hahaha, that's funny.

i think the reason why so many people are impressed with this last installment is bc the others weren't as good. imo, the spiderman series is a lot better than the previous batman movies, most definitely. i don't even think they merit a comparison. so glad that everyone agrees that this last one is the best thus far!

Well, not everyone Millie... :)

Man...we got some killjoys working here. :p

Just got back from the theater and I LOVED it! If you haven't seen it read no further. SPOILERS!!!

First, the bad news:

1. Katie Holmes didn't quite fit in, both in her acting and her character. The B-plot love stories always seem shoehorned in to me, except for Catwoman in "Batman Returns."

2. Editing. Boy, those fight scenes sure seemed cool, too bad I couldn't tell what was going on half the time.

3. Too many villains, not enough screen time. Shame too, but at least we know they'll be back.

The Good:

1. Origin Story. The training & League of Shadows stuff at the beginning went on a bit too long, but the rest was excellent. They finally introduce us to WHO Bruce Wayne is and HOW he came to become Batman. All the sequences at the opera, falling down the well, the trial add more to the character. Everything comes about for a reason. Batman jumps off the roof and slips...now he needs the cape/glider. Initially, I hated the new Batmobile, but seeing it in action changed my opinion. He needs something to just run sh-t over. Yes, Batman still indeed has "wonderful toys." Comparisons to Spider-Man are warranted since they followed a somewhat similar template. Introduce the person first, before the costume.

2. No detritus. Alfred doesn't let Katie Holmes waltz into the Batcave. Batman doesn't flash his face to half of Gotham. No Alexander Knox. And none of this garbage about the Joker killing his parents.

3. Acting. No brainer here, especially in the scenes between Christian Bale and Michael Caine or Morgan Freeman. Great to see Gary Oldman play a good guy for a change and I'm happy someone dusted off Rutger Hauer.

4. Faithfulness. Am I relieved somebody finally got Batman right? Of course, that's why "Batman Begins" is so much better than the others. You take a dump on the source material and you wind up with "Judge Dredd" or "Catwoman." All the little things they added, especially Batman's voice. No other actor, except Kevin Conroy on the cartoon got that one right. The growling Batman voice as compared to the foppish playboy Bruce Wayne voice.

This Batman doesn't use guns either. Remember his parents were killed by a gun. He HATES guns. This makes him more heroic than Burton's Batman, who dropped Napier in the chemicals, shot stuff up, and planted bombs on people.

Eddie did point out the lamest attempts at humor, but I thought most of it was just right. Understated without being over the top. I loved the newspaper headline, "Drunken Millionaire Burns Down Home." The beginning moves a bit slow, but it certainly picks up with a vengeance. I shall give it an "8."

Geez, Eddie, are you a phenomenologist now?



I'm still trying to figure what reading the comic books has to do with reviewing the movie. This movie was a little closer to the comic books than the others, but was still its own distinct version, as it should be. And if anyone wants to get into a measuring contest with me, I'm happy to compare the size of my comic book collection to anyone else's. :)

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!! :D

Holy arguements Batman! "Nolan", "Burton", "Martinson", does it really matter? Honestly, I think had DVD Town been around back in 1989 when Burton released his film, we'd be having a similar arguement about how it doesn't stick to the comic books, and how "it was really cool but..." I stand by my original assesment, that "Batman Begins" was cool. I liked it a lot. It did have some problems here and there, but what movie doesn't? No matter which film you use as an example, and no matter how pristine you thought it was, there will always be someone that can pick it apart. Not that I'm saying that's what' you're doing Eddie. In any case... to each their own. I guess "quibbling" is part of what makes "message boards" fun. ;) :D



- Josh

For me, sticking close to the source material is part of the reason I liked this new Batman. The stuff has been around for over 60 years for a reason. But, the film should be judged on its own.

"Finding Neverland" took a LOT of liberties with the real life events of J.M. Barrie, but that shouldn't take away from the film's quality.

Sometimes taking liberties can lead to good results. Everyone b*tched and moaned about Spider-Man shooting webs out of his wrists and it wound up being NO big deal. Although, I draw the line at Dr. Doom shooting lightning bolts.

I still don't like the organic web shooters. Not that the effect is bad, but rather because it detracts from Peter's scientific genius. The spider was just an accident (we'll ignore the current mystical nonsense going in the books) but Peter poured his heart and soul into designing the shooters and the web fluid - it's like the studios thought the comic book version of Peter Parker would be too "intellectual" of a character for audiences to identify with. :)

On the issue of faithfulness and divergence, let's keep in mind that the comic book writers we celebrate the most tend to be the guys who forge new ground and create new interpretations of characters. Usually with the idea of sticking to continuity, of course, but any 60 year old character needs constant renovations.

I'm in total agreement that any movie should, as Eddie says, be judged on its own merits, especially when the source material for "Batman Begins" is based on such different source material to begin with: the original comic books, the old television series, the four previous "Batman" movies, and any graphic novels that may be out there and I don't even know about. "Batman Begins" cannot be expected to be faithful to all of them.

But....

As Josh points out, when he turns to his neigbor and says "I was one of 'those people' whom turned to their friends and exclaimed 'but I thought' as well," then the director has caused a needless distraction. I didn't mean to bring up what is a trivial point and seem to make such a big deal of it, but at the same time it's good to discuss how far a film should go in being faithful to any of its sources AND simultaneously follow its own path. Clearly, a film can do both, and I think this new "Batman" does a superior job of being traditional and innovative at the same time.

(Except for that nagging point of the parents' death, darn it; and, OK, I'll stop already.)

John

John,

As a counter-argument, we comic book geeks had the same reaction to Tim Burton's "Batman." "Hey, wait, the Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents!" Heck, the Joker never even had a name or a definitive origin in the comic books; they made their own for the movie.

I don't think Kane and Finger ever pictured Alfred with a thick cockney accent either, but Caine sure makes a great Alfred!

Still, none of the big screen Batmans can hold a candle to Adam West.

You probably think I'm kidding...

West did have the "look" of the comic-book character. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

Anyway, now that you've piqued our curiosity, Chris, do go on.

John