Batman Begins [2-Disc, Limited Deluxe Edition]

Is the packaging supposed to be a digi-pack? Checked out amazon.com and they state the packaging as being custom.

Bohem,

Warner's press site describes the packaging as an Amaray case: a plastic, two-disc, slim-line keep case. It appears to be enclosed in a cardboard slipcover. We'll see.

John

Why doesn't WB give the 'Begins' Deluxe Edition a DTS option? I saw the movie twice. The IMAX Experience was great but the DTS sound at my first screening was superior. What gives? If a movie is released in 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS, or any other format for that matter, why can't studios provide the options for the consumer to choose between them on the DVD release?

It's often a matter of room. If the movie is transferred to disc at the highest possible bit rate for maximum picture quality, there isn't a lot of room left over for multiple soundtracks.

John

Not to beat a dead horse...Warner Brothers should have released a second 'Begins' DVD with the DTS sound like 'Private Ryan', instead of releasing a full screen pan and scan version which is by now a dated format.

JSWELL,

I think it's simply a matter of economics. Fullscreen may be a dated format to you and me, but a fullscreen edition of a movie will sell far better than a DTS edition, which the general public isn't even aware of. (Remember, the majority of the public still has no idea what high definition is all about.)

John

I beg to differ. As much sa the general public may have no concept as to the tech of High Definition, it is becoming more and more apparent to people that widescreen is the wave of the future (well, it was actually always the present, but anyways). You still get some stupid people who are overjoyed they managed to find Star Wars DVD's in fullscreen (why not just stick with VHS then you morons!?), but overall people know OF HD.

Onijay,

You may be right, of course. But I checked a few recent titles added to the DVD Town database in separate widescreen and fullscreen editions, and I found the fullscreen editions continue to get about half as many hits as the widescreen editions. That's quite a lot of hits; for every 100 widescreen hits, there are 50 fullscreen hits. And those results are at a site that promotes widescreen! Add the fact that all the major studios are still issuing fullscreen editions of their biggest titles, and it tells me that, like it or not, fullscreen is still popular.

Separate DTS editions, on the other hand, have all but disappeared.

As to HD DVDs, even the owner of a DVD video store asked me a few days ago what the latest status was on the format wars. He says most of his customers aren't even aware of what either format is about, let alone when and how it will be resolved.

It's all a mysterious business.

John

You're probably right about the widescreen/fullscreen aspect, and I didn't mean to say the public knows about the upcoming (or now upon us?) format wars, merely that they knew about HD as a whole.I mean, with all the HD tv's being sold out there, and people shelling out extra dollars for those HD boxes (even if they don't have the tv for them or even know how to use them), channels on major networks giving pop-up ads that their broadcasted programs were also available in HD, and those stupid and retarded ads that play everywhere about how much better HD is, and "that it looks so real!" One of their testimonies was about a paragraph long about how one man could see sweat on someone's face during Who Wants to be a Millionaire and apparently he was hooked afterwards becuase he felt like he was there in the audience (ok... whatever dude).

But what ticks me off is that Warner Bros. releases their DVD's in two sets at a time. Now without turning into that guy in love with Alexander who made absolutely no sense, I will explain why I hate that. When companies release a DVD, the suggested retail price is obscenely expensive (granted the prices have dropped substantially over the past few years), however this can be remedied by simply waiting four or five months for the DVD to be available previosuly viewed at Blockbuster's or whatever store strikes your fancy. As well the price will have dropped to more than half the original retail, sometimes selling for as low as $6. But when two editions of the movie come out, a one-disc and two-discs, the only one that goes for previously viewed is the one-disc affair. This same situation happened with Constantine (hence the reason why I'm not going to buy it becuase it's not worth buying the 2-disc for the price, and the one disc is far too skimpy.). I will be buying this edition of course, because this movie is so great, but I do it with some reluctance. So you people who think you're being saved from studio double dipping, the cost will manage to catch you sooner or later. I relalize this isn't the studios fault, and kudos to them for trying to please everyone, because they do succeed. I guess I'm just whining over something only the DVD stores can change.

No further questions your honour.

Good points. The defendant may step down.

John

I know that there is currently a war with two different HD DVD formats. If I'm correct there is Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats. The dueling formats are each supported by various companies and movie studios. Is there a format war merely because each group of constituents stands to make a profit from the particular format, or is there really a difference in quality? Will there be one universal format, or will I have to choose between the two? Will I have to replace my favorite DVDs? If you've seen the formats in action, which would you recommend? And Thank You for you previous responses.

At the moment, there are, indeed, two different formats. Each company has a small fortune invested in its own separate format and neither is willing right now to step down or compromise.

One thing the two formats have in common, however, is their picture quality. The actual bit stream was standardized some time ago, so both formats will reproduce a high-definition picture that should look the same. The advantage of Blu-ray is that its discs have additional capacity for more bonus materials; the advantage of HD-DVD is that its discs are presumably cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Both formats produce a higher quality picture than standard DVDs. You might try to watch an HD program broadcast on cable or satellite for comparison. Whether you have to replace all of your old DVDs is up to you and your pocketbook. Besides, it will be quite some time before everything currently available on regular DVD will be available on HD discs.

As for the format war, the way it's going now it appears that a compromise may not be possible. In that case, the next best scenarios would have every studio issuing movies in both formats, or, better and more likely, hardware manufacturers would make machines that can play back both formats. We'll see.

John

Onijay,

If you don't like a DVD's price, then you don't have to buy it. The fact that people still buy DVDs on street dates, no matter what the MSRPs/actual prices are, only encourages content producers to keep inching prices upwards. Bitching about the situation but making exceptions for every overpriced major title does nothing to alleviate the matter.

Eddie

Thanks Mr. Puccio for your response. Hopefully the current DVD format won't go by the way of the Beta. I appreciate technology, but I fear high-definition will rob movies of that filmic quality. I don't want movies to look like video, you know have that "flat" look. But anyway thanks again.

JSWELL,

Actually, high definition has the opposite effect. It opens up a film to a greater potential for depth and realism. We're not talking about shooting a movie on a digital camcorder; with HD we're talking about transferring a good photograpic film print to the digital domain with the highest possible quality. What we'd all like to see on our TV screens, I'm sure, is exactly what is on the strip of film that goes through a projector, and that is where high definition is taking us.

John

Cool.

To the staff: As I was making my collection list I noticed this year's "Crash" is listed on my collection list as Crash (2004 widescreen). Sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, it probably is.

JSWELL,

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but we try to differentiate among discs with the same titles in our database. There are two movies called "Crash," the newer film, initially released in 2004, and a completely different film by David Cronenberg, released in 1996. When there is more than one identical title, we list the release date for each one in parentheses. The "Widescreen" business means there is also a fullscreen version available.

John

Well to get back on topic and relieve tension, I plan on getting this and the "Land of the Dead" Director's Cut on the 18th!

Sorry, my bad. I thought "Crash" was an '05 release. As Gilda Radner used to say..."Nevermind."

I read Eddie's review and he doesn't go into detail about why he thinks that "Batman Begins" is depressing. He states at the beginning of his review that the film is disturbing. I didn't get that either. In comparing it to Burton's Batman, he states the movie is over-plotted and inane lines were inappropriate for a film of its gravitas.

First off lets get the inane lines out of the way. Every movie diffuses tension with at least one or two, or three or more attempts at humor, especially superhero movies and all off them have one or more inane lines. Those lines can't make or break a movie. Schwarzenegger practically built his career on them and some of his movies were pretty damn great.

'Begins' isn't disturbing out of context. It's dark and intense like the Batman comics I grew up reading. The violence and imagery serve the story. Those are the reasons why I felt in awe of Batman for the first time in a movie, because he was the same hero I was reading about.

One of the things I didn't like about the Burton films were that they were character driven and lacked plot. Pretty risky for a big budget superhero movie, except most of the focus was on the villains. A little more than half of the first Batman film was devoted to the Joker's origins more so than Bruce becoming Batman. I can't help but think that was also because Nicholson was having a career resurgence and with his stature would not have committed to a film where he would play second fiddle to a Keaton. And I really don't want to get into the miscasting of both of those actors which I love anyway. In "Batman Returns" there was even less of Batman, although to be fair Bruce seemed more interesting in the follow-up. 'Begins' places Bruce/Batman center stage where he belongs not as a supporting player.

I admire how 'Begins' fleshes out what is just a few lines in the comics about Bruce's training to a fuller experience with psychological underpinnings. That type of poetic license makes more sense than having Jack Napier kill Bruce's parents. As I've said before, I think Burton changed it to create conflict between the two main characters through a shared origins. It's poetic, that's for sure.

The fact that Nicholson stole the show in the first film, led to more stunt casting, albeit charismatic actors like Devito and Pfeiffer as Catwoman, who I think was the best developed villain of ANY superhero movie, if not the best performance. But Burton's preoccupations with quirky misfits led the franchise down the slippery slope of camp until the movies degenerated into Schumacher's neon-frenzy. The previous four movies as a whole seem to me more like big screen adaptations of the 60's TV show than the Dark Knight of the comics.

"Begins" is more organic, as is the casting. With all those great names I was reading, I really thought they weren't going to have time to flesh them all out, but thanks to the great economy of the script and the actors, none them felt like a throw-away. I will admit Katie Holmes was miscast because I felt she was too young; and the half-assed love story was just a consolation for Warner to try and get females hooked in who might not be interested in seeing a superhero movie solely populated by men, sorta like a football game.

As to the music. Danny Elfman's score for "Batman" was great and appropriate for that film but a similar score would be too quirky for 'Begins'. And no offense, his scores for so many superhero movies are beginning to sound alike. Zimmer and Newton's score is more emotional and underscores the characters as well as the set pieces. It's more subtly affective befitting this take on the Batman.

If Eddie thinks "Batman Begins" is depressing because of a lack of Burton-like fun, he didn't make that clear in his review. But let's not forget, that has already been done and it led us to "Batman & Robin". Let this new restart cultivate. I still found plenty of fun and excitement watching Bruce find his way. Bale's first scene as the cleaned up Bruce at Wayne Enterprises was equally as exciting as his first appearance as the Batman. It was like watching Bond introducing himself for the first time in his movies. And the Tumbler was practically a character all its own with plenty of attitude and a truly beautifully shot chase sequence. Many people complain about the fight scenes. I would have liked the camera to pull back a bit but the editing fed the intensity and captured the same sort of frenzy created by the swarms of bats. At least that's what I got out of it.

The previous four Batman films are self-contained according to what I've read. They are not connected to Nolan's restart. There are some subtle homages to Burton's films but they're only meant as a nod, not to connect the films. Any sequels to come in the near future will continue what Nolan has started, hopefully with equal quality if he doesn't take over the reigns again.

The great thing about a classic character is there is room for interpretations but this time Nolan really hit the mark and made a solid adventure film to boot - that happens to be about Batman. :p

A few things...

1) I never claimed that Burton's "Batman" movies were fun. They were psychologically dark, and I felt that Michael Keaton gave viewers a sense of how damaged Bruce Wayne is. However, the Batman of Burton's movies at least felt like he was fighting for justice. The Batman of "Batman Begins" felt like he was a step away from being a criminal himself.

2) Tim Burton is not responsible for Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin". "BF" and "B&R" are VERY different from "B" and "BR". I stated a preference for "B" and "BR", not "BF" and/or "B&R".

3) "Batman Begins" is filled with so many characters and plot lines that they wound up with a horribly lame fight between Batman and Ra's Al Ghul. The train death was one of the lamest deaths I've ever seen in a movie adaptation of a comic book superhero.

4) There are people who prefer character-driven movies to narrative-driven movies. This is not to say that character-driven movies are always better than narrative-driven ones, but at the least you can make an emotional connection with the people in character-driven movies. I didn't care for anyone in "Batman Begins". (Actually, I did want to see more of the Scarecrow, but that's thanks in large part to how good Cillian Murphy is as a creepy slimeball.)

Burton's Batman was clearly damaged but his motivations were vague at best. I never got the sense he was fighting for justice either. He seemed more vengeful, going after Joker. Most of what Keaton's Bruce was struggling with was telling Vale who he was but when asked why he simply said he was Batman because he had to be. That's vague. Nolan's Bruce was clearly struggling to come to terms with his anger, guilt and fears and how to find a purposeful way of dealing with those issues. He turns them inside out to fight injustice, because he believes like his father did, that like in himself and those close to him there is goodness in Gotham worth fighting for, even if his ways are unorthodox. It's one of the things he's always struggling with, not becoming like those he protects Gotham from. Remember he studies the criminal mind so he he can undermine them. Burton's Batman was more wreckless and it was implied he let Napier fall into the vat. Later Joker confronts him about it.

I do believe that Burton's obsession with the quirkiness of his Batman characters if indirectly, led to Schumacher's take. And I think I clearly expressed why.

I don't see how a more densely plotted and populated movie led to a lame fight and one of the lamest deaths ever in a superhero movie. Nolan did a masterful job of navigating the narrative with brilliant use of flashbacks and none of the characters felt wasted, they served the story. As far as lame goes, I do believe the Joker fell from the tower in "Batman". That was a predictable and very lame death. On the other hand, Ras was left to die, we never saw his body slammed into the concrete like Joker's. His end was more open-ended and emotionally satisfying as Batman tells Ras he doesn't have to save him.

Nolan's 'Begins' is richly balanced with narrative and character development. I cared about Bruce's trek to overcome his fears - as Batman develops into a cause for good. And better to have less and wanting more of a good villain like Scarecrow than annoyed by overblown ones like Penguin, Freeze, Ivy...Burton's films seemed to run out of steam because of a lack of plot and Schumacher's...well...

Schumacher's "BF" and "B&R" were coming-out-of-the-closet statements. They were basically dress rehearsals for his dream project--"Phantom of the Opera".

As for Tim Burton's "Batman"...don't forget that Bruce Wayne was fighting crime BEFORE the Joker appeared on the scene. Meanwhile, in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne was interested in fighting the people who were more or less involved in the killing of his parents (i.e. Carmine Falcone, the Shadow Warriors, etc.). To me, Batman wasn't a hero in "Batman Begins"--he was merely the protagonist, which isn't always synonymous with heroicism. (For an example, look at "Troy" and Homer's "The Iliad", whose protagonist is Achilles but whose hero is Hector.)

??? In Burton's "Batman" we only hear thugs and reporters talk of rumors of a giant bat. While Bruce in 'Begins' was working things out he was thinking about the larger picture - Gotham City. Chasing after the killer/s of his parents became more symbolic since he lost the chance to kill Chill himself. I can't see how he's less of a hero than Burton's Batman if he's devoting his life to an ideal. According to you I'll have to settle for heroic protagonist in "Batman BEGINS".

I agree with most of JSWELL's points about Batman Begins.

And so noted Eddie's points. But...

This comment is largely suspect:
" Meanwhile, in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne was interested in fighting the people who were more or less involved in the killing of his parents (i.e. Carmine Falcone, the Shadow Warriors, etc.)"

Sure, Bruce started out as a very vengeful youth, but as he took on the role of Batman his nobler self emerged. Why go to all the trouble to save Gotham City (well besides monetary concerns and Katie Holmes)? He could have easily gone double-face, purge the city THEN kill Ra. That way everyone's dead. But Bruce believes that the rotting city could still be saved.

And about he being half step away from being a criminal...I don't remember much that Batman did in Batman Begins that made him all that criminal. Also, it's hard for a non-cop to fight crime without breaking rules.

JSWELL: Actually, you're still mis-understanding me. I think that Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins" is an UN-heroic protagonist, not a heroic one.

YCH: Bruce Wayne is "trying to save" Gotham due to daddy issues (i.e. he wants to live up to his father). Does he really want to save Gotham because of his own desires? I couldn't tell from this movie alone...maybe there will be answers in future installments.

Batman is one of the most complex comic book "heroes" ever created. He's neither black or white. He's been called anti-hero, maybe that label will satisfy you.

As far as saving Gotham due to daddy issues, that's wrong because that's just a part of what drives him.

Eddie wrote:
Bruce Wayne is "trying to save" Gotham due to daddy issues (i.e. he wants to live up to his father). Does he really want to save Gotham because of his own desires? I couldn't tell from this movie alone...maybe there will be answers in future installments.

Hmm, the daddy issue is definitely a factor and the catalyst for the creation of Batman but it would be too simplistic (and misguided in my opinion)_to attribute Batman's efforts to save Gotham to that alone.

So, your argument on whether Batman is a hero or not stands only if you were 'right' about his motives. In other words, Batman's heroism is highly subjective.

JSWELL,

Hm, if you're willing to say that Batman could be an anti-hero, then aren't we actually calling him the same thing? :)

Eddie

P.S. YCH, if Batman's heroism is highly subjective, then we are also saying the same thing. ;)

Naw man, you were flatly calling poor Bats as a non-hero.

I'm basically saying he more heroic than not, but he may not be depending on one's perspective.

Eddie: I'm just trying to figure out why it seems you're trying to slam 'Begins' by saying Burton's Batman is a hero and Nolan's is not.

JSWELL,

You have to understand that not all of my comments were negative. In fact, I wrote a luke-warm "6" review rather than a negative "5 and under" review.

Describing the Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins" as un-heroic is neither positive nor negative. You can have a bastard anti-hero and still make a good movie, and you can have a goody-two-shoes hero and still make a bad movie. The point was that movies aren't made in a vacuum, and I decided to do a mini compare-and-contrast with previous big-screen adaptations of the "Batman" comics.

Eddie

Eddie:

The impression I got from your lukewarm review of "Batman Begins" was that it seemed you were resistant to rate it more positively because you obviously have a fondness for Burton's versions. Plus you did slam the movie in some big ways that didn't seem logical to me.

One of the major things I took umbrage at was saying the movie was undone in part, by impatience indicative of a lack of storytelling maturity. Nolan may not have Burton's strong visual flair, but you can't knock the guy on his ability to spin a good yarn with a beautifully cogent script, and presenting a Batman that not very many people have ever seen outside of the comics. Plus it's rare to see a summer blockbuster that actually tells a story and that uses sfx organically to service that story. That's commendable! Part of the fun was seeing Bruce's evolution, and the pace picked up accordingly so it never felt rushed. I was anxious to see Batman in action, but that's a natural reaction since the last Batman movie was about eight years ago and it was gross. On the other hand, we got to see a proactive Bruce and that really humanized things further.

The editing was far from sloppy. Would the particular scene you pointed out when Bruce fell through the ice been more effective if we'd seen him clumsily flopping around to try and get back up. The point of the scene was to show that Ras was not to be easily out-smarted. The integration of flashbacks are first-rate, and the Tumbler chase sequence is one of the most exciting, well assembled chases I've ever seen.

Even your praise of the casting seemed like an uneven compliment saying it was the film's greatest strength when that's obviously not the case.

Finally, comparing the current film with past editions should not have pulled down 'Begins' when Burton's versions are clearly more flawed than Nolan's. Personally I compare 'Begins' to more successful efforts like "Superman", the blueprint of live-action superhero movies, or "Spider-man". Please keep in mind my point in debating the merits of the film was not to challenge your review so much, as to defend what I think is a superior superhero movie, and certainly superior to its predecessors.

Hey JSWELL,

Eddie rated Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within a 10.

Give it up :D

Wha...?! ;)

JSWELL,

I can't agree with you about the script - I thought it was a real hack job. The script delivers a paint-by-numbers approach to Bruce's story, walking us step-by-step through each of the incidents that "made him who he is." Here's the moment where he became afraid of bats, here's the moment where he decides not to break the rules and become a bad guy, etc.

This approach gets writers compliments on adding "psychological depth," but I find the effect quite the opposite. Human psychology cannot be explained in such simplistic, mechanical terms - not even Skinner went that far. You can't just point to specific moments that explain a person's behavior - this works in comedy, but not in drama. I realize that film is, in some ways, a shallow medium - you do have to pick individual moments and details out of a life or a story. But character is revealed through action - we don't need a backstory to take us on a museum-style tour of a person's psyche. Explaining it all only makes it less interesting and, for me, less plausible. The nearly endless exposition and backstory of the first half of this film was a gross miscalculation.

"The nearly endless exposition and backstory of the first half of this film was a gross miscalculation." --Chris L.

A gross miscalulation that earned the film over $200,000,000. Everyone reacts differently to art or entertainment. I thought the backstory in "Batman Begins" was the best part of the picture. (But, then, I liked "Unbreakable, too.) The comic-book plot that took over in the second half of "Batman Begins" was for me the least effective part.

John

John,

While I appreciate your opinion, I hope you aren't offering box office as evidence of a film's quality.

Can you imagine how dull "Lawrence of Arabia" would be if we spent the first forty minutes reliving his childhood to find out what "made him the way he is?"

Chris Long wrote:

"You can't just point to specific moments that explain a person's behavior - this works in comedy, but not in drama. I realize that film is, in some ways, a shallow medium - you do have to pick individual moments and details out of a life or a story. But character is revealed through action - we don't need a backstory to take us on a museum-style tour of a person's psyche. Explaining it all only makes it less interesting and, for me, less plausible. The nearly endless exposition and backstory of the first half of this film was a gross miscalculation."

Well, since we already have FOUR batman movies that did little exposition, knock yourself out.

Batman hardly talks. He can't reveal much about his personality when he's busy kicking ass. His motivations could very well be the same as any 'superhero' then if we're left to guess.

AND

"Can you imagine how dull "Lawrence of Arabia" would be if we spent the first forty minutes reliving his childhood to find out what "made him the way he is?"

The whole movie is about "how his past defined him"...since the movie started with his death. Also, we needn't know anything about his childhood because he doesn't dress up in weird black suits on rooftops fighting crime. It is not unexpected for a regular noble person to act as Lawrence did, but a character like Batman is pretty screwed up (like most superheroes....why do they do what they do?) so a more explicit exposition is warranted.

YCH,

Had you really never heard the Batman origin story before? Is there anyone left in America who hasn't? Did this movie contribute anything to the second-most told origin story of all-time (well, OK, 3rd behind Jesus and Superman)?

Well, I never read the comic books, so all the background I know about Batman is from Burton's first Batman movie.

But I like the alternate retelling of this story nonetheless. This is Nolan and Goyer's version of the story. What you are suggesting is that once a story is told before it shouldn't be done ever again.

YCH,

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you are going to retell one of the most often-told stories in your culture, you should probably have something to contribute to it. I didn't think this movie added anything, though it undid the silliness of having Joker be the killer of Bruce's parents.

Rather than adding "psychological depth" I thought all the tedious backstory did was read like a high school book report on "Things that happened to Bruce while he was growing up."

I thought this was the least interesting/convincing Bruce Wayne yet brought to the screen with the exception of the Val Kilmer version.

And I'm counting Adam West.

I don't think anything I say will change your opinion, but I'll give you one example:

- The backstory provides the basis for the bat motif. In all the other movies, we have no clue why the hell Bruce Wayne chose to be, of all things, a BATman.

The backstory isn't just to add 'pschological depth.' It works for me because I feel compelled to know about his past. Why? I don't know. Why do you like the things you like?

YCH,

Did you really not know that already? I don't mean that to sound condescending, but I always figured that was about as big a "secret" as the fact that Superman is from Krypton.

I am, of course, only focusing on the negatives. Take out the first 45 minutes and I think this is a very solid movie. But I think that opening is genuinely awful - to me, it just plays like a trailer for the actual movie which doesn't even start until 1/3 of the way in.

Naw man, I *really* didn't know how that motif came about.

Told ya I didn't read any of the comics

I think the whole movie is good. But the backstory made it more than just a comic-book movie, so I loved that too.

Christopher:

The thing that sets this Batman apart from the previous ones and some other superhero movies is that it's never been treated seriously. Burton was more concerned with art direction and style. This is finally Wayne's story fleshed out. When you say we don't need to see a tour of what made Bruce kind of contradicts your comment about showing character though action. Wayne is proactive, he's not just letting things happen around him. As far as not needing a museum tour of ones past to explain their psyche, this is Bruce's journey, a specific character from comic books. The beginning portion is told in flashbacks. Bruce is reflecting on his life to a point and we see what he sees. That's one of the reasons why I like this script so much, because it makes a case for why this specific character lives this kind of life. The script creates plausibility, it doesn't make things less plausible. So to to say the script is a hack job is pretty harsh, when it's actually quite smart. You want a hack script? Haven't you seen "Fantastic Four"?

No, I love the Fantastic Four far too much to ever watch the most recent movie. I'll settle for the Roger Corman version. :)

This film felt to me (and I know some people said the opposite) like its own film. It seemed to say that a Batman film had never been made before, therefore telling everyone the story of Batman would be new. I know I'm not explaining it right, but it's as though it was treating itself as the only film adaptation, therefore the audience must be filled in, becuase unless they read the comic books they would be unaware. I loved this movie, don't get me wrong, but by the fortieth minute I was waiting for the movie to kick into gear (luckily it did that by around the fiftieth minute) and stop with the backstory. Origin stories are great and all, its just that the problem with them is they tend to kinda drag becuase you have to watch a superhero learn everything you already know he will do.

"I'm saying that if you are going to retell one of the most often-told stories in your culture, you should probably have something to contribute to it."

While Goyer & Nolan may not have contributed anything to the backstory, they did put their own spin on it. In the comics, Bruce Wayne's parents were killed as they were walking down an alley after seeing "The Mark of Zorro". Bruce Wayne did not make his parents leave early, and he certainly wasn't frightened by anything on-screen.

Having the Waynes watch "The Mark of Zorro" is less literal-minded than Bruce pissing himself because he thinks he's looking at a giant bat all the time. This is why I like the episode "The Gray Ghost" in the 1990s animated series so much--Bruce Wayne, being a worldly man, is inspired by a lot of things in creating Batman. In "Batman Begins", the reasons for Batman's existence are so singular and direct that, despite its darkness, its violence, and its general unpleasantness, this movie was obviously aimed at younger viewers than Tim Burton's "Batman" and "Batman Begins". By that I mean that you need a lower IQ to understand "Batman Begins" than you do to understand "Batman" and "Batman Returns".

Chris's comments about this movie's connect-the-dotness are spot on. They apply equally to "Episode III" (with which Lucas was so busy setting up the original trilogy that he forgot how to make a movie in the first place).

Hey, now, Batman Begins is friggin' Citizen Kane compared to Revenge of the Sith-heads.

"Having the Waynes watch "The Mark of Zorro" is less literal-minded than Bruce pissing himself because he thinks he's looking at a giant bat all the time. This is why I like the episode "The Gray Ghost" in the 1990s animated series so much--Bruce Wayne, being a worldly man, is inspired by a lot of things in creating Batman."

I too enjoyed that episode. I just wanted to clear up how the murder of the Waynes still differed from the comics for people unfamiliar.

What pissed me off about "Begins" the most was that no bat flew through the window of Bruce's study. Instead, there's just a bat flapping around in some dining room. But, I suppose this helps move the plot forward since Bruce remembers his fall and the cave... Upon 2nd viewing however, I found Bruce re-discovering the cave and being swarmed by bats without flinching to be somewhat satisfying.

So Eddie how is it you can justify needing a higher I.Q. for Burton's Batman movies. In my opinion they were pretty audience-friendly since thay had very little plot; they did have more sexual innuendo going for them.

I think the movie was good but for some odd reason it was still missing somthing. I think that they could easily out do themselves the second time we will have to see.

JSWELL,

How much plot a movie has has little to do with how much IQ a person needs to "get" a movie. For example, as Chris Long will tell you, a movie by Tsai Ming Liang may have no plot at all, but it requires a level of maturity that may not be necessary for an over-plotted hack job from one of the Hollywood majors.

The difference lies in letting a movie do all of the thinking for you (i.e. "Batman Begins" telling you every point between A and Z) or thinking for yourself (i.e. a movie that tells you maybe five of the points between A and Z, letting you develop an infinite variety of complexities that ultimately enriches your viewing experience). I understand that not every person wants to think when they watch a movie since he/she just want to be entertained. However, being entertained is not the same thing as appreciating a movie that functions as art.

Eddie

It's been many years since I watched Batman.

I may have to watch it again...Eddie's claims that Batman being an intellectually superior movie to Begins...how do I put it, "intrigues" me.

I have to say, I agree whole heartedly with John???s review. No matter what can be complained about, the film truly is one of the best films of 2005 and a very entertaining piece of work. After seeing it a couple times the flaws it does have are really easy to overlook when compared too much of the garbage that come out this summer. I liked how in-depth the story was and had no issues with being told more than I needed. I generally like a film where I can think for myself, but the overindulgence in the story telling works great in this film for some reason. Nevertheless, John???s review is right on the money as far as I???m concerned.

Tim :)

Eddie:

I think you're giving Burton far too much credit. Batman was merely a catalyst for Burton to construct the quirky characters and their environs and toys. That's really all he wanted to do, to be able to play with those concepts. Nolan is actually for the first time telling Wayne/Batman's story. I realize how much plot a movie has has little to do with a person's I.Q. and whether one "gets it". Batman is a self-made hero, he doesn't become one overnight by accident and that's the story Nolan is telling in an intelligent and very involving way. I think it's insulting and sounds a bit elitist to say one has a lower I.Q. if you enjoy 'Begins' and need a higher I.Q. to "get" "Batman". How old were you exactly when you first saw "Batman" and did you "get" that it was meant to function as art and not just a movie?

JSWELL,

You have to understand that we pay Eddie by the insult. He's just trying to make a few yuan.

Eddie must be rolling in the moolah!

No doubt.

John,

Great review as usual. I couldn't agree more with your comments . I can't wait to watch this on my new tv!!!

Jason

This is a must own and i think that the one weakness of the past films didnt have as much as excitment as BATMAN. BATMAN BEGINS has Indiana Jones type of excitement with it

JSWELL,

Age isn't directly linked to maturity. IQ is not linked with age, either.

Do I sound elitist? Yes, and I am. What's wrong with being elitist? It's better to aspire to heights rather than championing the normal. As people are wont to complain, "How ordinary!"

Eddie

Just think of Eddie as DVDTown's answer to Dogbert. When he leads his Glorious Revolution, you had better be on the right side! The reign of Fenghis Khan is nigh.

h3y 3|)|)13

w3rd up m4|\|!

I r t3h 1337 2!

Eddie:

I would hardly consider championing your opinion of Burton's "Batman" as aspiring heights.

Circuit City-Movies: Batman Begins - EXTERNAL LINK -
I created an acoount just to say that, to Onijay, so people wouldn't go around actually believing his junk. I have never bought a dvd in my LIFE anywhere near CLOSE to $30. I ALWAYS "ALWAYS" do my homework first before shopping for ANYTHING,least of which is a movie. I found at Best buy and Tower Records would both have it for $22.99. Nnnh, out fo the question. Walmart and Amazon ahd it for around 15.90, which is cool, but then Circuit City bested them both with not only $14.99, but a shipping and handling price, that, for me, comes to $17.34 total! I live in Philadelphia. And tax is high here. 7% in this city. I'll be travelling outside of it where it's 6 (surrounding suburbs) and yes I am that damn cheap but is anyone here gonna buy me one for me? But anyway, nowhere in near HELL is that movie gonna be for anything apPROACHING 29.99 or whatever it's "regular" price really is.

Jesus some of u guyz type too much try to cut down on the typing.

Icqpimp,

I don???t think Onijay was telling anyone junk, he was only saying that the suggested retail prices are usually very high. Honestly, I can???t find anywhere in these posts that the guy said anything about the price being $29.99. If you check out the details on this DVD you will notice that the suggested retail price is just over $30.00; however, and what many of us know here, is it is the ???suggested??? price and not the actual price when it hits the stores. I think it???s a safe bet that most everyone knows within the first couple weeks most all retail chains well be selling in a competitive range of around $15.00 to $17.00. And I???m sure we all know it is always best to buy within the first couple weeks to get it at the best price, which is if you are looking to buy it brand new. I know in my own experience, places like Best Buy are notorious for selling any new DVD for around $15.00 in the first week, but after that, they end up hiking the price up to $20.00 or more. Nevertheless, to say Onijay was feeding us a line of junk was a little uncalled for and I can assure you many of us here like the guy and respect his opinion, so let???s play nice, ok?

Tim ;)

JSWELL,

Again, you mis-understood me. I was talking about me aspiring to heights, not the act of championing Tim Burton's "Batman" as being something elite/elitist.

Eddie

I didn't mis-understand what I read between the lines.

- EXTERNAL LINK -

There you go icgpimp. It's $25.99, add 15% tax for Ontario citizens. That comes to... oh wouldn't you know? $29.99 (even though I never mentioned that price anywhere) Now leave me alone and read no more of my junk. Thanks to Tim and everyone else for the support.

JSWELL,

Maybe you shouldn't "read between the lines" when you can't even understand the lines themselves.

Eddie

Eddie:

I understood every line in every one of your posts, so take responsibility for what you say, as well what you try to say in them.

JSWELL,

Please read through all of our comments again. You'll find that I've had to correct several mis-interpretations on your part of my review as well as my other comments here.

Eddie

Eddie:

Anyone can read the entries and see for themselves.

Uh, say, are you guys going to bicker all the way through my review? If this were a movie theater, I'd turn around and ask you to be quiet. :)

John

John: Sorry about this.

JSWELL: I'm done responding to you.

Maybe you guys should take it out in the lobby. While you're out there, would you get me a large popcorn and a large Ice Tea please? Thanks ;)

Tim :D

Tim,

You want a knuckle sandwich while I'm at it? :D

(J/K!!!)

Eddie

lol! Anyone else need anything from the concession stand? Gee concession stand never took on greater meaning. lol!

I loved the Batman Begins movie and as someone said, (Hell no, I am not scrolling through the other 80+ comments to find it) it was one of the best films of 2005. Currently, I work at Blockbuster Video and every Tuesday we put out the new movies. This is really the only movie I've been looking forward to getting this year. Everything else has been lacking in my opinion. There have been the few exceptions like Crash, which was an outstanding, powerful film. But for the most part, the endless supply of "blah" movies have made my job very lackadasical.

What a fantastic movie? Mr. Nolan has revived the Batman series. Best movie of the year. Spot on and to the point. Now whats up with Katie Holmes? Her expression is always inclined at 45 degree. She should have been replaced by Mary Jane;)

--Ranjan

The only thing that disappoints me is the lack of commentary.

I just got around to watching this film this weekend and was slightly underwhelmed by the audio quality. It was dynamic and clean, but lacked the punch I was expecting. But did it ever look beautiful. Wow.

Justin,

I had the same issues with the audio. I found a lot of the dialog was unclear and too low at times. I had to crank the volume way passed to 60bd mark on my receiver, which is pretty loud for my room size, and I still had issues with clear dialog.

Tim

Interesting. I experienced no such audio problems with my setup, but I did have a bad audio experience when I watched the film at an IMAX theater. At the IMAX theater the bass in the special effects was so loud, it muffled the dialogue, just as you describe