists named Crane.

I'd have to say it just didn't register for me.

As opposed to the other movies, this one was to make "realistic" how someone (anyone) could become a "Batman."

I felt most of the affection for Bruce's father was built after he was already dead. The killing of the parents left me feeling "yeah, so?" In general, I thought the movie did a very poor job of building emotional relationships.

Is there anyone left in Gothman that doesn't know the Batman's identity and WHAT's with that voice?

Also, this wasn't exactly Batman the Detective. He has a "Q" to do that. Either give me the schtick or give me intelligence.

This Director likes to close-up the action and fight scenes, with lots of cut scenes. I guess I've alway thought this was a Director's way of telling me that they can't shoot a fight scene. Contrast that with Star Wars or Crouching Tiger, in which fights are shot in one scene from a further POV.

It started out VERY VERY slowly.

There were a lot of aspects I thought would work, but the editing, like everything was set up out of order.

Bruce won't kill a murderer but he'll burn everyone to death?

Let's leave the theatre by the alley way door in a town like Gotham?

Hey, I haven't liked anything you've done, but let's have a smooch and go off into the sunset together, once the real you comes back???

The ending was well done. They did a better job of setting up the next movie than in this movie IMO.

Excuse me while I stand in front of this microwave machine powerful enough to boil water a 100 yards away.

Maybe it was my emotional state? Maybe it will be one of those movies that will work better for me the second time around, but I won't be paying $3 for a small popcorn to see it.

Well, BB beat me to it, but I want to add a couple more thoughts.

I didn't love it. I can appreciate that, in many ways, this was the most definitive Batman portrayal, at least at the beginning of his career. But still, I left the movie very lukewarm to the effort as a whole. I think the main thing that irked me was that Chris Nolan seems to be very uneasy with the concept of superheroing and supervillany. Either that, or he was just so unsure of what to do with an effort of this size that he just froze up. The Scarecrow's toxin... I got mild swoons from Gothamites when I was expecting to see them wailing and screaming in the streets. No Lazarus Pit. Instead, we have Ra's Al Ghul, the Dread Pirate Roberts, as played by Liam Neeson. This was an opportunity missed, in my book.

I needed a huge Scarecrow moment at the end of the movie. Instead, I got Katie Holmes shocking his ass with a taser gun. Very ho-hum. It seems to me like plotwise, Nolan was afraid to just roll the dice and give us the huge movie we were dying to see. On the positive side, every single actor gave 110%. The dialogue was nice. I guess in many ways, this movie was like the antithesis of Revenge of the Sith, in which a great plot was marred by bad dialogue. In this case, awesome characterization and great scenes were marred by a seeming inability on the director's part to BELIEVE in superheroes, to BELIEVE in supervillains, to just go with the subject material and make this the great superhero thrill ride it was screaming to be.

I'll take Frank Miller's Batman: Year One over this one any time. For me, the movie was a very tepid B.

Funny, this is exactly the reason why I liked this movie so much. For me, Batman has always worked best in a more realistic setting, holding back on the superhero/supervillains stuff was what made the movie for me. The parts that I liked the least were exactly the ones that were more 'superheroey' (for example calling the bats with the red thingie on his boot. Yuck!) Another thing that I liked was that for once the movie focused on Batman, not on his villains. He is a great character, it was time he got the spotlight.
I also loved the portrayal of Gotham City in this movie, not so much a glamorous art deco facade but a dark vision of what New York City would look like if it went through 20 years of severe economic depression... Dark, yes, but for Batman this is exactly what works.

I'm with you Juan. I loved this version of Batman because it didn't focus on the super-human but the man who could be more. And the villains were perfectly subtle and not overbearing like Carrey's Riddler or Schwarzenegger's Freeze. And the fight sequences were realistic to me, unlike those in Hero, Crouching Tiger or even the Matrix which were too unrealistic to hook me. It made it more believable that this was just a man who trained himself to be the best rather than someone relying on supernatural or alien abilities. Which is exactly what Batman is supposed to be about.

I honestly don't know why I didn't expect the twist with Ra's but I loved that it surprised me. And I still say Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow was a dead-on scary villain. Even if he was taken out rather stupidly by the character we didn't need. Holme's character was just a waste of screen time. But wouldn't it be funny if they brought her back as a female Two-Face?

I'll agree that some of the stuff just didn't make sense, especially the microwave that didn't seem to harm anything but water. What about the water in the human body? And wasn't Joe Chill created for the first movie then written into cannon? I don't remember Bruce's parents killer being revealed until the first Burton film.

I just saw it. I don't think I ever realized just how bad the previous set of movies were (and I mean all four of them) until I saw this one.

THINGS I LIKED:

Bruce being trained by Ra's/The League of Shadows. This isn't part of the canon, is it? It should be.

Truly a fantastic set of actors: Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Tom Wilkinson were all first rate. I thought Cillian Murphy had a lot of potential too, but could have been used a bit better.

The focus on Bruce was really well done. I would've liked to have seen a bit more of the playboy persona, which is something I always thought should be played up...

A very effective use of Alfred, Lucius Fox, and Jim Gordon as supporting cast.

The understated villains worked really well, especially because it made the "escalation" speech at the end work well.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE:

While I liked the understated villains, they were just a bit too so. What always struck me as memorable about the Scarecrow was his origin story of being dismissed as a Professor after firing a gun in class to strike fear in his students. Maybe a little more of his torturing inmates in Arkham would've been effective?

Similarly with Ra's, while the twist was good (though I anticipated it), I was expecting a further twist, like the revelation that he'd personally overseen the destruction of Rome, Constantinople, etc., and was thus immortal. Maybe it was incapatible with the film's naturalism, but Ra's was just a bit too human.

The Rachel Dawes character seemed completely worthless, especially since she seems to have replaced Harvey Dent as the long-term friend turned prosecutor. Katie Holmes did an adequate job, but the character simply seemed forced. Though I did wonder at the possibility of a female Two-Face.

Overall, I really enjoyed it.

Joe Chill goes back fairly far in the Batman mythos (Batman #47, 1948, apparently). The first Batman movie had the Joker as the killer of Bruce's parents. I believe the real name of the Joker (Jack something) was first used in that movie, however.

i really really enjoyed "BATMAN BEGINS" !!

i thought the pacing was such right, i liked the slow build up and that lead into the final battle, which was also timed right, non of it was overly rushed !!

all the actors were great in their parts Christian Bale was cool at BATMAN and i loved his "voice" when he was in the suit !! it made him sound quite scary !!

Michael Caine was good, although he didn't quite seem like Alfred to me ??

Morgan Freeman was as great as ever !! has his character appeared in the comics ??

and i really liked Katie Holmes !! and thought she was tough !! and not what i was expecting, thought she was gonna be the screaming girl !!

Gary Olham was great of Jim Gordan also !!

the effects of the SCARCROW's gas was cool, loved it when BAT's was flying over the city !! and his face was a 'devils' face !!

and the final scene with the JOKERS card was cool !!

9/10 for me

Matthew.

I liked this movie. I truly felt Batman Begins really is a new, fresh start for the legend. (two thumbs way, way up)

The Batmobile was cool..."Does it come in black" I caught myself laughing.

OK, I liked it a lot. Not perfect, but better than a lot of other films. Thoughts just as they line up in my head...

Were there no American actors available when they were filming this? Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Linus Roach and Tom Wilkinson all doing accents, then add to that Liam Neeson and Michael Caine. Oh, and the Batmobile which the American companies said they couldn't build was built here in the UK in the end. Oh, and Wayne Manor looked suspiciously British too. That's all apropros of nothing but it amused me.

Cillian Murphy has the most incredible eyes. Possibly on the level of Paul Newman or Liz Taylor. Just stunning.

Loved the Scarecrow. I liked the reason for him having the mask, liked Murphy's portrayal of him.

It did seem like two films, one fairly simple one with the training and possibly the Mafia story and then one with the more out-right superheroics. Not sure if it should have been two films or not, but it was very obviously two distinct parts.

I really liked the way that they managed to explain why Batman has all the bits on his costume, where he got everything from and why no-one else knows about him getting it all. OK, so Lucius Fox does but really to be believable *someone* has to know he's getting all the stuff.

Very nice design work on both the set and the costume front. Pretty good music as well since you didn't really notice it but it still set the scene and mood.

Oldman I liked a lot. Caine was great (although as always just Michael Caine being Michael Caine). Neeson was fun. Murphy was very fun. Holmes was... actually not that bad at all.

And Bale? Well I liked him lots as Bruce Wayne. He's got a *very* hot bod. He does, however, have a really odd mouth. He kind of looks like he doesn't have enough teeth or something. Or like they're not big enough. Oh, and his Batman voice did start to get a bit silly towards the end of the film but what puzzled me was the wierd weay he sort of pulled his chin in when he was being Batman so that he looked like he had no neck.

Speaking of his chin, surely Bale is the only actor who has the same problem as Val Kilmer when being Batman in that while most of his face is covered and unrecognisable his most recognisable feature is his mouth and chin. Which isn't covered up. And so is even more recognisable.

Oh, and *also* before the film (and obviously this doesn't relate to Batman at all) there was the trailer for Willy Wonka. Ooooh, that looks good.

If you didn't notice they also explain away potentially the entirety of Batman's rogue's galler beyond the 'escalation speech.' A bunch of Inmates from Arkham Asylum are gassed with the fear toxin while Batman was flying over their heads.

Plus god knows how many normal people. The deep psychic scars and becoming things like Penguins and Riddlers are all possibly because of such.

[over analysis mode]
Agreed. Though I wasn't particularly impressed with the character development I thought they covered several very important "superhero" cultural points with an economy of effort. Bales short conversation with Alfred set up the idea for "superhero" as an original idea, something Bruce came up with, no others exist. Meanwhile in another part of the World, there has been an underground organization convertly doing the same thing like forever, again explained in a very short conversation between Ra's and Batman (or was it Bruce?).

I'm not convinced it was an intentional plotpoint, but the "escalation" correctly predicted by Gordon can be directly blamed on the methods for crime fighting chosen by Batman, compared to the deescalation (deevolution) that results from the methods of League of Shadow's.

If Batman takes a more understated approach instead of the overt terrorize the criminal approach, which never seems to diminish the number of criminals, the bad guys might see their lack of results as "the luck of the game" and not respond with increased technology.
[\over analysis mode]

I got to see it with the wife. It was a welcome relief from some personal stuff, but anyway, here we gooooooooooo......

Loved it. Yes, it wasn't a perfect stickler to detail, but it worked very well. You get why he does what he does, how he does it, how he overcame more than just a little, and the driving force behind him...good stuff.

Neeson: The changed his name from Henri to something else, but it came across well. I won't give away the twist, but it kinda worked.

Ras Al Ghul: was anyone really surpised that he wasn't arabic now? The world, and the anti-defamation leagues simply wouldn't allow that there would be a villian from an arabic land. Kinda silly, since there are hero's and villains from every ethnicity, and its more respectful to me to realize that and show it, rather than deteriorate into sterotypical roles to try and show that not everyone is bad.

I kept mentioning (very quietly, don't fret) to the wife that i expected to see the lazurus pit, and it never showed. Would have loved to see it.

I think there is now a great set up for Talia to show up, but at the same time, much of the parameters of their previous relationship is now void. Those that have seen it know what i mean.

Rutger Hauer: Does the man ever do "bad" work? I've never seen it if he does. The look on his face at the end was priceless. My wife actually laughed out loud, as did others in the theatre.

Morgan Freeman/Lucius Fox: If he doesn't appear in the next Batman, someone should have their head removed. This man is one fine actor that never seems to make a mis-step. I would love to see him and Don Cheadle in a movie together. Two of hollywoods finest actors...something to think about Warner Brothers. Hmmm, Cheadle as Black Spider...there ya go...

Katie Holmes/Rachael Dawes: ...ummmm...why? I mean, other than the scene at the mob store, she was window dressing...and pretty lightweight window dressing at that. Sounds like Cruise ain't the only one that could use a boost. Seriously, i mean, even my wife wondered why she was there.

Michael Caine/ Alfred Pennyworth: Okay, two things marred a phenomenal job. 1) The accent, cockney just doesn't work for Alfred. Sorry. 2) The man looked like he was about to go out and run a marathon. I know Gough was heavier as well, but don't tell me there isn't an actor out there that can do the role and be the skinny alfred we all love. I hate to say it, but the guy that plays C3Po in the Star Wars would have been good. Lose the whiney voice and go at it.

Like i say, the only quibbles with what really was outstanding.

Cillian Murphy/Scarecrow: Wasted. I say this because they could have done the same thing with an anonymous henchman or something, given more screen time to the others, and then used Scarecrow to much better purpose in later films. Oh, and my wife thought he was just "too pretty".

Christian Bale/Bruce Wayne/Batman: The only problem i had was the Batman voice at the end. They did too much messing with it. When he dangled the dirty cop, you got to see some of the anger we have seen in the books over the years, and he did it much better than any of the other three could have done, i thought.

But the smart thing was...the also let him play Bruce Wayne. Batman is Batman, but Bruce is the reason why. And that is what the books have been missing for years now.

The one real quibble i had with the movie as a whole...again, they make young bruce wayne the wimpy kid. Maybe thats the way they really are somewhere else, but where i am from, they don't act that way.

Nolan: I think that this is the finest Batman movie that could have been made given the ingredients...and that was pretty damn fine indeed. To me, it blew away Spider Man, and the previous Burton movies. The superman and camp Batman's do not count.

This is the one that should have been made first.

This gives me hope for a Green Lantern movie.

I forgot Gary Oldman. This man is also one powerhouse of an actor, and i can't think of anyone better suited to play Gordon. You believed it. Even if he did wind up in the car, it still worked.

How the hell is it that sooooo many british people nailed an american Icon soooo well?

It's cuz' acting schools and classical acting training in Britain is kinda superior to what we have over here. Not that the scene in NYC and LA is bad by ANY means, but if you want to really learn how to be a FINE actor, go to Guildhall.

Jeez, I was going to go see this at the Imax today at noon. But after reading this thread (well, I skimmed over some of the spoilers with my eyes closed), I'm a bit ambivalent now. Hmmm....

Don't be frightened off, Semi. It was a very fine treatment. Most of the stuff mentioned here are mere quibbles.

The small scenes resonate and the big scenes explode onto the screen. The one with Crane dosed and in Bats grip...well, if you ever wanted to see Horror in Batman, that will make you dumpaload, lol.

Really? But most of the people here have liked it! You really should go see it, you won't regret it, it's quite a treat. (I am saying this for purely selfish reasons, though: I really would like a sequel to be made...)

I THINK that this story was a glom of several, Miller's and others. I think Scarecrow was part of a story where Ra's hit Gotham with some sort of mind gas. I don't know the story exactly, but someone on another board referenced it. So, I'm either passing on info or lies, not sure which.