Chris,

The most jarring thing about your statement is that actors nowadays keep talking about how proud they are to have performed their own fights and stunts. The problem is, with lousy blocking, cinematography, and editing, you can't tell who's really fighting anyway. Someone bothered to learn what to do, only to have someone else make it look like a person isn't really doing it. So much for doing your own fights/stunts.

Eddie

How much do I love movies? I went to watch Batman today here in Souther California and, after about 45 minutes, I was pretty darn bored. Then things got exciting... not from the movie but because we had an earthquake. Not a bad one (they say) but I sure as hell felt the seat shaking and it wasn't from the Dolby. And you know, I didn't even budge!

I'm glad I kept watching because the second half of the movie was quite a bit better. In fact, the movie didn't really even start until about the halfway point. It almost buckles under the weight of a terribly unwieldy plot; I didn't think any of the nonsense about the Shadow League was necessary at all.

The two best things about the movie were severely underused. Scarecrow was a great villain, far more interesting than Neeson's thoroughly unconvincing and unthreatening baddie, but he only got a few scenes. Every scene with Michael Caine was pure gold. Maybe they'll spin Alfred off into his own franchise! Sounds like a better idea than greenlighting "Elektra."

I think Eddie's rating was about right. The action scenes were horribly filmed too, but nobody in Hollywood knows how to shoot a fight anymore. It's all closeups and quick swish-pans - it's like holding up a sign saying "I don't know what to film here, so I'll just fake it all."

Josh,

Like I said, you're one of the good guys, so I'm not worried about what you post here. :)

If you want to read a review of a recently-released DVD that I loved, look here:
- EXTERNAL LINK -

The Film Value rating was a "10". 8)

Eddie

Eddie,

I get you. Our views do seem to be similar in a lot of ways. And maybe it's not about "turning our brains off", but rather turning them down? Sorry, not a very good "TV" analogy. I hear you though. People are people. Your brain is constantly going. You could be right. I may be suffering from "relief". After all, my initial response to hearing about the "Batman Begins" project, was one of "I hope this doesn't suck". After reading your response to my last post however, I'm a little embarassed, because I feel like we've had this conversation before. I seem to recall you having the same response the last time too. Sorry about that. I suppose that even though we had similar opinions about this film, and others, I tend to rate the movie based upon my initial feeling after leaving the theater. Another reason might be that I haven't read as many of your reviews as I thought I had. The only movies you mentioned that I haven't seen, and probably wouldn't choose on my own, would be "Casablanca" and "Doctor Zhivago". I've heard of them, and I've meant to watch some of the classics, but just never get around to it. I can't remember, is it "Tim", or "John" we need to convert on "Starship Troopers"?

As for my "disclaimers" :D, I tend to be misunderstood often enough when I'm face to face with people, let alone when expressing myself in text. Some times it's a "tact" issue, other times, I'm not sure what it is, but instead of coming across as having a good "debate", or discussion about a topic, I come across in a negative light, and wind up pissing people off, or losing friends entirely. So, I've found my only recourse is to appologize in advance, or try and explain my comments as best I can.



John,

We could always send a "Cruise missle" delivery system over to Eddie! :D Tomatoes away!



- Josh ;)

Eddie just knows he's heading off to Europe and readers can't throw tomatoes at him.

John

Josh,

I don't think that my reviews are mostly negative due to my education. Rather, I just have a low tolerance for crap, and at least 95% of all movies made are not worth my time. I've never understood the attitude that some movies need your brain to be in the "off" mode in order for a person to enjoy them. Why would I stop thinking unless I'm dead? Since I'm alive, I'm going to think, period.

I like shoot-em-ups ("Starship Troopers", "Terminator 2", "True Lies"), and I do go nuts when I see great movies ("Casablanca", "Doctor Zhivago", "The Bourne Supremacy", "Minority Report"). However, as I wrote, most movies are crap, so a lot of my reviews seem to be negative.

By the way, notice how the comments you've made about "Batman Begins" do seem similar to mine. Despite the similarities, you still liked the movie more than I did. Perhaps you're suffering from the same "relief" as the critics that I mentioned did? ;)

Eddie

P.S. Josh, I've never taken any of your comments as personal attacks, so you don't have to use so many disclaimers. :)

Sorry Depression, I didn't mean for that post to be directed at you per se. I just heard a LOT of people comparing "BB" to "SM2" and saying it was better as I was leaving the theater tonight, so it was fresh in my head.


Eddie,

Wow man! Harsh review! Especially towards Katie Holmes! I thought she was quite cute in the role, and pulled it off fairly well. Though, they are nice to look at, I don't think we need to see a "Kim Basinger", "Michelle Pfeiffer", or "Uma Thurman" always playing counter to the hero. Actually, I think Katie compliments Christian quite well, as far as celebrity goes. I did agree with a lot of what you said in your review. Mainly the editing. Though, you also made some valid points with the cluttered plot. Personally, I think the film would have gotten flack either way. They did it quick & cluttered, so they get zinged for it. If they were to have spent the time to really tell the story, and keep a good pace, they'd probably get zinged for being long and drawn out. I suppose it's a fine line. I wouldn't mind seeing "some" movies (like Batman Begins) that are worth a good long sit down, and come close to the length of the LOTR movies. I said "close", not just as long. ;)

No offense Eddie, I think you know I have a lot of respect for you, but I can't seem to remember a review of a film that you just truely liked/loved. I've almost gotten used to hearing most, if not all negative from you dude! Is it the being a "film major" thing? Maybe my tastes in movies aren't as sophisticated as yours? This is why I posed a question a LONG time ago, something to the effect of... "does knowing more about the ways movies are "supposed to" be made, or catching all of the little plot holes, or being so focused on all of the little flaws make movie watching unsatisfying?" The answers (as I recall) from you and John were essentially "no". That's the thing though. To me, if you can't just go to a "shoot 'em up" like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and enjoy it for what it is, why go to movies anymore? Granted, "enjoy" for all intensive purposes is subjective... but, I digress. I'm prattleing at this point.

Again, no offense man. You're cool in my book. I was just curious why you seem to be negative so often. ;)



- Josh

I was one of the many people who stood in line on the opening day of Tim Burton's "Batman," and I was glad I did. It became one of my favorite superhero movies, as it continues to be. With each successive "Batman" entry, however, I watched the franchise fall further and further into the style of the campy old TV series. Entries three and four I tried to watch several times on cable, but I could never get through them, they were so bad.

Now we have "Batman Begins," and I'm glad all over again. While it still doesn't have the mystique of Burton's first issue, the new one has abandoned the look of a comic-book altogether for the darker, more realistic aspect of a graphic novel. I'm happy director/co-writer Christopher Nolan decided to go back to square one and take it all seriously (and present it all seriously). Loading the cast with surefire actors helps a lot, too, with Michael Caine surely stealing the show, and Morgan Freeman a close second. Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, even Katie Holmes were well characterized. And Christian Bale is first actor in the role who actually fits my own mental image of the Caped Crusader.

Yes, I did have a few of the same concerns, though, that others have expressed, but to a much lesser degree than especially my colleague Eddie in his full-length review. Nolan's excessive use of close-ups, not only in the fight scenes but throughout the picture, was more annoying to me than his quick editing. James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer's score tried hard to recall Danny Elfman's original music without literally duplicating it, but it succeeded only in sounding loud and uninspired, reminding me again how great Elfman's music was. And maybe I'm not remembering the death of Bruce Wayne's parents very well from Burton's picture, but weren't they murdered by the Joker? If so, we have a continuity problem.

But these are minor carps in a film that succeeded in keeping my attention from beginning to end. I look forward to seeing it again.

8/10

I actually agree with Eddie (surprisingly enough) but the film gets a 7.5 from me, and may go up to an 8 once it's had more time to gestate with me.

It felt really good seeing that batsuit again... well, for the first time, I mean... oh whatever!

John,

Joker only kills Batman's parents in the Burton version. In the comics, it is a regular, old run-of-the mill mugger named Joe Chill that kills them.

I did like the added touch that young Bruce gets scared causing his parents to leave early, and getting killed.

No, Nolan's version doesn't add anything to the overall origin and certainly there's a lot of comic book lore that is common knowledge to most people (Batman's parents were killed, Superman is from another planet, Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider). I do think it needs to be told.

For me, bringing in Wayne's travels and training enriched the rest of the film for me. Okay, I know why he chooses a bat, why he sets up base in that cave, but I'd like to see it in the movie. You could simply start with Batman on the rooftop and Gordon telling him the Joker is up to no good. Then, that's just "guy in costume" fighting another "guy in costume."

Although it had plenty of other problems, the main one I had with "Daredevil" was no depth or explanation to the characters. Sure, I know who Elektra is from reading the comics. But, none of that was there in the film. It was just people in costumes running around.

Anyways, I think we can all at least say Nolan washed the bad taste of Schumacher out of all our mouths.