Batman Begins Things Batman Begins got Right/Wrong

[lonzoe]

I must admit I loved the scenes between Bruce and Lucius. I liked it from the don't ask, don't tell perspective. But instead of it having gay implications it was something else entirely. Plus it was amusing they way they did the scenes (the actors) they were perfectly done or near perfect. Including the way it was written. It may be a cliche but I liked how Morgan delivered the, "You wouldn't be interested in that," line (or whatever he said exactly - I've only seen it 3 times). Plus I loved the, "Does it come in black?" line. As well as his excuse about going to parties with weaponised hallucinogens. Even though it's bull I just loved the image of people doing such a thing. It appeals to my black humour.

Angeloz

That was one of the WORSE things about Bateman Begins. Nolan stinks at humor. Lucius Fox and Bruce Wayne's relationship is not like that. Nolan was way off. That works for Lucius Q and Bruce "Patrick Bateman" Wayne. Not Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox.

 

[lonzoe]

Freeman was the best actor in the movie IMO his easy delivery was perfect if only the rest of the cast upped their game as much as Freeman did...

IMO there were no best performances in the movie. Everyone phoned it in. You think Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, etc. are going to remember their roles and say, "That was one of my favorite roles," I don't think so! They were all laid back waiting for their paycheck. When you have tyalent like that they should give POWERFUL, BREATHTAKING, and OSCARWORTHY performances. Compare those actors perfomances to other movies and tell me if this role put a dent in their others.HELL NO! Nolan knows how to grab talent but sure as heck don't know how to use them. Gary Oldman had the potential to give the best performance but was VERY POORLY written, IMO.

 

[Keyser Soze]

IMO there were no best performances in the movie. Everyone phoned it in. You think Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, etc. are going to remember their roles and say, "That was one of my favorite roles," I don't think so! They were all laid back waiting for their paycheck. When you have tyalent like that they should give POWERFUL, BREATHTAKING, and OSCARWORTHY performances. Compare those actors perfomances to other movies and tell me if this role put a dent in their others.HELL NO! Nolan knows how to grab talent but sure as heck don't know how to use them. Gary Oldman had the potential to give the best performance but was VERY POORLY written, IMO.

While I don't think any of the actors gave career-best performances in "Batman Begins", I don't think that they "phoned it in". The whole ensemble did well with their roles, even Katie Homes, despite the limitations of her role.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I thought the entire cast was good, even Holmes was decent. They were all quite believable outside a few of Rachel's semantics.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Edit: I hate posting on the last page.

lonzoe]
[/B]
The point I was making is that GREAT movies can make a lot of money. If Baleman Begins was so great then how come that didn't make a lot of money like those movies.

That's extremely flawed logic. Citizen Kane, a film that many film historians say is one of the greatest, if not the greatest film of all time, was nearly a box office flop. It made just enough to cover the production cost, but not enough to make a profit.

So seeing that the greatest film made did horrible at the box office should tell you right there that being a good film does not necessarily mean a good box office.

IMO there were no best performances in the movie. Everyone phoned it in. You think Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, etc. are going to remember their roles and say, "That was one of my favorite roles," I don't think so! They were all laid back waiting for their paycheck. When you have tyalent like that they should give POWERFUL, BREATHTAKING, and OSCARWORTHY performances. Compare those actors perfomances to other movies and tell me if this role put a dent in their others.HELL NO! Nolan knows how to grab talent but sure as heck don't know how to use them. Gary Oldman had the potential to give the best performance but was VERY POORLY written, IMO.

While I don't think anyone gave amazing performances, to expect an Oscarworthy performance just because a movie has many talented actors in it is extremely ignorant.

Just because a movie has lots of talented actors in it doesn't mean we should expect them to give oscarworthy performances. Dustin Hoffman won an oscar, does that mean I expect an oscarworthy performance from him when he played Captin Hook in hook? Or as Ben Stiller's dad in Meet the Faukers?

It would be insane to assume that just because an actor is a good actor he's going to give us an oscar-winning show in every movie. Oscar-winners are roles that come along once in a great while to certain actors, roles that really speak to them, and not every role does that. Being mad that at an actor because they don't always have AMAZING, LIFE CHANGING performances is like being mad at a band because not every one of their albums is gold. It's just not realistic.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Bye, lonzoe! I hope you continue your rude attitude somewhere else.

 

[Orin]

Even though i really enjoyed BB, it was like almost as far away from my ideal version of Batman than this peace of crap Batman Forever. I think Nolan tried way to hard to make it all as reality based as possible, which kinda demystified the whole Batman character. I mean, just look at the costume. You don't have to make it look like every little part of it is practically explainable. It has to make Batman look cool, it has to make him look like a dark creature, that people can not immediately identify as a dude in a hightech suit, and it has to at least kinda resemble the looks from the comics. In my mind, the Begins suit failed with all of that.

But my biggest problem was that whole scene where Bruce tried to kill Joe Chill only to realize it's a much bigger treat than the murder of his parents he has to fight in order to bring justice to Gotham City. To me, that kinda took away all the original motivation form him to be Batman. Batman was always driven by his pain and his anger for revenge, which he not only projected to the man who murderd his parents but to what he stands for - crime. I don't know if what i'm trying to say really comes out, it's just that that Chill scene presented a turning point for Bruce, where his desire for revenge became something noble and heroic. Now i'm not saying i would've wanted a crazy vigilante Batman like in Frank Millers All Star Book, but that was just way to supermannish for me. And i think that on the other hand, all the dark, brooding aspects of the character didn't come out at all. I mean, he began to blame and fight the people who force petty criminals like Chill to do what they do, instead fighting that petty chrimals themselves. You know, i missed that whole aspect where he fights little street tugs, that aren't part of any big overallpicture of some criminal organizazion. I think stuff like that is what makes him Batman and what makes him different from all the other heroes. That's also why i still prefer Burtons first movie with it's great opening scene.

Another thing that i didn't like was the portrayal of the villains. Scarecrow as well as Ras al Ghul always were two of my favorite bad guy characters, but i think Nolans interpretation of them took away almost everything what makes them the great characters they are. The only thing that were taken over from the original comics were pretty much their respective gimmick, if anything.

As for The Dark Knight... i still don't know if i'm going to watch it. Yeah, there is the Joker, which seems to be great. In fact, it looks like if they got the character exacly the way i wanted to see him for years. But the problem is just that they didn't make me care about Robo-Bats ONE BIT... Then there's still the possibilty that Nolan might be jointly responsible for the shut-down of the Justice League project, which would make me loose all the respect that i have for him and his work...

Yeah, that's pretty much why i really can't understad that people think this movie represents the ultimate Batman version, that every big screen Batman has to be based on for the next ten years or so. To me, there is no ultimate version of the Batman character. It was interpreted great in so many different ways and i think that's a big part of why it's still around to that day. There are people for whom the Adam West version IS Batman, there are people for whom the Neal Adams version IS Batman, there are for whom the Frank Miller version IS Batman, there are for whom Batman only works in a reality based Gotham City, that's not connected to the rest of the supernatural DC-Universe and there are people that love to see Batman intercating with all the metahuman characters of the DCU. Either way, all of that IS Batman... and i think the movies should use this variety that the character brings with it too, instead of just giving people the same stuff over and over again. They've kinda already done the early Batman with Burtons first movie... and it was done great. Same thing goes for the Joker. Why not try new things, that haven't been done (at least in the right way) before, like for example having a Batman that's further in his career and has the Bat-Family by his side or something like that. I think that giving him the chance to interact with supporting characters like Robin, Batgirl or even Nightwing would open the possibility for Batman to develop whole new aspects of his characters, that haven't really been covered in the movies before.

But i my opinion, the big advantage for Batman Begins is that it was the first Batman movie that followed the Schumacher flicks and took the franchise seriously again. So people are even more willing see over the falts it might have had. I mean, it's natural that people fear the unknown and that's why a lot of fans perfer to hold on to the BB franchise as long as possible instead of being open to something new, that they could also like ... but as well couldn't. However, i for once perfer variety over security...

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

IMO there were no best performances in the movie. Everyone phoned it in. You think Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, etc. are going to remember their roles and say, "That was one of my favorite roles," I don't think so! They were all laid back waiting for their paycheck. When you have tyalent like that they should give POWERFUL, BREATHTAKING, and OSCARWORTHY performances. Compare those actors perfomances to other movies and tell me if this role put a dent in their others.HELL NO! Nolan knows how to grab talent but sure as heck don't know how to use them. Gary Oldman had the potential to give the best performance but was VERY POORLY written, IMO.

I completly disagree with this statement.

 

[Angeloz]

That was one of the WORSE things about Bateman Begins. Nolan stinks at humor. Lucius Fox and Bruce Wayne's relationship is not like that. Nolan was way off. That works for Lucius Q and Bruce "Patrick Bateman" Wayne. Not Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox.

Obviously I disagree. I guess I like a lot of the sly humour. Plus I think it a good idea that Lucius knows but doesn't want to be told. I guess it's plausible deniability. I look forward to their relationship in the next film. But each to their own (opinion).

By the way was there anything in particular that got him banned? Too combative? Just curious.

I completly disagree with this statement.

I agree here. Also if they were slumming then I like the way they did so. Also as a separate issue Dustin Hoffman was great in "Hook". I enjoyed how his character was written and performed. Actually I suspect he may of been more enjoyable than any of his award winning work. I don't know 'cos I don't watch all of his films or know where or when he won any awards.

Angeloz

 

[Nightwing1977]

I completly disagree with this statement.

He is banned for good, so you don't have to wait for him to respond. I'm not surprise he was based on his rude attitude & cussing, despite mods telling him to stop.

 

[Krypton Girl]

He is banned for good, so you don't have to wait for him to respond. I'm not surprise he was based on his rude attitude & cussing, despite mods telling him to stop.

Some people are incapable of having an intelligent, civil debate. I can always appreciate someone else's opinion, but I don't have to agree with what you say and feel how you feel. It is one of the defining things of a true adult in my opinion, to accept what someone else says and agree to disagree.

On that note, people love to blame the actors and forget that there is something that the director wants to capture so it isn't always 100% up to those portraying the characters how they appear.

 

[Angeloz]

He is banned for good, so you don't have to wait for him to respond. I'm not surprise he was based on his rude attitude & cussing, despite mods telling him to stop.

Thanks. I thought it might be something like that.

Some people are incapable of having an intelligent, civil debate. I can always appreciate someone else's opinion, but I don't have to agree with what you say and feel how you feel. It is one of the defining things of a true adult in my opinion, to accept what someone else says and agree to disagree.

On that note, people love to blame the actors and forget that there is something that the director wants to capture so it isn't always 100% up to those portraying the characters how they appear.

Do you mean that latter comment generally? Or are you thinking of something in particular?

Angeloz

 

[Leenie]

Cons:
- The editing with the fight scenes. We all know that Batman moves fast and stuff ... But dammit, we want to see him fight!

- Katie Holmes. Could not stand her in this movie, and it's not because of her being Katie Holmes. I didn't even know who she was until months after I saw Batman Begins for the first time, so that was the only thing I had seen her in. I was not impressed.

- This isn't really a big deal, but the nerd in me was so puzzled when I saw the movie for the first time. That machine that vaporizes water ... If it was so powerful to do that, then why weren't people affected/killed? We are all mostly made out of water, after all. Oh well. I've learned to just accept this one. Haha.

Other than the things I listed above, I think that everything else was just fine.

 

[Conebone69]

I honestly have nothing to complain about except when that homeless guy said "nice ride", when gordon was trying to hit the tracks

 

[Krypton Girl]

Do you mean that latter comment generally? Or are you thinking of something in particular?

Angeloz

I mean that pretty generally, but as we all know a great actor can do baaaad things when directed/written poorly.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Some people are incapable of having an intelligent, civil debate. I can always appreciate someone else's opinion, but I don't have to agree with what you say and feel how you feel. It is one of the defining things of a true adult in my opinion, to accept what someone else says and agree to disagree.

That an understandiment. I just wish lonzoe would be very mature & just say he dislike it without complaining & cussing like an immature brat. I seen many dislike something without being so extreme like him. And I also agree about actors aren't always to blame on their acting. It can be lay on the director, since he will how he want the actors to react or he made them do the act again differently few times.

And welcome aboard by the way, Krypton Girl. We could always need more gals here.

 

[Krypton Girl]

That an understandiment. I just wish lonzoe would be very mature & just say he dislike it without complaining & cussing like an immature brat. I seen many dislike something without being so extreme like him. And I also agree about actors aren't always to blame on their acting. It can be lay on the director, since he will how he want the actors to react or he made them do the act again differently few times.

And welcome aboard by the way, Krypton Girl. We could always need more gals here.

At least the rest of us can continue an adult dialog. Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it!

 

[CuppaJoe07]

-"nice coat" "excuse me" "its what i DOOO that defines me". please.

The film is overall pretty dark and there are not enough lighter toned moments in the film. Therefore, I don't see why those bits hurt it.

Cons:

- Tumbler. I hope they change it up a bit for the next two films to atleast resemble a more traditional batmobile.

- Katie Holmes. So glad Maggie Gyllenhaal is replacing!

- Fight scenes.

- "No...this mask". That damn Rachel Dawes line!

To me everything else is nigh-on perfect.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Cons:

The portrayal of Flass, he's an ex Green Beret not a lardass.

The portrayal of Commisioner Loeb, wheres the dirty comish form Year One?

Rachel Dawes

 

[Infinity9999x]

^^ I agree with both of you Joe and Zombie.

One thing that did really annoy me was that they didn't show off Bruce's smarts as much. While I didn't mind him getting his equipment from Lucius, It would have been nice to show Bruce actually making some things to show that Lucius isn't the brains behind Batman, he's just another helpful tool.

 

[GoogleMe94]

IMO there were no best performances in the movie. Everyone phoned it in. You think Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, etc. are going to remember their roles and say, "That was one of my favorite roles," I don't think so! They were all laid back waiting for their paycheck. When you have tyalent like that they should give POWERFUL, BREATHTAKING, and OSCARWORTHY performances. Compare those actors perfomances to other movies and tell me if this role put a dent in their others.HELL NO! Nolan knows how to grab talent but sure as heck don't know how to use them. Gary Oldman had the potential to give the best performance but was VERY POORLY written, IMO.

i kind of agree with this guy, despite the amazing cast, nobody was really memorable in there roles, they just kinda dumbed it down. but that was the point of the movie i think, to make batman realistic, aka dumbing it down. thank God we have ledgers insane joker to save the next movie.

 

[Mladen]

i kind of agree with this guy, despite the amazing cast, nobody was really memorable in there roles, they just kinda dumbed it down. but that was the point of the movie i think, to make batman realistic, aka dumbing it down. thank God we have ledgers insane joker to save the next movie.

Those are all excellent actors, and I honestly believe they just had problem getting their heads around the tone of the material. A lot of the dialogue was very short, which makes it hard to convincingly take a character through a conversation or a monologue. Maybe that means the returning characters will have a better idea of it in the next film? Either way, I'm guessing WB fought for script re-writes with a heavier focus on action and much shorter character exposition and development, given the fact that they're marketing it as a summer blockbuster.

But I don't agree with the idea that giving characters complex and realistic motivations is dumbing it down? Filling in the enormous hole of Bruce's training in the far east and his motivations prior to becoming Batman was frankly a huge improvement (I for one found the Chill parts vital to understanding how a quest for revenge can turn into a righteous crusade against ALL criminals... the comics always seem to gloss over the most interesting parts of how he became Batman, his formative teen years and early twenties). Dumbing it down would be taking it all for granted and skipping over things like character development in favor of a big bloated action movie (which is kind of what happens in the last half hour of BB anyway... given the rest of the movie, I personally didn't need a big action showdown, but it comes with the territory of a superhero film).

 

[Mladen]

^^ I agree with both of you Joe and Zombie.

One thing that did really annoy me was that they didn't show off Bruce's smarts as much. While I didn't mind him getting his equipment from Lucius, It would have been nice to show Bruce actually making some things to show that Lucius isn't the brains behind Batman, he's just another helpful tool.

Bruce can't simultaneously be a chemist, an engineer, a computer technician, a software engineer, a master detective, and an industrial designer, AND a martial arts combat specialist all by his twenties. Learning those things at speed is impossible, especially given the fact that he's not presented as a child prodigy... and that in the film, he wasn't learning ANY of that during his university or highschool years.

But maybe the next few films will show how he's learning all that stuff for himself. I'd happily like to see room for the character to grow and mature over the next few films rather than giving us a character who is identical in every film.

 

[GoogleMe94]

nolan will probably only be on for possibly one more bat film, and then they will get another director with a "new vision". i hope when nolans done with his films that they dont get another director who will basically copy nolans realism or whatever. i want a return to basics, like the comic book look and vibe, ya know, something maybe like burton-ish.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

and that in the film, he wasn't learning ANY of that during his university or highschool years.

How do you know Nolan's Bruce didn't take courses in criminology, forensics, etc.?