Batman Begins

[AniMan]

Is anyone else kind of confused at the reaction Batman Begins is getting? It seems like it is a "love it or hate it" type of film. However, it should be noted that a number of critics are giving the film bad reviews due to the movie's darkness, remarking about how it is too scary for small children. I don't think those critics understand Batman.

You're absolutely right, those critics who say it's so dark and "it's too scary for small children" just don't get it: Batman is SUPPOSED to be dark!!! Sheesh! The man dons a black, bat-suit and terrorizes criminals at night. What else can he be but "dark"?? Batman is supposed to be dark, and gritty, and moody. He's supposed to be lurking in the shadows, stealthily taking out the villains. Batman was never meant to be sunny and bright, cracking jokes and making silly puns. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really know this character. I grew up reading Batman comics and watching just about every Bat-show that was made for tv (of which Batman: The Animated Series is by far the best of the best), so I know this character very, very well. I'm going to see Batman Begins this weekend, and if it is as seriously done as I think it is, I will be very, very pleased indeed.

[Josh]

It appears that in October, all four of the Burton/Schumacher Bat-films will be re-released on DVD in Special Edition form. Though this link is for the R2 release, I think the R1 date won't be too different in this case.

Here's hoping that Batman Forever gets the oft-rumored Director's Cut, while Batman & Robin just gets cut.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=57456

[Ben]

As I understand it, these will all come out (with Begins) at the same time on region 1 disc sets.

Apparently, BF will get the DC, B&R will be the original theatrical (nothing can save that!)


17th October 2005:
Superman DVD Collection
A Star Is Born SE


November 2005:
Wizard of Oz SE
King Kong SE


Now THOSE have just gotten me stoked!

[Ben]

Well...

Good start, liked the young boy. Didn't get why Liam Neeson's character was actually so intent/bothered with/wanted to train Bruce Wayne. Kinda glossed over the bringing together the cave/the gadgets. It was all in there of course, but almost alluded to rather than actually see it, which I thought was the point of this one.

Overall - too long.

And as much as the script keeps suggesting that Bruce uses it, there was no real "theatricality" or eloquence to the film at all.

The fights were cut too fast to see what was going on, and two thirds through, I actually thought "okay, boring". I've seen Batman fight bad guys, and the endless punching and kicking was something I waited patiently for them to just get over with.

Villains - nothing special. No big costumes, and the villain at the end (I won't say) was just a normal guy, with not even anything special about him. At least the Scarecrow had his awesome mask, but they didn't use it enough!

Gotham annoyed me. Loved the monorail thing, but why then cut in standard stock shots of Chicago, which obviously DOESN'T have a monorail in it?? The use of the same overhead shot nagged me as well, but mainly it was the cutting between Chicago location and the CG/model/sets of monorailed Gotham that bugged most.

Music - what do you get when you have TWO composers on a movie? NO MEMORABLE SCORE. NO THEMES. Zimmer hacks away with his usual big ballsy brass and percussion, while Newton-Howard merely seems to fill in the blanks - neither has anything to match Elfman's majesty or Goldenthal's overblown heroics.

Actors - Bale was good, but his gruff Bats voice did seem hammily put on (especially the shouting). Holmes was nothing, and I for one can't see any of the attraction around her. Oldman did the best with what he had, as Gordon, and came off as the most interesting of the characters, thoug possibly too young?

Michael Caine - the one true bright spot - bringing dignity and humor to his part of Alfred. Although I'm not sure where Alfred would have gotten his Cocknee creditials at Buckinghamd Palace (apparently), the accent came and went, so he just about held up. A couple of funny plot holes with him though...

I guess overall, the attempt was to get down and dirty with Bats, but I think they've strayed far, far too much away from the Schumacher films. A little more Burton (which this film does draw inspiration from) would not have gone amiss.

Alas, Batman Begins (again), but doesn't really have anywhere new to go...

[Meg]

Just saw it. I thought it was very good, although, technically, that microwave weapon thing would have dissolved not only the water supply, but the citizens, too! Duh...

[GeorgeC]

You guys honestly think that new live-action film written by a hack and directed by a guy who's NEVER read a comic book is going to be as good as the 1990s animated Batman?

I'm still scratching my head over that one!

Everything I saw of this film FROM DAY ONE had the writing on the wall that it's going to be another Hollywood poseur and a director that have to reinvent the same darn story all over again! That's boring! Why do you want to reinvent the wheel all over again?

No thanks -- ! I have the Batman that I prefer AND respect in the animated series DVD boxsets.

I just don't understand why people think the SUV-mobile and yet ANOTHER black, plastic suit with a guy who LOOKS funny in it are such a great way to do Batman. Yet another forgettable, bland film gets over $100 million wasted on it... Why do people INSIST on doing these characters in live-action when they come off SO MUCH better in traditional animation written and drawn by fans of the comics they're based on?

The stuff these characters do IS unreal and it doesn't come off well in three dimensions or in flesh-and-blood most of the time. Heck, the outfits are so colorful that they don't work well in real life, either. Changing the outfits to fit some guys' "vision of reality" is stupid and working against 60 years of tradition!

Feh -- forget it. I'm talking to empty air...... Amazing that all this money gets wasted by guys like Goyer and a director who don't have a clue on how to do something that doesn't look like 80% of the other live-action hero/action films done in the past 20 years!

This Batman might have as well been another Bond film...

[Ben]

Yet another forgettable, bland film gets over $100 million wasted on it... Why do people INSIST on doing these characters in live-action?

Because it will probably make back about three times that in profit.


I agree George, and can't say I was "looking forward" to the new Bats, as it was "reinventing the wheel" again (and taking some pretty big liberties with it too). But I was interested to see if it was something new, or a re-hash, and my friends being in it meant I had to be able to say I saw it (told 'em I didn't think much of it either).

Funny, they put on Batman and Batman Returns last night on TCM here in the UK, and they still both kicked the new one's Bat-butt by far.

[AniMan]

Well, I saw Batman Begins this past Sunday, and I've gotta' say: Ben and George, you guys BAFFLE me! This movie was EXCELLENT! They finally nailed the essence of who and what Batman is. This is the truest incarnation of the comicbook version Batman that we've seen on the big screen, EVER. Ben, you said they strayed too far from the Schumacher version of Batman. Well, hell yeah, and thank God they did! Schumacher's is exactly the version I and most real Batman fans abhor! In Batman Begins, gone are the garish, silly, campy, idiotic characterizations and dopey plotlines. Gone is the one-dimensional, card-board cut out Bruce Wayne/Batman. I loved that they made Bruce Wayne actually interesting here! You cannot honestly tell me that Keaton, Kilmer, or Clooney were more believable as Bruce Wayne. The best of that group (Keaton), while embodying the moodiness of Bruce, never was believable as Batman. I could never buy that a guy who looks like Keaton could do all that stuff, and that hurt Burton's movies a bit for me. Christian Bale, on the other hand, looks the part, sounds the part, and, most importantly, ACTS the part. You can feel his anger and hurt. You see it in his eyes. Yes, he became Bruce Wayne for this movie. No one has done it better. Michael Caine as Alfred was brilliant! He gave Alfred a lot of heart, which further adds to the believeablity of the story. Everything was explained, but without going into too much exposition, which would have bogged down this story and would have been insulting to the audience's intelligence. Alluding to things often works better than just coming out and saying,"This is why I do this or why I have this". I hate when things are made overly simplistic, which it sounds like some prefer. Even though I liked both of Tim Burton's versions of Batman, they are pathetic nonsense when compared to this movie. And Schumacher's versions? They should burned and forgotten, as if they never existed. They're trash. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could prefer the other versions over Batman Begins

[AniMan]

Everything I saw of this film FROM DAY ONE had the writing on the wall that it's going to be another Hollywood poseur and a director that have to reinvent the same darn story all over again! That's boring! Why do you want to reinvent the wheel all over again?

It's not a "re-invention", but more like a correction of something that has been done terribly wrong. A do-over. Look, while I agree that Batman works best in animation, that doesn't mean that live-action incarnations cannot be effective or *gasp* good. They've be doing live-action versions of Batman since forever and I don't know why you act as though this is something new. And they did NOT do the same story all over again. We have never seen a Batman film where they dealt with how he became Batman. What it took to become this person who goes around dressed like a bat to fight crime. The problem with the past attempts is that they were usually pretty campy and hokey. They never really got the darkness of Batman. They did this time.

[Josh]

I'm going to agree with AniMan on this one. To me, Batman Begins is the closest live-action has come to portraying Batman correctly. And as for the creative liberties that the film takes with the history of Batman, I am pretty sure that they are not as drastic as the ones taken in Batman or Batman Returns.

To be honest, I don't think Batman or Batman Returns are as good as many people feel they are, nor do I think Batman Forever is as bad either. For me, Batman is good, but not great. In addition, I do not understand why people usually attribute the beginning of the ‘campiness’ to Batman Forever, when Batman Returns has about as much ‘campiness’. I think the difference is that:

1) Batman Returns has a lot of darkness to offset the humor, while Batman Forever, though dark at times, does not have as much darkness.

2) Batman & Robin killed the reputation of Batman Forever, since Schumacher directed both.

Oh, well. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Anyway, I think we all agree that Batman & Robin stinks.

[AniMan]

I'm going to agree with AniMan on this one. To me, Batman Begins is the closest live-action has come to portraying Batman correctly. And as for the creative liberties that the film takes with the history of Batman, I am pretty sure that they are not as drastic as the ones taken in Batman or Batman Returns.

To be honest, I don't think Batman or Batman Returns are as good as many people feel they are, nor do I think Batman Forever is as bad either. For me, Batman is good, but not great. In addition, I do not understand why people usually attribute the beginning of the ‘campiness’ to Batman Forever, when Batman Returns has about as much ‘campiness’. I think the difference is that:

1) Batman Returns has a lot of darkness to offset the humor, while Batman Forever, though dark at times, does not have as much darkness.

2) Batman & Robin killed the reputation of Batman Forever, since Schumacher directed both.

Oh, well. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Anyway, I think we all agree that Batman & Robin stinks.

Thanks, Mickey! You summed it up perfectly. You're right: the campiness really did start with Batman Returns, but the darker elements set it off some. Tim Burton took far greater liberties than Goyer or Nolan have with Batman Begins. Look at the liberties Burton took with his portrayal of the Penguin as a grotesque creature of sorts: completely different from what the Penguin is like. How about making the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents be the Joker?? Or how about just the fact that Joker was portrayed by an older, kind-of-pudgy actor (sorry Jack, but you're not exactly skinny, and the Joker has always been portrayed on the thinner side). If any liberties have been taken, it's been by the first four movies. The liberties that Batman Begins takes have only helped the story, not hurt it. I kind of liked Batman Forever, however, for me it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings. Jim Carey's riddler is so over the top that it reaches the point of being off-putting. And, again, you're nailed it when you say that Batman & Robin is what permanently stained Schumacher's reputation as far as the Bat-films are concerned. It remains one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of watching.

[Ben]

Hello,

Just wanted to clear up: never said I wanted ANY of the campness of Schumacher in there - just that the knee jerk reaction seemed to be to get away from that as far as possible, and to the film's detriment, I think.

How he got all thr stuff - I don't need things spelled out and made overly simplistic for me, but when they show some parts and skimp over others, then it frustrates.

Bale as Bats - he was good, don't get me wrong. Like a Bond, it's who you kind of warm to most, and Keaton still does it for me. Like I said, I saw Burton's Batman and Returns the night after seeing Begins, and they just felt like more fun films to me still. Keaton really filled out the cowl and cape in Returns, something Bale has yet to do (his face looked too "round" in this one).

Caine - yeah, at least we agree on that!

But, finally, you gotta conceed that those shots of "Gotham", without the monorail put in, were a real shame...

[AniMan]

Just wanted to clear up: never said I wanted ANY of the campness of Schumacher in there - just that the knee jerk reaction seemed to be to get away from that as far as possible, and to the film's detriment, I think.

Wasn't a knee jerk response, just something that had to be done if this franchise was going to survive. With Batman, I think there is no room for campiness (is that a word, campiness?).

How he got all thr stuff - I don't need things spelled out and made overly simplistic for me, but when they show some parts and skimp over others, then it frustrates.

Seemed to me that they covered everything. What did they miss? And if they did skip some stuff, who's to say we won't find out in the next film?

Keaton really filled out the cowl and cape in Returns, something Bale has yet to do (his face looked too "round" in this one).

Okay, this I just don't get.. did you not notice just how buff Bale was for this part? I mean, he was very toned, very muscular. Keaton, with all due respect, was not. He wasn't in bad shape; let's just say he's not very intimidating-looking. And the face? Wha--???? Keaton has one the puffiest faces I've seen in Hollywood!! For cryin' out loud, he practically has jowls! Bale has a very angular face with rather sharp features. So how in the world does it look "round" to you?

But, finally, you gotta conceed that those shots of "Gotham", without the monorail put in, were a real shame...

Yeah, it does seem more "Gotham-like" with the monorail than without. I'm sure it'll be fully functional again in the sequel.

[ShyViolet]

I guess overall, the attempt was to get down and dirty with Bats, but I think they've strayed far, far too much away from the Schumacher films. A little more Burton (which this film does draw inspiration from) would not have gone amiss.

I agree. The great thing about Burton's Batman (especially the first one) was that it made you FEEL that whole comic-book/fantasy element while still grounding you in "real" things like Bruce's parents dying. The scenes with the Joker had this awesome fantastic/deadly serious tone that perfectly matched the comic book. (How weird is the scene where he electrocutes the guy with a hand buzzer?)


Batman IS a dark story, but it's NOT supposed to be "realistic." The whole point of the story is that it's mythic, larger-than-life. The "Bat" is a symbol, a metaphor. That's why it's a comic book. Making it real just doesn't....fit.

You definetely had that in Batman Returns, even if the Penguin was somewhat grotesque. But that was the whole point--the tortured, abused side of these characters reflected in their outward appearance and behavior. Maybe it went a little overboard, but the great thing about that film is the psychological perspective of its characters, and how it all ties into being an outcast of society (a regular Burton motif, done excellently)
That IS the point of Batman after all--he can never really join the society he's pledged to protect. Like Catwoman and the Penguin, he's been scarred too much. He can only watch from the sidelines.

Batman Forevor pretty much stuck to these ideas even with the added "camp" humor. Batman and Robin just threw all that out the window, however, and took away mythic allegory. That was just plain dumb. Bu that still doesn't mean that all stuff that made Batman fun in the first place should be excised. I think that if Nolan's film had been released in 1989, people would have been very.... puzzled.

I've read that Nolan might be directing one or even two sequals to this film, and that they might include characters like the Joker and Two-Face. But....how is that possible?? I mean, how can you possibly make a character like the Joker "realistic"? Or Two-Face? (In the "real" world, wouldn't he just have plastic surgury?) The whole point of Joker and Two-Face is that they are both screwed-up-beyond-redemption psychologically and that their twisted features reflect that. Sort of like the Dick Tracy villains, or Spider-Man. Batman may be a "darker" comic book, but it's still a comic book. No one in their right mind would suggest making Spider-Man completely realistic--why is Batman any different?

[Ben]

I think the leads - and Nolan - are all under contract for three.

Batman: Joker Begins is apparently gearing up to start filming later this year for a 2007 release.


BTW, I'm just joshin' on that title