CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Batman Begins (2004)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Batman Begins (2004)

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
I know, I know, we've all talked about this film SO much that it seems innately ridiculous to have an actual discussion thread. But I think a few people are probably going to be dipping back into Nolan's first effort in the lead up to The Dark Knight.

Anyways before I write anymore I went and found the official Chud.com reviews of the film, it's interesting to note that Devin 'Hates Batman Begins' Faraci's review is actually a lot more positive and grounded that I remember. I have the same issues with the third act that he has but he finds a lot more to like elsewhere than I remembered.

Devin's Take

Tag Team Review

I've seen Batman Begins all of three times and each viewing fragments the section of the film I like and the section of the film I loathe more and more. I honestly think that Batman Begins is a fantastic superhero film in its opening hour and a bit, in fact the origin elements and beginnings of the plot are done so well that the first half is probably some of the best stuff I've seen in superhero films.

Yet I can tell you the precise moment the film completely loses me. The moment when after summoning a swarm of Bats to cover his escape we see Batman lumbering down Arkham Asylum like a fat man after a buffet table. It's like the 'intelligence' of what has come before is just completely washed away as Batman does more and more outlandishly stupid things and characters lose their sense of character and become quip machines. The only constant performance in the film seems to be Michael Caine who's Alfred at least seems the same as the Alfred in the opening acts.

It's difficult to figure out who to blame for the scripting problems. Goyer's enthusiasm for the material is evident and it kind of energises what could be an overly trite origin story, however his dialogue is often brutally clunky. Early on its easier to ignore, but it seems to come on in full force once Batman begins his Tumbler chase.

It's easy to ignore the few missteps in dialogue right at the start ("protection for them" "my name is merely Ducard") because there is a wealth of great stuff to distract from it. Tom Wilkinson's initial speech, Thomas Wayne, even the training sessions on Ice are all really well done and help the film maintain a nice tone. I don't even think the problem is that Nolan doesn't know how to work with Batman as a character because the attack at the docks is a really great vision of how the character would operate and even his interactions with Crane are handled well enough, it just seems like he ran out of interest once he had laid the foundations for the character and everything else just seems to be done on automatic.

Batman blowing a hole in the secure wing of an Asylum is a moderately stupid thing to do, Batman taking Rachel back to the batcave after she has been poisoned and when it would be easier to leave her with Jim Gorden and divert attention whilst Alfred brought the antidote to them is a pretty stupid thing to do, causing massive amounts of mayhem whilst taking a person who is freaking out from weaponised hallucigenics on a tour of Gotham's skyline is just ridiculously lunk headed. There is no rational reason for Batman to go on the most ridiculously terrifying route home possible and it turns a scene that is hollow but could have been viscerally thrilling into a joke.

There's other stuff to, like Ra's convoluted way of saying he killed Bruce Wayne's family by proxy, and the massive gaps in logic over the central threat. To truly believe in the threat of the toxin you have to assume that no one has showered or boiled a kettle for the past fortnight and it all leads up to a conclusion which is so hazily explained that it's hard to tell if Batman set up a deathtrap or killed Ra's through sheer serendipity. And that's not even acknowledging the existence of a stupidly perfunctory character who seems to be only in the film to reiterate how dangerous it would be for the electronmagnetic device of doom to get to the central tower.

And yet I still like the film. Bale can do the kind of duality needed for Bruce Wayne in his sleep (American Psycho, The Machinist are great examples of this) and as such he does a great job in bringing life to the central character. Oldman is surprisingly great as Jim Gordon maintaining a level of respectability whilst having to endure the worst of Goyer's script whilst Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy prove to be an interesting diversion from the usual roster of Batman villains.
post #2 of 58
That's about right. Except the year.

I never thought of the boiling tea or shower thing. Tea's not as popular here, but I guess it's a valid point about steam from showers. But really, who the hell wants to pick a superhero film apart to this degree? Lots of people took Nolan's "realism" as an invitation to pick apart the plausibility of every last detail of the film. Folks don't want to hear about where the cowl comes from (with one line of dialogue). Imagine explaining how showers work in Gotham?

On the Got It Wrong list, it was mentioned that some films reward multiple viewings. Maybe Batman Begins doesn't. None of this stuff got in the way of me enjoying the flick when it was released. Lots of goodwill built up in the first hour got me through the clunky ending.
post #3 of 58
Thread Starter 
Goddamit, I don't suppose some kindly moderator sort that out.

Amusing Anecdote: Even doing a search by review for Batman Begins on the main site brings up 15 pages of results.
post #4 of 58
I was going to send Nick an email asking for the Tag Team reviews to come back.

Reviews are more scarce every day on the site, and it's one of the best things the staff does.

Btw, I love most super hero films, Batman Begins is the only one i own on Dvd.

The last act is retarded, but its pretty well made retarded.
post #5 of 58
I just never warmed up to the way they tried to make everything so realistic. Making Gotham a more familiar looking city was fine, but they rationalized everything to the point that when a guy in a bat suit is fighting a guy in a scarecrow mask, it didn't feel like part of what we'd just seen.

I did love everything with the Roman though. Makes me wish they had simply done a straight adaptation of Year One.
post #6 of 58
One of the most misguided pieces of shit I've ever seen. When I heard they'd cast Michael Caine as Alfred, I was ecstatic. When the first orange-brown stills came out, I was dubious. When I came out of the theatre, I was dejected. And I only care because I'm a Bat-fan.

1 out of 10

I also vividly recall the "MY NAME IS MERELY DUCARD" line as being awful, and I've only seen the movie once. How can your name be "merely" something? It's the sort of line I'd write in a class "creative writing" project when I was 8 years old because I just found out what the word "merely" means and want to sound smart by using it.
post #7 of 58
See, the rationalizing never really bothered me because, at the end of it all, it's still some guy explaining how he's going to dress up like a giant bat to scare the bad guys. No matter what he says, it's never going to be "rational".
post #8 of 58
It really does go off the rails during the tumbler chase and doesn't recover until the final scene. My favorite bit of the chase scene is when Batman turns off the Tumbler's lights and the police copter's spotlight completely loses track of it. What, where did it go?!
post #9 of 58
Between the wacky redneck cops crashing their cars, slapstick chase scenes, and the "giving the hero gadgets in an underground lab" scenes, this is clearly an attempt to make a 70s Bond movie. Only without intelligence or charm or an inflatable Yaphet Kotto dummy.
post #10 of 58
I think Batman Begins is great! I love the 3rd act because that is when he saves Gotham from The Scarecrow's gas, defeats RA's Al Ghul (by allowing him to fall to his death...assuming he did not escape somehow), and causes massive collateral damage in the Bat tumbler Mobile, one of the cooler pieces of tech in any superhero film outside of Iron Man, and The X-Jet (aka The Blackbird in the comics).
post #11 of 58
I remember loving the movie but disliking how the action was staged/choreographed/edited. Luckily, this is on FX tonight so I plan on DVRing it to rewatch later on. I suspect that a second viewing will not be as kind to it, but we'll see.
post #12 of 58
I know this is kind of beating a dead horse, but Katie Holmes is what absolutely kills this film for me. I can forgive nonsensical physics in a comic book film (after all, getting bombarded with massive amounts of radiation would, in real life, either kill you immediately or leave you to die a slow and agonizing death from radiation poisoning or cancer rather than allow you to make your internal rage physically manifest). I can even forgive a relativley weak third act. What I can't forgive is giving one of the fucking stars of Dawson's Creek a role in a cast comprised of the likes of Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Ken Watanabe, and Rutger Hauer. That's practically a casting version of the "find the word that does not belong" exercises on standardized tests. Every time she was on screen after the "college years" took me out of the movie completely. (Thinking about it, even that did because Bale is playing Wayne at that point. They just should have gone with a better actress.)
post #13 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Lots of people took Nolan's "realism" as an invitation to pick apart the plausibility of every last detail of the film.
There's a bit of this going on as we speak in the TDK/Two-Face Picture thread, and I don't really get it. For me Nolan's "realism" as it relates to other superhero movies is a shift in form and not substance. It's still a film about a man dressed as a bat, a crazy plot to taint the city's water supply and then kill everybody with a microwave-emitting device, and a secret society of ninjas. He's trying to lend weight and credibility to the genre, not make a docudrama.
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero View Post
There's a bit of this going on as we speak in the TDK/Two-Face Picture thread, and I don't really get it. For me Nolan's "realism" as it relates to other superhero movies is a shift in form and not substance...
This is tame though compared to what is happening in talkbacks like AICN or Superherohype and the likes. Retards are having a field day with this.
post #15 of 58
Thread Starter 
I think if the plot to turn Gotham wasn't so obtuse and 'clever' then I'd have a lot less to quibble about. But it's sort of set up as this potential mystery and then it sort of relies on you believing that no water has been heated in Gotham for half a month.

I will say that I was surprised about how much I liked Cillian Murphy's performance. There's an element to him that is perhaps a little TOO odd, he's so creepy and freaky that it's hard to believe that he could maintain a job at Arkham, but he also really nails the sort of intellectualised style the character should have. I like that he's a complete schemer and that he doesn't try and engage Batman directly at all, it's actually kind of understated. But maybe that's because the last three films had had every character try and out Jack Nicholson Jack Nicholson.

I actually hope we see him back in the series somewhere done the line even just as a cameo.
post #16 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I actually hope we see him back in the series somewhere done the line even just as a cameo.
You're in luck.
post #17 of 58
Thread Starter 
*Checks IMDB*

That's kinda awesome.
post #18 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I think if the plot to turn Gotham wasn't so obtuse and 'clever' then I'd have a lot less to quibble about. But it's sort of set up as this potential mystery and then it sort of relies on you believing that no water has been heated in Gotham for half a month.
It's a question of dosage, though. A hot shower could produce a little steam, enough to maybe dampen a soapy jerk-off session but not to cause full on hysteria. The weapon was supposed to vaporize the entire city's water supply, with presumably different results.

But really, it's a simple suspension of disbelief thing. If you want to go along with it, you will, if you don't, you won't. Most EEEEEEEVIL plots in movies are like that.
post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Making Gotham a more familiar looking city was fine, but they rationalized everything to the point that when a guy in a bat suit is fighting a guy in a scarecrow mask, it didn't feel like part of what we'd just seen.
Ya know how in Spiderman, like all the people living in New York have to use cars to get places and stuff, and the people all wear normal clothing and seem to live somewhat normal lives and the villains don't have these over elaborate crazy hide outs that look like they belong in Star Trek, but yet Gobby looked like a fucking Power Ranger? Fucking hated that shit.

Not saying Begins doesn't have it's flaws, but this isn't one of em'. The real problem is that the tonality of the film changes far too much from scene to scene. It just tried to be too many different things. It's like watching a biopic on Bruce Wayne. It's a courtroom drama/gangster movie/detective story/comic book movie/psychological thriller with ninjas lead by Liam Neeson of all people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
I know this is kind of beating a dead horse, but Katie Holmes is what absolutely kills this film for me.
Well from what we've seen in the trailer, Maggie G seems to have taken some notes from her...
post #20 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I actually hope we see him back in the series somewhere done the line even just as a cameo.
post #21 of 58
I love the flawed Batman Begins. There I said it, so you know what to expect.

Okay you want the standard mention of the third act crap. Read someone elses post. I think that Devin's review is fairly accurate, BUT what I like is that film tried to do something different with a superhero movie, by injecting some substance with it. The problem is that Nolan was too afraid to make a complex movie all the way through, and just appeals to the MTV 90 min movie fans at the end. Funny thing though, is I have various types of friends from avid film enthusiasts to the MTV crowd. They all find something to like in this movie. There are some days I like to turn off my mind and will watch the last half of the film with no problem. Hell, I've even made my peace with, if you push Batman too far, he will snap as he did quite a lot at the end. We will further see some character development in the sequels. It's all part of the plan.

Gotham! I liked the fact that Gotham was real. While a gothic damp Burton Gotham is nice and really makes Gotham a living breathing character, the Gotham of Nolan's film adds to the character of the other characters. That a real city goes through some troubles, and has various different sides to it just fascinates me with the cities people. Director of photography Wally Pfister really can frame a pretty picture, and with each Nolan movie, he has improved even more. I have high hopes for TDK.
post #22 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
Goddamn you have good eyes, it took me about thirty seconds staring at a still picture to pick out who was driving.
post #23 of 58
I think it's pretty obvious that I love this flick.

I've never understood the Katie Holmes hate, as I think it's just fans trying to find something to bitch about. She was okay, not awful, and much it had to do with being surrounded by such a stellar cast.

I also think that the third act is weak but, again, much of this is caused by how !@#$ing right they got the first 2/3's of the film ahead of it. By the time you get to that finale, combined with Nolan not exactly being a weathered action director, it's a bit obvious that most of the high notes would go to the non-action pieces.

That said, the first hour of Batman Begins is by far better than anything I've seen in any superhero film. Ever.
post #24 of 58
I've always thought that when people blamed Katie Holmes, they were really blaming Goyer and Nolan. Not one thing she says in this movie is not written as stupid and obnoxious. She's a plot device.
post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior View Post
I've always thought that when people blamed Katie Holmes, they were really blaming Goyer and Nolan. Not one thing she says in this movie is not written as stupid and obnoxious. She's a plot device.
"Your father would be ashamed," is a great moment. Not that the part is particularly well-written, but she does not acclimate herself to the clunky bits of dialogue nearly as well as Oldman, Wilkinson, or Murphy.
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
"Your father would be ashamed," is a great moment.
I got choked up. And not just because I was high out of my mind.
post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I got choked up. And not just because I was high out of my mind.
Your father would be ashamed.


Love this movie, not as much as my nostalgiac unconditional love for '89, but that's ok.

But aren't people made of like 75% H2O? Why is the piped water the only liquid effected by the microwave emitter? Why didn't anyone ask Goyer this crucial question? And did Hot Pockets all over Gotham suddenly become cooked, or do they need to be in their cardboard sleeves for that action?
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmite
Your father would be ashamed.
It probably didn't help that I'd lost my dad six months before, and he and I had been watching Batman together since the Adam West show.

Quote:
Why is the piped water the only liquid effected by the microwave emitter?
The train, which carried the emitter, ran parallel (and was headed for) the water supply, or some shit. You're no fun.
post #29 of 58
it uses focus microwaves to vaporize an enemies water supply.

Going by that reasoning, it only does water, or chemical based agents in the water. Now when its set off in the ship, it seems to not work directional, but more like a pulse, as it effects multiple pipes around it.

So crazy white guy told us in the movie, if all the pressure reaches Wayne Tower, it could blow all the pipes. Good old Thomas Wayne decided to make the Tower the center of gotham city by having all the piping run through the it. Thus Ras sets it off easily foremost in the area cops don't care about, The Narrows. He even goes about to release all the criminals to get all the cops in one place and then wipe them out with the fear gas. Then decides to take it to the center of gotham to do the rest of the city. Why not get some of the city while going there?

Why are people not being affected? Well we see before that in the ship demonstration, it doesn't affect people, thus something living can't be hurt by it, thus it was probably designed that way. Focus microwaves also could explain it also, with Ras focusing the microwaves at the pipes. In theory it could work. The device could emit a pitch that causes water to resonate at a certain level, with accordance to distance. Heat is just a higher state of motion, thus the pressure would be created.
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
"Your father would be ashamed," is a great moment. Not that the part is particularly well-written, but she does not acclimate herself to the clunky bits of dialogue nearly as well as Oldman, Wilkinson, or Murphy.
This is on FX right now and she JUST slapped him and uttered those words. Weird.
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Batman taking Rachel back to the batcave after she has been poisoned and when it would be easier to leave her with Jim Gorden and divert attention whilst Alfred brought the antidote to them is a pretty stupid thing to do
Maybe so but Alfred coming up to Sgt. Gordon with antidote in hand for Rachel would make even less sense.

ALFRED: Here you go, Sergeant. The antidote for one Miss Dawes.

GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Pennyworth. Any chance you could possibly explain why you, a butler for a spoiled multi-millionaire, is in possession of the antidote for a deadly hallucinogenic let loose by a homicidal maniac like Dr. Crane?

ALFRED: ...

And Alfred would probably have no chance but to turn to the camera and introduce Mr. Conway Twitty.

As much as I'm looking forward to what Maggie Gyllenhaal does with the role of Rachel Dawes, I'll still take Katie Holmes's version of Rachel "I took out the Scarecrow by my damn self" Dawes over Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane "Why isn't my acting career taking off? WAAAH!" Watson any day of the week.

But yeah, Batman blowing a hole in the wall of a cell in Arkham Asylum to make his escape was pretty stupid.
post #32 of 58
Thread Starter 
Seriously though, a girls been dosed with intense psychotropics drugs. Her heart or mind or whatever the fuck is going to burst from the extreme dose of fear she is currently experiencing. So what's the best solution?

Oh yeah, lets drive on top of a roof, leap around some skyscrapers, dissappear for a few minutes at a time into another section of the vehicle, smash lots of cars, drive really fast and get the guy dressed as a demonic bat to scream at her for five minutes.

Surely there had to be an easier way to do it.
post #33 of 58
Yeah, Batman could have dosed Rachel with knockout gas before they took off for the Batcave and she'd be less likely to continue freaking out.Then he could have proceeded driving the Tumbler through Gotham City to escape the cops at 200 MPH.
post #34 of 58
Wow - I guess you guys should have written the film.

I'll call Nolan and let him know, I may get his wife on the phone tho so bare with me....
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellresident View Post
Yeah, Batman could have dosed Rachel with knockout gas before they took off for the Batcave and she'd be less likely to continue freaking out.Then he could have proceeded driving the Tumbler through Gotham City to escape the cops at 200 MPH.
But... But... Then we wouldn't have gotten "RRRACCHHELL!!"

post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
Seriously though, a girls been dosed with intense psychotropics drugs. Her heart or mind or whatever the fuck is going to burst from the extreme dose of fear she is currently experiencing. So what's the best solution?

Oh yeah, lets drive on top of a roof, leap around some skyscrapers, dissappear for a few minutes at a time into another section of the vehicle, smash lots of cars, drive really fast and get the guy dressed as a demonic bat to scream at her for five minutes.

Surely there had to be an easier way to do it.
Honestly, I've always found that scene (I think) unintentionally funny because its such a horrendous thing to do to someone who's having a bad trip. But we're led to believe that time is a factor in getting her the antidote, and seeing as how he's the only one who has it at that point and the cops aren't going to listen to him, he didn't have a lot of options. It's the same thing with killing Ras; in both cases he was in a tight spot and things went less than perfect. I can accept that. As long as I ignore the stupid quips he makes about them both.
post #37 of 58
I still love the movie, what can I say. It gets me going (not like Rollergirl gets me going, but you know what I mean).

Yes there are painful bits of dialogue and acting moments, and yes the third act is nowhere near as cool as the first half, but you know, it still works. It just becomes a conventional comic book movie to me. The Tumbler chase is fantastic and like someone said above it's the time factor. He needs to get Rachel to the Batcave quickly, and plus there's no way to get her to the antidote in the cave without potentially spoiling his identity to Gordon (though once he reveals it to Rachel that little concern is kind of out the window).

As for Ra's demise, yeah it makes me groan, mostly because it follows the old series tendency to kill off all their villains. As I said in one of the other threads I always let it down to the fact that were I in Batman's shoes I probably would've done the same thing. The only other option to make sure that the League isn't going to come back under his command would be to load him into an airplane and dump him off on a deserted island.

Hell, if that makes me an apologist with lousy reasoning, call me a Prequel Trilogy fan. I'll deal.

There's still plenty of room for The Dark Knight to improve, and I can't wait.
post #38 of 58
I'm staying out of the Dark Knight thread for fear of spoilers, but just had a random thought: was wondering if the "I don't have to save you" was meant to have the same we're-shaking-things-up effect of the last line in Iron Man. Folks in that thread are wondering what it means going forward. In Begins, Wayne goes from a guy who isn't willing to kill to one who is...okay with letting people die.

Why do we assume (and judge it as if) letting Ras die is going against the arc that's planned? Maybe Nolan's Batman gradually ends up closer to the dynamite-pants-stuffing version of the character than the "definitive" version we've been expecting for some reason.

It's maybe a mis-step on the order of giving Superman a kid, but maybe it's less a betrayal of what's established before than it is an odd progression from it. Daredevil (bad example, I know) had its lead dropping guys in front of trains before deciding not to.

If this has been addressed in some spoil-y details elsewhere, just let me know and disregard.
post #39 of 58
Actually Phil it hasn't that Ive seen...
post #40 of 58
It'd be interesting to see.

ENORMOUS SPOILERS

Rachel dies, Batman goes a little crazy, but once he sees Two-Face's brand of vigilantism in Part Three he changes his tune

I could see that working pretty well. And why not?

Or he could end up haunted by the way the whole Ra's thing turned out.

Or he could spend his afternoons sipping iced tea with Alfred on the veranda. Who knows?
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
But we're led to believe that time is a factor in getting her the antidote, and seeing as how he's the only one who has it at that point and the cops aren't going to listen to him, he didn't have a lot of options.
Exactly. At what point, after he rescues her, does he have the time to sit down and dope her up? And I could be wrong, but I don't believe he had the antidote even with him, it was back at the cave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I'm staying out of the Dark Knight thread for fear of spoilers, but just had a random thought: was wondering if the "I don't have to save you" was meant to have the same we're-shaking-things-up effect of the last line in Iron Man. Folks in that thread are wondering what it means going forward. In Begins, Wayne goes from a guy who isn't willing to kill to one who is...okay with letting people die.

Why do we assume (and judge it as if) letting Ras die is going against the arc that's planned? Maybe Nolan's Batman gradually ends up closer to the dynamite-pants-stuffing version of the character than the "definitive" version we've been expecting for some reason.

It's maybe a mis-step on the order of giving Superman a kid, but maybe it's less a betrayal of what's established before than it is an odd progression from it. Daredevil (bad example, I know) had its lead dropping guys in front of trains before deciding not to.

If this has been addressed in some spoil-y details elsewhere, just let me know and disregard.
This is something I'm actually wondering myself. Especially after we've heard him utter the line in TDK trailer of "I've seen now what I have to become to stop men like him." How do we know that he doesn't keep going down a darker path?
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Honestly, I've always found that scene (I think) unintentionally funny because its such a horrendous thing to do to someone who's having a bad trip. But we're led to believe that time is a factor in getting her the antidote, and seeing as how he's the only one who has it at that point and the cops aren't going to listen to him, he didn't have a lot of options. It's the same thing with killing Ras; in both cases he was in a tight spot and things went less than perfect. I can accept that. As long as I ignore the stupid quips he makes about them both.
I was watching this again last night on FX, and forgive me if it has been discussed, but what bugged me about that scene was that I don't think he was even aware there was the antidote waiting for him back at the batcave. The antidote thermos thingy had a note on it like it was just placed there, I don't recall there being a moment where he was positive there was more at the batcave.

Unless I'm being stupid again and missed it. Happens.
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakespeare View Post
Hell, if that makes me an apologist with lousy reasoning, call me a Prequel Trilogy fan. I'll deal.
I'll gladly defend BATMAN BEGINS over any Prequel entry every day of the week. And I like STAR WARS.
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Fordyce View Post
I was watching this again last night on FX, and forgive me if it has been discussed, but what bugged me about that scene was that I don't think he was even aware there was the antidote waiting for him back at the batcave. The antidote thermos thingy had a note on it like it was just placed there, I don't recall there being a moment where he was positive there was more at the batcave.

Unless I'm being stupid again and missed it. Happens.
He'd ordered the antidote from Fox earlier.
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
I'll gladly defend BATMAN BEGINS over any Prequel entry every day of the week. And I like STAR WARS.
Since when is Batman Begins a prequel?
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Jim View Post
Since when is Batman Begins a prequel?
Not what I meant.

I meant that I would gladly be an apologist for BB, before I would for any entry in the STAR WARS: PT.
post #47 of 58
But now that you mention it, I really did appreciate this film trying to work with two villains that were "on deck" for the previous series.
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
But now that you mention it, I really did appreciate this film trying to work with two villains that were "on deck" for the previous series.
I also appreciated being able to see some of Bruce's formative experiences, beyond a flashback of that alleyway tragedy. Besides an increase in detective work, "how" he became the vigilante he is was always something I wanted to see on the screen. It would be nice if (like the comics) he had a mentor in the investigation arena as well.
post #49 of 58

It's rainy outside and I'm at my hometown on vacation. So I succumbed to a dubbed version of Begins...

It got even better with the years. Holmes's dead eyes reaction when Batman reveals himself is hard to swallow.

The plot is pretty solid once you forget some dull stuff. As it was pointed the lack of detective work is something I would like to see "improved" in the third one. I just noticed that  at least  Bruce asks Alfred to analyze his blood before passing away. 

 

Also, I watched a few minutes of Batman Forever. There's a tendency for the villains to break into Bruce's house.

post #50 of 58
Quote:

There's other stuff to, like Ra's convoluted way of saying he killed Bruce Wayne's family by proxy, and the massive gaps in logic over the central threat. To truly believe in the threat of the toxin you have to assume that no one has showered or boiled a kettle for the past fortnight and it all leads up to a conclusion which is so hazily explained that it's hard to tell if Batman set up a deathtrap or killed Ra's through sheer serendipity. And that's not even acknowledging the existence of a stupidly perfunctory character who seems to be only in the film to reiterate how dangerous it would be for the electronmagnetic device of doom to get to the central tower.
 

 

Echo. Most of the convoluted stuff is at the end. I only have a minor complaint against Oldman, he seems kinda goofy while he is blowing the rails.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Batman Begins (2004)