"Batman Begins"

QL Nut

Project QL Intern
Apr 4, 2004
841
1
0
Long Island, NY
"Batman Begins"

I caught this movie last night and must say it was excellent. This is probably one of the few prequels that I didn't mind seeing the origin of, namely because I've never really seen just exactly how Batman became Batman even though it was explained in the comics. It has been hinted in Batman Forever, but for the most part, Batman's early years have always been skipped over.

Anyway, I was willing to give this movie a chance because it was directed by Christopher Nolan. (And I don't watch crap.) His brother, Jonathan Nolan, had written a short story in which Christopher wrote into a screenplay called Memento, which blew me away. I was so impressed with the movie that I was eager to see his other films and his take on the Batman franchise. I think the studios made a wise decision to use a director who comes from making more independent films, which are typically lower-budget but more well-written.

Without giving much away (I mean, we all know the ultimate overall plot but there's still plenty of things to be revealed), I like the basic feeling I got from watching this film. You can clearly see this director knows what he's doing and isn't afraid to make certain changes like the details of Gotham City or the introduction of the Tumbler (prototype Batmobile). The basic vibe is, "This is how it is now, buckle your seat belts and enjoy the ride." And you've just got to respect that.

So, any complaints you may ask? Well, some may find the movie too long (I didn't mind at all because I was interested and thought the length gave it a more epic feel). Some may feel that the action sequences are zoomed in too close, where sometimes it can be hard to tell who's hitting who (again, it didn't bother me because it was still fun). Katie Holmes did a decent job playing Gotham's D.A., but the only problem was I thought she looked a little young for the part.

Is it better than Tim Burton's 1989 film? Yes and no. This film is arguably better in a few ways. Mainly, I enjoyed this film more because it feels more like a super-hero movie. If you get into it, it's just flat out fun in the same way that the Spider-Man films were, even though I never really got into them. This time, the villains of the film don't overshadow the hero as was the case with the previous four films. There is no impeccable Jack Nicholson performance as the Joker, which the 1989 film has a heads-up on; there's no grand, larger-than-life musical score that defined the franchise (though, the score in this film is more subtle but still effective). The bottom line to this question is that it comes down to a matter of taste, not quality. Both of these films have got quality. I recommend this to anyone who wants to see a well-written super-hero movie, as opposed to a mindless fun film.
 
I saw it last night. Thought it was an interesting look into the psyche and origins of Batman. Could've lived without Katie Holmes. Christian Bale was good, Michael Caine (as always) was excellent, love Gary Oldman and Liam Neeson. That said it did bore me at times (I actually got up to go to the bathroom instead of suffering through the whole film like I usually will).

Have to say, though, I still prefer the first Tim Burton film. In this one I also liked the nod at the end with the playing card.
 
I'll definitely go see it, but i have to admit the trailers I've seen haven't helped it. It gave me the impression that there will be some slow segments and Katie Holmes didn't look like she fit the movie at all...
 
Agreed. I'm not too sure why she was in the movie, maybe because of the obligatory cliché of every super-hero movie needing a love sub-plot. I like the casting choices for all other characters, though. Morgan Freeman had a nice little part, who admitted he only did this movie for the money.

I also have a lot of respect for Christian Bale, basically because of his odd career choices and dislike of the spotlight. (Kind of like Johnny Depp and his role choices.) He doesn't act for fame and fortune and contribute to America's ridiculous idolization of celebrities. He does it simply for the craft. To me, that gives him a lot of credibility as an actor, which is what it should be about. I need not mention his INSANE weight loss for The Machinist, where he was 121 lbs., then bulked up to 220 lbs. 5 months later for Batman Begins.

Michael Caine, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman (he nailed the look of Gordon) were great, too. I get the sense that rather than casting big Hollywood A-listers for their reputation, a cast was chosen that had class and fit the parts. The trailers were probably mediocre because this movie focuses more on the story and dialogue than action, yet at the same time it realizes the importance of having action in a Batman movie.
 
Last edited:
Probably right about the trailers...I like a good Batman story, but my first view of the trailer left me kind of stand-offish about it at first
 
I dunno. Even after all the trailers and TV spots and good reviews, I'm still just not interested in it. However, I may end up seeing it 'cause we finally have a commercial IMAX screen here in KC (well, in Olathe, actually), so I'm wanting to test out the new IMAX screen to figure out what the best place will be to sit for "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" next month.

And I don't like the look of the Batmobile. I thought it was supposed to be a stealth vehicle, not a tank.

Joy
 
My family watched Batman Begins yesterday afternoon and we enjoyed it! :)

Matt was totally -- "That's the BEST Batman movie out there."

I did like this movie. It made it a bit more plain as to what caused the "change" in Bruce Wayne.

I loved parts of that movie though... couldn't help but laugh at some parts... *G*

"Didn't you read the memo?" I *loved*!