Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins

[Johann]

I knew you'd appreciate it, Tree

[anduril]

One of the things that I especially enjoyed about Batman Begins was its focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman. The Burton movies were mainly explorations into the villains. As some have appropriately commented, Burton's 1989 Batman should be retitled The Joker.

Nolan clearly avoids this same flaw. The villains are peripheral to this story. They come in and out of the main plot thread as required for the action and development. They never detract from Nolan/Goyer's exploration of the Bruce Wayne/Batman transformation(s).

I'm curious to know if Nolan/Goyer/Bale will stay on for another film. Were any of them signed to a multiple film deal?

[arsaib4]

From what I've read, Bale and Oldman are already attached to the sequel, but Nolan, Caine, Katie Holmes, and Morgan Freeman are not at this point.

anduril: It's good to have you here, and I hope you continue to contribute on a regular basis.

[anduril]

That's good news about Bale and Oldman.

And, I appreciate the welcome. I enjoy visiting to check up on movies that I don't otherwise have the time to see. Oscar and Chris seem to watch everything.

I also try to contribute when I get around to seeing movies. Lately, that's been few and far between because of priorities with family and work/school.

[arsaib4]

Don't worry, Johann. I'll make it up to you with Sin City 2. ;)

[HorseradishTree]

I hope for the sequel they can salvage Two-Face from Jones' uber over-the-top performance in Forever. The villian is way cooler if they address his internal torture moreover than just "Hey! It's a crazy guy with a burnt face!"

[wpqx]

Jesus everybody is wrong.

OK first of all what the hell do Johann and Anduril got against each other, I thought they both liked the movie, is this an issue of comparing it to Star Wars? I'm lost there.

As for Jack Nicholson, he was awesome as the Joker, and Tim Burton's Batman is still the best of the lot.

As for Nolan, I would have had him shot. The editing in this film is attrociously bad. I couldn't tell a single thing that was happening in a fight scene, too many cuts and all blurry camerawork, someone was asleep at the wheel. As for Gotham City, it never once looked to me like a city, at least from the skyline, way to CGI for me. In that regard I'd say it bears more similareities to Star Wars than you may know.

The love story was a waste, and totally unnecessary. What the hell was that junk she said about "Your real mask"? Fucking lame Hollywood nonsense. Hell my girlfriend even thought the romance ruined the movie, so I do have some support here. It was trivial.

As for the villians well I wasn't too fond of Scarecrow, everytime he was around I just got the stench of way too obvious digital effects. Plus I wasn't a fan of the actor who played him, who's name I can't recall.

Michael Caine was decent as Alfred, and most of the supporting cast was good. I do think Bale pulled off a damn good Bruce Wayne, and wouldn't mind him sticking around for the next installment. The film itself was enjoyable, and certainly better than the last three installments, but well maybe I was expecting Sin City.

I'm not condemning the film, just saying that it isn't a masterpiece and nothing to get overwhelmingly excited about, and on a final note Star Wars was about 10 times better.

[Johann]

anduril and I used to be good friends until someone decided that George Bush and Tony Blair were among the greatest leaders of the free world.

anduril has good taste in cinema.
It's his politics that worry me, annoy me and scare me.
That whole exchange has it's roots in dialogue found in the Fahrenheit 9/11 threads (archives)

Batman Begins is awesome. 2 comics-based films make it into the top ten for the year easily (Sin City, Batman) with a third that might make the cut too: The Fanstastic Four.

[tabuno]

anduril: "The League of Shadows is an organization determined to bring about its version of "moral order" and "justice" through terrorist attacks against targets it identifies as corrupt, decadent, and evil. "

tabuno: Haven't seen the movie, pretty much burnt out on seeing more and more comic book movies (there's even Fantastic 4 to come). However, I read cinemabon's original post and feel that it was a good review. I am puzzled by anduril's 06-16-2005 04:16 AM post. If the government is so corrupt, decadent, and evil, I'm surprised that Batman doesn't actually join in and help evil defeat evil. Having the preference between the power of corrupt government versus the terrorist organization dedicated to its defeat wouldn't one want to like in Star Wars be on the side of the rebel fighters (terrorists) instead of the Empire? Which side is Batman on anyway here then?

[tabuno]

And by the way, how does Howl's Moving Castle get automatic placement In Threaters Now Forum first time around while Batman is left in the more humbling General Film Forum and for that matter Crash and Star Wars even took weeks to get onto the premiere Forum? Seems a little suspicious to me.

[wpqx]

I don't know, but I plan on seeing Castle tonight, so maybe I can be the first to post about a film.

[anduril]

To Tabuno: Batman is a hero for the people, who are oppressed by the corrupt government. The League sees the people as expendable and also even complicit in the corruption and so a part of the system. Batman ultimately believes that he ought to fight to "save" the city and its institutions; by contrast, what the League wants is retribution, vengeance, and destruction.

Incidentally, terrorist and rebel are not morally equivalent terms nor are they purely subjective/perspectival (as you seem to imply in your reference to Star Wars). A terrorist undermines freedom; a rebel often connotes one who seeks to restore it.

[tabuno]

I didn't go rushing into this movie, my wife made me. Thus, as soon as I could I was looking for things I didn't like about Batman Begins and naturally I found plenty of problems with the movie.

First off, let me say, I think that the whole switch to quality production and the look of the movie was great (though I still prefer comic adaptations to be more comic-like such as Sin City). The basic storyline and the substantive backbone of this movie is superior in terms of past Batman versions. This was a good movie but it had its major problems.

The first thing that made me uneasy was the very first image of bats (that were not realistic). The second thing that made me uneasy was the use of the flashback techique. Personally for a movie like this, it would have flowed much better in linear, chronological order so I didn't have to bounce back and forth, I wanted to see the beginnings of Batman along with Bruce Wayne as he experienced it. There was so much development, that unfortunately, the length of the movie made it prohibitive to really fill out the details of Bruce's personal growth. I found the editing jumpy and uneven, disorienting, I felt there were too many gaps in Bruce's experiences..

Mr. Wayne found this rare flower so easily, climbed the mountain was easily. His martial arts training was a pale version of Elecktra's or for that matter Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas or even Karate Kid.

Mr. Waynes transformation into billionaire playboy didn't seem natural and just happened suddenly from one scene to the next.

The martial arts, there really wasn't any scene with anything that could be considered quality fighting - it was all a blur. My hats off to Jennifer Garner and Angelina Jolie both of whom really took their fighting practice to heart. The car chase scene again was pure copy, especially the two shots where the cars are lined up in a formation pattern, aligned for the chasing cars that really appears artificial.

Gary Oldman didn't have the script lines that would allow him to really breakout in this movie - as the comic relief, there was the possibility to really shine.

Cillian Murphy was the most intriquing character in this movie, one par with Sin City's Elijah Wood's performance.

Some of the dialogue, some of the scenes just didn't work for me...the kingpin being so easily ensnared by Cillian Murphy's doctor role. The fight in the beginning of the film with the League of Shadows just seemed too little and too much at the time. I would have settled for the whole building to blow up and Bruce Wayne simply escape, but instead we get this not to believable beam falling to end matters and the fight scene just didn't seem to merit the supposed ability of the master.

The first time we get to see the Batmobile jumping roofs (but the first instance the audience doesn't actually get to see the first jump).

The strength of this movie like Spiderman is that we get to experience superheros but vulnerable in a real, genuine way.

I enjoyed this movie but not as much as others. It was substantive and reflected the essence of Batman. But in its actual presentation, there were too many holes for me to enjoy it completely.

[cinemabon]

I left for the weekend, was surprised by my wife and son with a "Father's Day" thing. I didn't have internet access. But what is all this infighting going on? Looked rather strange...

I watched Nolan and Bale on Charlie Rose Wednesday night. Bale was all excited about doing the sequel, but Nolan was not. He hated the idea of committing another three years to a project. I'm not sure Caine was thrilled with the prospect either. Batman Begins may be the end as far as any attempt to resemble the comic book style that appeals to many of us. While it's too early to speculate, Nolan appears to be backing out of the project so he can go back to his personalized film directing experiences. Nolan's next project, The Exec, for Warner Brothers is a sci-fi thriller set in the future. Doesn't sound like Sundance stuff to me.

Bale's next two projects: The New World (Terrence Malick) and Harsh Times (a south central LA street drama) are about as far from Batman as you can get.

My references to Star Wars were only in juxtaposition and not literal.

I can understand the criticism of any "superhero" film. They are, after all, subjects that have idealist existences. When trying to translate that ideal from a comic book to film, there are sacrifices to detail most fans of the written media would not like filmmakers to do. Even my son commented about the editing during the fight sequences. I'm sure that had something to do with creating a type of Batman that struck with lightening fast reflexes more than Bale not being up to the task of fighting. However, I'd concede to that observation if those critics would also concede Bale brought more to the dramatic table than Keaton. Keaton was more of a comedic actor than a dramatic one (and still is). I will never understand his being cast.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
The second thing that made me uneasy was the use of the flashback techique. Personally for a movie like this, it would have flowed much better in linear, chronological order so I didn't have to bounce back and forth, I wanted to see the beginnings of Batman along with Bruce Wayne as he experienced it. There was so much development, that unfortunately, the length of the movie made it prohibitive to really fill out the details of Bruce's personal growth. I found the editing jumpy and uneven, disorienting, I felt there were too many gaps in Bruce's experiences..

I enjoyed the flashback technique. I liked the way Nolan dropped the audience inexplicably into the middle of Wayne's life and then used flashbacks in appropriate places to fill out relevant back story. Linear, biographical movies are often extremely boring and have to jump forward from boyhood to teenage to adulthood in a way that can often be more disruptive than a flashback.

Originally posted by tabuno
Mr. Wayne found this rare flower so easily, climbed the mountain was easily. His martial arts training was a pale version of Elecktra's or for that matter Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas or even Karate Kid.

While I agree that a more prolonged training sequence might have been enjoyable, the emphasis was on the hero's philosophical development. The physical training is presupposed; everybody knows that he's receiving physical training. But, what is Wayne learning about becoming a hero? This is more interesting, I think.

Originally posted by tabuno
Mr. Waynes transformation into billionaire playboy didn't seem natural and just happened suddenly from one scene to the next.

This isn't supposed to be a deep psychological transformation. It's an act that Wayne puts on, which I thought was communicated effectively. You get the sense that it's not really him and that he's just doing it for show.

Originally posted by tabuno
The martial arts, there really wasn't any scene with anything that could be considered quality fighting - it was all a blur. My hats off to Jennifer Garner and Angelina Jolie both of whom really took their fighting practice to heart. The car chase scene again was pure copy, especially the two shots where the cars are lined up in a formation pattern, aligned for the chasing cars that really appears artificial.

I agree with this. Though I'm not sure that Elektra is really the example to point to here. I just watched that last night and while there are some good fight sequences in that movie, it's still a far cry from something you might see in a lot of action movies. Elektra fight scenes are very predictable and lack dramatic tension.

Originally posted by tabuno
Gary Oldman didn't have the script lines that would allow him to really breakout in this movie - as the comic relief, there was the possibility to really shine.

I liked Oldman's performance and character. My guess is that his character would be further developed in a sequel.