"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 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.