Batman Begins Great review of Batman Begins!!!

[JBElliott]

 

[blind_fury]

more please! t:

 

[El Payaso]

That's not a review!!!

But it got too many good points.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I like it. It's cute and funny. Although, he keeps speaking in the third person. Still, good fun.

 

[itsthebatman]

In all fairness she did taser him in the face. Which has to hurt.

 

[zer00]

That wasn't worth the click

but JB did post it

 

[Leon the Professional]

It is amusing, but I will never understand why people have such a problem with Scarecrow getting tasered in the face.

I actually like that Rachel took him out on her own. Batman had already owned Scarecrow at Arkham, so they didn't really need a second showdown. And how would it have gone, anyway? Batman is now immune to the fear gas, and Crane poses no physical threat.

Also, Batman had already saved Rachel twice, including from Crane, and is about to save her a third time from Zsaz and the other crazies, so it was really nice to see that she isn't a total damsel in distress. Not to mention getting tasered in the face is pretty terrible.

What would have been a better way of finishing him off?

I suppose if he does not reappear in the sequels, then his "exit" from the series is kind of a let down. But if he returns in the sequels now actually crazy in full-blown Scarecrow mentality, which I hope he does, then I don't see why it's disappointing how Rachel took him out.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He didn't die. So, he's open to come back. I don't think Murphy would mind either.

 

[CConn]

That comic is much like JBElliot; ******ed.

 

[El Payaso]

It is amusing, but I will never understand why people have such a problem with Scarecrow getting tasered in the face.

Because it was a lame semi-comedic way to put an end to that character's participation in the movie. It was like a big Goyer one-liner. It ruined everything the character was supposed to be. That said, I wasn't even proud of what Murphy did with the character to start with, but his last scene was too sad to watch.

I actually like that Rachel took him out on her own. Batman had already owned Scarecrow at Arkham, so they didn't really need a second showdown.

You said it, it was totally unnecessary. It was far better to end with Crane escaping or at the asylum, the end.

And how would it have gone, anyway? Batman is now immune to the fear gas, and Crane poses no physical threat.

Yes. While writing you have to think how to put the character in interesting challenges. The way it's done, makes me wonder why they used so much time to develop the character if at the end they make clear he was never a real threat... so why using it in the first place?

Also, Batman had already saved Rachel twice, including from Crane, and is about to save her a third time from Zsaz and the other crazies, so it was really nice to see that she isn't a total damsel in distress.

The film stated many times she wasn't the damsel in distress. As usual Goyer was annoyingly repetitive on this one and ruined a good villiain in the way.

Not to mention getting tasered in the face is pretty terrible.

Yeah, but for that matter almost every Batman villiain could be beaten that way. Ra's, Two Face or the Joker. In a few words, we wouldn't need Batman just a good taser in every Gothamite hand.

What would have been a better way of finishing him off?

In short, any other way.

But a decent fight with Batman, like Four of a Kind one where Scarecrow IS a physical threat to a certain extent, or where he can put Batman life in danger like many times in comics and cartoons.

But if not, leave the character for the second movie like they did with let's say, Zsas.

I suppose if he does not reappear in the sequels, then his "exit" from the series is kind of a let down.

And in such a way. He won't be on TDK and I bet my ass he won't be in the third one. By the forth one probably Nolan won't be directing and the whole thing will be forgotten or taken by the next director and God knows if Murphy will be able to do the character again.

But if he returns in the sequels now actually crazy in full-blown Scarecrow mentality, which I hope he does, then I don't see why it's disappointing how Rachel took him out.

Because Batman and Rachel will know he's no threat for anybody. Batman will be able to say 'Ok, Rach, I'll go after the Joker and you take your taser and kick Scarecrow's ass.' Maybe Rachel: 'I can't I'm busy,' then Bats: 'Nevermind, hand the taser to the red short kid then.'

That defines a villiain who's so lame and easy to beat that's not even worth to be on the screen anymore. And it's not because of the character but who wrote him.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, but for that matter almost every Batman villiain could be beaten that way. Ra's, Two Face or the Joker. In a few words, we wouldn't need Batman just a good taser in every Gothamite hand.

What makes you say that? Scarecrow is probably the only Bat-villian who actually cannot fight. At all.

His only edge....his only way of fighting....is his toxin.

 

[El Payaso]

What makes you say that? Scarecrow is probably the only Bat-villian who actually cannot fight. At all.

His only edge....his only way of fighting....is his toxin.

Weird, I've seen him fighting Batman in comic books, even with him saying 'Bah, I don't need the fear toxin.'

And the taser in the face has nothing to do with fighting.

 

[Leon the Professional]

Because it was a lame semi-comedic way to put an end to that character's participation in the movie. It was like a big Goyer one-liner. It ruined everything the character was supposed to be. That said, I wasn't even proud of what Murphy did with the character to start with, but his last scene was too sad to watch.

You said it, it was totally unnecessary. It was far better to end with Crane escaping or at the asylum, the end.

Yes. While writing you have to think how to put the character in interesting challenges. The way it's done, makes me wonder why they used so much time to develop the character if at the end they make clear he was never a real threat... so why using it in the first place?


Well, I don't think a taser to the face is a lame way to go, and I didn't find it comedic. And I loved how he disappeared into the smoke, screaming both from pain and insanity.

If Crane simply stayed captive at the Asylum or just escaped with no other confrontations, people who are complaining about his taser to the face would be complaining then too. It would be even more of a let down.

And it didn't ruin everything the character is supposed to be, since Scarecrow is all about mind over body. Crane is a threat only due to his fear gas. If you deprive him of this, then he should not be a serious threat. While someone is freaking out under his fear toxin, sure then he can physically harm the person. But otherwise, he is just a scrony wimp. And remember, that Rachel was at that point immune to his fear gas too. The vision of him on the fire breathing horse is from the point of view of the little boy, not from hers.

His demise by Rachel does not "make it clear he was never a real threat." It makes it clear that he is a real threat when he has power over his victims with fear gas. He was an extremely serious threat to Batman and Rachel while they were vulnerable to his fear gas. But once they became immune to it, Crane stopped being a serious threat, which is more or less how it should be. All of Crane's power is an illusion. Taking away his power of fear is like depriving Professor X of his telepathy.



The film stated many times she wasn't the damsel in distress. As usual Goyer was annoyingly repetitive on this one and ruined a good villiain in the way.

How did the film state many times that Rachel is a damsel in distress? Do you mean in dialogue? Or how? I'm confused, because I don't remember such dialogue, and even if there was it doesn't matter if Rachel still needs saving all the time. Batman saved her at the train station, then from Crane at Arkham, and then from Zsaz and the other crazies.

Yeah, but for that matter almost every Batman villiain could be beaten that way. Ra's, Two Face or the Joker. In a few words, we wouldn't need Batman just a good taser in every Gothamite hand.

In short, any other way.

But a decent fight with Batman, like Four of a Kind one where Scarecrow IS a physical threat to a certain extent, or where he can put Batman life in danger like many times in comics and cartoons.

But if not, leave the character for the second movie like they did with let's say, Zsas.


Firstly, Crane already had a great showdown with Batman. So it's not like he only got tasered in the face.

Secondly, Crane was not the main villain, just a secondary one. If Ra's Al Ghul, the main villain, was taken out by a taser to the face during the film's climax, that would be a different story entirely.

Thirdly, unlike Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, Joker, and Two Face are all meant to be physical threats. Ra's can hand Batman his ass. The Joker is a physically violent foe, unlike the passive aggressive Crane who hides behind his fear gas and unleashes his sadism only when his victim is incapacitated. And Two Face isn't one to shy from a fist fight, as well as uses guns.

Could all of these other guys still be defeated by a taser to the face? Sure. They could be defeated in many such kinds of underwhelming ways. But with Scarecrow there was a build up to it between him and Rachel, the taser was not a random thing since Rachel had already been shown using it, and there is a huge difference between someone like Rachel using a taser and someone like Batman using a taser.

Scarecrow being defeated by "just a woman", who he was fueding with and who he terrorized under his fear gas, but who is now free from its influence, is actually quite good writing, a demise exposing his practically self-professed weakness, namely the mental losing its power over the physical. And there was just something appropriate about him being tasered in the face while wearing his mask.


And in such a way. He won't be on TDK and I bet my ass he won't be in the third one. By the forth one probably Nolan won't be directing and the whole thing will be forgotten or taken by the next director and God knows if Murphy will be able to do the character again.

Because Batman and Rachel will know he's no threat for anybody. Batman will be able to say 'Ok, Rach, I'll go after the Joker and you take your taser and kick Scarecrow's ass.' Maybe Rachel: 'I can't I'm busy,' then Bats: 'Nevermind, hand the taser to the red short kid then.'

That defines a villiain who's so lame and easy to beat that's not even worth to be on the screen anymore. And it's not because of the character but who wrote him.

Nolan is not a sloppy storyteller, and I seriously doubt he will leave a loose end with Scarecrow. Especially since the final scene of Begins has Gordon reminding that Crane is still loose. In my opinion, Nolan will have Batman taking down Scarecrow in the 2nd or 3rd movie, possibly as an opening scene. Or in the least he will have Crane already back in Arkham, with Batman having already brought him in. As Begins demonstrated, Nolan has no problem dealing with multiple villains.

Lastly, Keeping in mind that Crane was sane until getting gassed by Batman, I thinked that Murphy portrayed Crane ingeniously. It was a subtle yet creepy performance, from which you could see his inner sadism and infer his motivations.

 

[princevaliant81]

Pretty cool and hilarious!!!

 

[Cosmic]

Bruce never declares, at any point in the movie, that he will never kill a criminal. All he says is that he's no executioner. Somehow, this distinction appears to be impossible for some of this movie's detractors to understand.

 

[Leon the Professional]

Yea, there is a BIG difference between Bruce refusing to kill criminals unnecessarily, and setting off the destruction of a terrorist organization's headquarters, from which the terrorists have enough time to flee, in a situation where he is outnumbered by 100 to 1 and the terrorist leader (Ducard/Ra's) has just implied that if he does not execute the prisoner then he will be killed himself ("Please Bruce, for your own sake. There is no turning back.")

You think Nolan didn't ponder whether he'd be going against his very own code in this situation? That he realized that this would be hypocritical and was just like, the hell with it?

No. He caught the problem in Goyer's original draft, where Ra's was not demanding that Bruce execute a prisoner to prove himself "or else," in which case it would not have been necessary for Bruce to set of the explosion. Bruce could have just faked his commitment and later escaped.

So Nolan added the prisoner execution to put Bruce in a situation where he had only two choices: either go along with the terrorists, which means he must execute the prisoner, or go against them by trying a desperate measure, at the risk of some ninjas getting caught in the blasts. Not to mention he has just seconds to devise a plan.

This is a far cry from, let's say, Batman driving into Axis Chemicals in 89 and setting off a bomb. That was in no way shape or form a necessity.

I mean, you really have to be a simpleton to not see the difference. I suppose his actions may seem hypocritical for the first moment, but if you actually think about it instead of sticking with a knee-jerk reaction that Bruce is killing, you can understand that Bruce was not breaking his no-killing code.

The only possible problem I see, which has nothing to do with Bruce killing or not, is that the ninjas should all be gathered outside the destroyed headquarters, so I don't see why Bruce bothered carrying unconscious Ra's to some old guy's hut, or how he was able to sneak away from the ninjas with him.

 

[Visionary]

Cute and hilarious, Taser-Girl got that bad ol' Scarecrow good, lol.

 

[El Payaso]

edit

 

[El Payaso]

Well, I don't think a taser to the face is a lame way to go, and I didn't find it comedic. And I loved how he disappeared into the smoke, screaming both from pain and insanity.

What you say sounds like a great way to go. Sadly, you're conveniently forgetting the girly screaming. AAAAAAAy AYYY GAWWWD. That made it lame and semi-comedic (because it was SEMI-comedic.)

If Crane simply stayed captive at the Asylum or just escaped with no other confrontations, people who are complaining about his taser to the face would be complaining then too. It would be even more of a let down.

In no way more lame than having him as a pathetic screaming schoolgirl.

This is no a situation when Nolan was forced to have him screaming like a girl because there was absolutely no other alternative.

And it didn't ruin everything the character is supposed to be, since Scarecrow is all about mind over body. Crane is a threat only due to his fear gas. If you deprive him of this, then he should not be a serious threat. While someone is freaking out under his fear toxin, sure then he can physically harm the person. But otherwise, he is just a scrony wimp. And remember, that Rachel was at that point immune to his fear gas too. The vision of him on the fire breathing horse is from the point of view of the little boy, not from hers.

As I said, he HAS been a physical threat for Batman to some extent in the comics amnd has stated that he doesn't need only the fear toxin.

That said, let's agree for a while Scarecrow has no ninja trai bning as Batman so he's little to no menace for Bats without it. But for BATS. Any semi-respectable villiain should be able to handle an average skinny girl and a scared-to-death red t-shirt little boy. Not that much to expect.

His demise by Rachel does not "make it clear he was never a real threat." It makes it clear that he is a real threat when he has power over his victims with fear gas. He was an extremely serious threat to Batman and Rachel while they were vulnerable to his fear gas. But once they became immune to it, Crane stopped being a serious threat, which is more or less how it should be. All of Crane's power is an illusion. Taking away his power of fear is like depriving Professor X of his telepathy.

When we have Professor X screming like a girl, we'll talk. There are pther ways to show a character is totally defeated without their 'powers.' That has happened in several movies (Gral. Zod, Riddler, etc); that's hardly the real problem here. This is those villiains have rarely been portrayed as pathetic screming girls when de-powered.

How did the film state many times that Rachel is a damsel in distress? Do you mean in dialogue? Or how? I'm confused, because I don't remember such dialogue, and even if there was it doesn't matter if Rachel still needs saving all the time. Batman saved her at the train station, then from Crane at Arkham, and then from Zsaz and the other crazies.

I see for you it's in dialogue or it doesn't exist. Forget the spoonfeeding need for a while. Things can happen in a movie through actions and silences, not only verbally.

We have Rachel facing two thugs and then Batman. And verbally expressing she's not afraid of mob fellas taking ervenge against her. We already know she can defend herself. The same we know the movie is about fear in scene one but Goyer repeats this every 2 minutes.

Firstly, Crane already had a great showdown with Batman. So it's not like he only got tasered in the face.

Yes, Crane had a showdown with Batman, but without the fear toxin you have to agree there's no much sense in showing him acting like he's still powerful just to ridicule him.

It's more like he didn't need to be tasered since his story with Batman was pretty much sealed for a while (since Batman already had an antidote for the fear toxine and we agree without that Scarecrow has no much chances.)

Secondly, Crane was not the main villain, just a secondary one. If Ra's Al Ghul, the main villain, was taken out by a taser to the face during the film's climax, that would be a different story entirely.

So you admit it's not a very respectable way to have a villiain making his way out from a film.

Anyway Scarecrow deserved a more classy writing for his last scene. If he's openly a minor villiain, then talk about him at the end as a future menace and leave him in peace until the sequel. Being not the main villiain doesn't force you to ridicule the character.

Thirdly, unlike Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul, Joker, and Two Face are all meant to be physical threats. Ra's can hand Batman his ass. The Joker is a physically violent foe, unlike the passive aggressive Crane who hides behind his fear gas and unleashes his sadism only when his victim is incapacitated. And Two Face isn't one to shy from a fist fight, as well as uses guns.

Scarecrow has been violent and throwing some kicks in comics. Read them.

Could all of these other guys still be defeated by a taser to the face? Sure. They could be defeated in many such kinds of underwhelming ways. But with Scarecrow there was a build up to it between him and Rachel, the taser was not a random thing since Rachel had already been shown using it, and there is a huge difference between someone like Rachel using a taser and someone like Batman using a taser.

Taser was not random, just a bad idea. Then write a gun for Rachel and she'll be more effective than Batman cleaning up the streets.

EVEN if we HAVE to have Rachel defeating Crane, there are more entertaining, more exciting, more respectable and far less cheap ways to do it.

Scarecrow being defeated by "just a woman", who he was fueding with and who he terrorized under his fear gas, but who is now free from its influence, is actually quite good writing, a demise exposing his practically self-professed weakness, namely the mental losing its power over the physical. And there was just something appropriate about him being tasered in the face while wearing his mask.

Tell me what was exactly 'appropiate' about that. Rachel teaching him a lesson? okay, but please don't ridicule the villiain in the process. It felt just a rushy easy way to say Scarecrow good-bye before the grand finale.

Nolan is not a sloppy storyteller, and I seriously doubt he will leave a loose end with Scarecrow. Especially since the final scene of Begins has Gordon reminding that Crane is still loose. In my opinion, Nolan will have Batman taking down Scarecrow in the 2nd or 3rd movie, possibly as an opening scene. Or in the least he will have Crane already back in Arkham, with Batman having already brought him in. As Begins demonstrated, Nolan has no problem dealing with multiple villains.

He demonstrated so until Scarecrow last scene. He hads 2 and a half hours but was rushed to write Scarecrow off. BB was the first Nolan movie that made me think Nolan was not that good storyteller. Then I thought that, even when Nolan should hols the final resposibility, Nolan is to blame.

Lastly, Keeping in mind that Crane was sane until getting gassed by Batman, I thinked that Murphy portrayed Crane ingeniously. It was a subtle yet creepy performance, from which you could see his inner sadism and infer his motivations.

Big open eyes and a low voice stretching words a is anything but subtle or ingenious. It was external and over-acted besides of pretty obvious way to be (I mean, sound or look) "creepy."

 

[Leon the Professional]

Woah, let's get one important thing straight. I in no way whatsoever feel that "it's in the dialogue or it doesn't exist". Good storytelling shows rather than tells, and what the movie shows is Batman saving Rachel from being killed THREE times. Just because she acts tough doesn't mean she's not a damsel in distress. She just doesn't think of herself as one. The only reason I brought up dialogue is because it sounded like YOU wanted to be spoon fed with dialogue since you said "the film STATED many times she wasn't the damsel in distress." I apologize that I misunderstood.

Girly scream? I would like to see how you scream if you're tasered in the face. Besides, this isn't some badass like Wolverine or Batman getting tasered in the face. It's a pansy effeminate wimp who just turned insane getting tasered in the face. I don't think a manly scream would be appropriate at all, if that's what you're suggesting.

I think Crane is the type of cowardly villain who generally should only have the balls to physically assault someone if he has his fear gas incapacitating them. Although I admit it does depend on how the situation is written. But the fact that he threw some kicks in the comics and once stated he doesn't need his fear gas does not really persuade me. I don't care about comicbook precedent. Many things happen in the comics that I disagree with, as I'm sure there are things from the comics you disagree with.

If you're so sure there are more "entertaining/exciting/respectable/etc" ways for Rachel to defeat Crane, then please give some ideas. I'm not saying there aren't any, I just want to see what your suggestions would be.

As for Murphy's acting, I thought it was excellent, but you clearly have a different view of Crane's portrayal, so it's pointless to debate that. All I'll say is that the only non-subdued acting Murphy did was with his "The Bat-Man" line, which is what I think you were referring to by "low-stretched" voice, and it's the only time he uses it.

 

[JBElliott]

That comic is much like JBElliot; ******ed.

I know you're retared CCon, but what am I? Remember, I'm rubber and you're glue . . . that's about your level.

 

[JBElliott]

Bruce never declares, at any point in the movie, that he will never kill a criminal. All he says is that he's no executioner. Somehow, this distinction appears to be impossible for some of this movie's detractors to understand.

The funny thing is that whatever is said or not said in the movie, in the comics Batman says all the time that he won't kill. So if he doesn't say that in the movie, then there's yet another way the movie isn't faithful to the comics.

 

[Cosmic]

The funny thing is that whatever is said or not said in the movie, in the comics Batman says all the time that he won't kill. So if he doesn't say that in the movie, then there's yet another way the movie isn't faithful to the comics.

The 'toon you posted says that it's talking about scenes from the movie in the very first panel. There's no mention of the comics at all. So, I don't know why you're bringing up the comics now. But it still doesn't help you any, because in Batman's very first appearances in the comics, he doesn't hesitate to kill villains before they can kill him first. So, if you want to say that the movie isn't faithful to the comics, then I guess it depends on which comics you're reading. I'm reading Detective Comics, issues #27-37. It's the genesis of this great character we all love. Where are you getting your concept of Batman from?

 

[CConn]

I know you're retared CCon, but what am I? Remember, I'm rubber and you're glue . . . that's about your level.

Forget about my level, JB. Let's see you're level. Let's see some intelligence. Some well thought out and insightful points and debates. Not an (honestly) quite unfunny comic and a bunch of two-sentence replies ending with . If you can do that, JB, I have absolutely no problem being befuddled and confused by your mightily superior intellect.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

Personally, I'd love to see Crane return in a Hannibal-like role, possibly aiding Batman in the capture of the Joker by helping him get inside of his mentality.