Batman Begins (saw it)

Just got back from seeing it. This is a great flick!

They really got it right. The focus is totally on Wayne/Batman, and they spend about a third of the movie just around his background leading up to becoming the character. Which you should expect with a guy like Nolan at the helm.

The action scenes were raw, gritty, and organic (ala Bourne Supremacy), I prefer this style here to say Catwoman or Van Helsing where you're watching a video game. Scarecrow was awesome and very f*cked up. Good work on him and the whole fear thing.

My wife is NOT a fan of comic books and their characters, I have been going on about this movie for awhile to the point where I think she was kinda dreading the day. She came out saying she really liked it and that it was more realistic than she expected and not cheesy. That to me says a lot.

It's dark and it's character based and consider the franchise restarted. Bale did a fantastic job. The cast is amazing and Holmes didn't drop the ball (the only one I was worried about). OK, I will stop typing now and get some sleep...Definitely recommending this one.
 
Just wanted to chime in and concur with Lyons Den.... BATMAN has indeed BEGUN, ha :P

Burton's Batman was kid stuff, this is the goods, this is the dark, mean, Batman I've been waiting to see on screen.

There are moments of total and utter brilliance.

The way Batman is handled, attacking, swooping in from the shadows, is perfect.

I did not find any of the action or fight scenes to be too choppy or poorly executed, something I was worried about after reading advance reviews stating this as a weakness.

As Ra's says at the beginning of training; 'This is not a dance'. Batman is not meant to be Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

The definitive Batman film. I haven't left a theater this satisfied in quite some time.
 
you lucky people,

i have to wait till saturday for the sneak preview, BB onlys begins here officially 24/6/2005.

argh...................can't wait............ where is that damn game!
 
I saw it last night at the midnight showing (hey I was bored). I did not like this movie at all. It had its moments, but overall it just did not do it for me.

I was looking at my watch every 20 minutes to see how much was left.

I also think there are some major plot holes. My friends and I just could not figure out at the end of the movie.

Batmans voice keeps on changing too when he is in costume. One minute he's a badass, then the next he sounds like a whiney *****.

They also spliced in WAY too much footage of bats. It was fine the first few times they did, but after like the 4th time, it just got stale.

Overall, 5/10
 
It's good. Very good.

I'd venture to say it did not feel like I was watching a comic book movie. It had a raw feel to it. It is excellent filmmaking.

After the pathetic kid movies that part 3 and 4 were under the oh so lame direction of Schumacher, they needed to do a 180 to put batman back on course.

They did, it's excellent. It's a movie for an adult generation of comic book fans. I'm fairly certain we've seen the resurrection of this franchise, and that over the next 5 to 8 years we'll continue to get excellent Batman films(as long as they keep paying Nolan and Goyer to put their collective brains together).

The original thread that started this by uhrgl... after reading your problems with the film, all i can surmise is if Batman's voice and the explaination of an underground railroad takes you out of a movie to dislike it...then you probably have a tough time enjoying any film.

I personally loved Batman's voice. If you think about it it suits. He's just a normal guy(save the training), he builds his character himself. Hides his identity with a mask. Changes his voice to hide who he is. So this is what Bruce Wayne came up with, makes sense to me.

I have no idea what Jared is talking about with the director/camp being the same as Superman? Maybe the same producers are involved, but other than that I think most of it is different.

The comparison to Bourne Supremacy - most of the action is frantic, lots of shots in a little time, can't understand what's going on. But, I think it was an artistic choice as the action all seemed to be sound oriented more than visual. But they did a great job of covering the car chase scene, which kicks royal ass.

for any music lovers out there, quite a treat in this film: It's composed by both Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard.

Wally Pfister does his usual cinematography excellence and Nolan proves he can handle any movie you throw at him.

I really loved seeing that Nolan had his buddy who starred in Following in this.(the water company guy)

I'll probably check it again this weekend. If you are a fan of the original Batman movie by Burton. I think you'll enjoy this one for sure, maybe even like it better.
 
It was a pretty good flick. I didn't read any of the reviews, so I would go in fresh.

Nolan captured quite a bit of what makes Batman mythic.

The shot of him standing overlooking the city was wonderful. It was like he was a long forgotten gothic statue - timeless - a centry in the night. So much can be summed up in that shot.

The only aspect that bothered me was the hand-fighting scenes. I don't mind the quick edits etc... but part of Batmans power is the grace of his movement and how he takes his opponents apart. If Nolan had included just a few MLS', it would have been useful. Maybe his choice was partly dictated by the bulky costume which limits movements etc... It may have been a choice between silly movements vs. coherent fight dynamics.

As to his voice changing it didn't bother me at all. Maybe because I read Frank Millers early years version, and in it he shows how Batman studied the lion's roar, and mimicked it to create otherworldly fear, so it made sense to me that that would be part of his repetoire - using a menacing voice to create fear and doubt.

This Batman is probably the closest to the intent of the character, and as such, I hope it makes enough moolah for a sequel. I agree with Christian Bale when he said in an interview (paraphrasing) "there is a lot of meat on the bones of this character...I wouldn't mind exploring it some more".
 
Stabb_Films said:
The original thread that started this by uhrgl... after reading your problems with the film, all i can surmise is if Batman's voice and the explaination of an underground railroad takes you out of a movie to dislike it...then you probably have a tough time enjoying any film.
Click to expand...

I loved Spiderman and Spiderman 2.

I've read a sh*t load of comics, and I don't think Nolan nailed the essence of Batman -- the tone of BB may be improved over the campy 3rd and 4th installments, but I don't like the idea that Bruce is unfocused in his training and Ra's Al Ghul has to put him on the path.

Furthermore, Ra's was completely misused as a villain because BB barely alludes to his longevity -- instead, he credits his accomplishments to "The League of Shadows." IMO, if you use Ra's at all, you should have him near death at some point so we can see the Lazarus pits. A fine, exotic woman as his daughter Talia would have been an improvement too. Maybe Ra's we'll get developed in the next film, but it looks like it's Joker time.

Vicky Vale or Rachel Dawes? They're both throwaway characters in my mind.

As far as people praising Nolan for his limited use of CG, I think he made a mistake. This film could have been made 10 - 15 years ago. Part of the explosion of comic book movies has to be credited to advances in CG. Raimi's Spiderman could not have been made 10 - 15 years ago.

One of my favorite parts of the Spidey movie franchise is that Raimi delivers iconic momnents that readers recognize directly from comic panels -- it's subtle, but it adds another layer for fan boys. I can't think of any iconic Batman panels making it into BB.

Finally, Scarecrow is a completely one-dimensional character. The mask looked cool, but I would have liked some backstory for Dr. Crane. As a psychologist, did he even mention what a lunatic the Batman must be? Also, I like C. Murphy, but he is too young to play a psychiatrist running Arkham.

I saw this film in a theatre filled to capacity with 500 people and I never felt any energy in the audience. I know that's completely subjective, but you've all experienced an audience in awe (Jurassic Park, Spiderman, etc), and I never got that feeling watching BB. I guess the box office will be the final judge.
 
Best Batman movie.

Best movie of the year.

Maybe the best "action" film I have ever seen.
 
This was one of the best batmann movies I saw. The only thing I didn't like about it was when he was batman was that he talked like he was a cronic smoker. I didn't like that at all.
 
Great Flik! Yes, the voice was really strange at times. It was like maybe the hood was a little too tight around his neck.
 
Uh-oh... Coltrain liked Batman... don't know if that means it's really good or really bad?

Urghul - Way better reasoning as to why you didn't like it. You are the first person I've come across who actually wishes there was "more CGI". Most film buffs dislike the everincreasing overuse of it. Batman has a **** load of it, it just uses it subtley.

Back to the voice issue. Pretend you were attempting to become a caped crimefighter. You'd want to alter your own voice to make it "cooler" or to try and hide your identity. You'd need to practise for a long time, but chances are unless you already have a geat voice, your put on voice might not be perfect... that's what I think they were going for.
 
Yop! Best Batman movie for sure, I liked it a lot, nice photography too and the music from Hans Zimmer was very good.
 
Wow, Coltrain loved it!

That should really tell people how good it is.

It may be my favorite of the year as well... certain moments I just can't get out of my head, and I can't wait to see it again, on IMAX.
 
I really did love it. From beginning to end I was captivated.

Referring to the voice, I saw it as he was just trying to alter it to be more mysterious and less recognizeable. I didn't mind it.
 
enough with the voice already. many people here hit it right on the head as i see it. its not superman where you just take off your glasses and no one recognizes you. batman's face is covered so how would someone recognize you? your voice. so you disguise it. make sense?

michael keaton, val kilmer, and even clooney i think deepened their voices a bit in all the other movies. so whats the big deal here?

if your main quip with the whole 2+ hour film is because his voice was a bit different in some scenes i think its not something they missed, some glaring mistake that somehow no one heard, they did it on purpose guys. these are his first outtings as batman. hes working on it.
 
Man, by far best Batman movie... and ranks up there for best comic-book movie as well


Such a good flick, even though I had low expectations going in regardless of the fact that Chris Nolan was directing

worth to plop onto the DVD collection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top