Batman Begins Turns out, this movie is pretty average

[GoogleMe94]

I just recently watched this movie again for the second time since i saw it in theaters, and while there were some good parts (mainly near the end), at the end i felt this movie was just OK, but certainly not a movie i would watch over and over. naturally, i had to compare it to the first Batman and even the second since i enjoyed those so much over the years, and this new one just doesnt stack up. i found christian bales bruce wayne to be a bit boring at times, and i didnt find him nearly as interesting as michael keatons bruce wayne. many of the actors in this are top notch, but noone really does anything worthy of rememberance. there are no memorable jack nicholson/danny devito-type performances in this, everyone just kinda downplays everything, almost like its not even a batman movie. the villians reminded me more of a james bond movie then a batman movie, but i think maybe thats what they were aiming for, since morgan freeman plays the obvious Q character. i have read many comics in my lifetime, and this movie didnt really remind me of any of them, except at the end which reminded me of year one, but thats it. overall, i found it to be quite dull and dry, and I am pretty dissapointed. hopefully the sequel will be better, if there is one.

 

[CConn]

How long is it going to take until people goddamn realize there's no point in making about every little thought that runs through their head?

Hey, I like B89 more than BB. My thoughts and feelings have changed and varied since seeing the film, yet I didn't feel the need to go running to bash (or praise) every time I popped it into the DVD player. And, if I did feel that need, I would have at least had the good sense to go look for one of the other 7 million I hate/love BB threads out there.

...and I'm done.

 

[GoogleMe94]

whooa, i wasnt bashing the film, just stating some random thoughts on it. geez.

 

[DieSmiling]

I really don't understand people who like B89 better than Begins.

Begins is such a better, more faithful adaptation -- it NAILS the Batman/Bruce Wayne character in a way no other Batman movie has ever come close (unless you count Mask of the Phantasm, which is probably the best of the lot), and the themes and characters are infinitely deeper than in any of the others... The acting is superb.

I just feel like B89 is so one dimensional... And it's so Tim Burton (yuck). It has its place, as its the first and the nostalgia earns it something, but I just don't get why so many Batfans love it... Keaton still looks like a nerd.

 

[El Payaso]

I really don't understand people who like B89 better than Begins.

Begins is such a better, more faithful adaptation

When has faithfulness meant anything in the quality department? that said, Burton's Batman was quite faithful to Bob Kane's Batman.

it NAILS the Batman/Bruce Wayne character in a way no other Batman movie has ever come close (unless you count Mask of the Phantasm, which is probably the best of the lot), and the themes and characters are infinitely deeper than in any of the others... The acting is superb.

The characters are not deeper just because they throw those 'serious-like sounding' speeches that are no as deep as they pretend to be. A line that features the words 'fear' and or 'legend' is not necessarily fearsome or legendary. Or meaningful.

I just feel like B89 is so one dimensional... And it's so Tim Burton (yuck). It has its place, as its the first and the nostalgia earns it something, but I just don't get why so many Batfans love it...

No, you don't get it.

Keaton still looks like a nerd.

And Bale as American Psycho?

 

[patrickbateman]

((stares))

 

[CConn]

whooa, i wasnt bashing the film, just stating some random thoughts on it. geez.

...

Did you even read my post?

My point was, your "random thoughts" aren't nearly good enough to warrant making a thread about them. It may seem trivial, but after you see 60 different dudes make 60 different threads about the same thing saying the same things over and over again...it gets annoying.

 

[Sccmj23]

I just recently watched this movie again for the second time since i saw it in theaters, and while there were some good parts (mainly near the end), at the end i felt this movie was just OK, but certainly not a movie i would watch over and over. naturally, i had to compare it to the first Batman and even the second since i enjoyed those so much over the years, and this new one just doesnt stack up. i found christian bales bruce wayne to be a bit boring at times, and i didnt find him nearly as interesting as michael keatons bruce wayne. many of the actors in this are top notch, but noone really does anything worthy of rememberance. there are no memorable jack nicholson/danny devito-type performances in this, everyone just kinda downplays everything, almost like its not even a batman movie. the villians reminded me more of a james bond movie then a batman movie, but i think maybe thats what they were aiming for, since morgan freeman plays the obvious Q character. i have read many comics in my lifetime, and this movie didnt really remind me of any of them, except at the end which reminded me of year one, but thats it. overall, i found it to be quite dull and dry, and I am pretty dissapointed. hopefully the sequel will be better, if there is one.

Sorry but I think BB has better acting, a better story, better characters, and is just an overall better movie. Sorry but I completely disagree with you. You're entitled to your opinion though. I just dont see how anyone can think B89 is better than BB for any reason other than nostalgia.

 

[Sccmj23]

When has faithfulness meant anything in the quality department? that said, Burton's Batman was quite faithful to Bob Kane's Batman.

Uh....I think faithfulness means A LOT towards quality. How can you think otherwise?

 

[El Payaso]

Uh....I think faithfulness means A LOT towards quality. How can you think otherwise?

Because you can do frame by frame the exact same thing as in a comic book and still have an irregular pace, not very good acting, lines sounding unimportant or pretentious and not translating the depth of the original source, simply ruining it.

That's why some people do Shakespeare word by word and they still stink. Because Shakespeare words means nothing if the direction and acting is weak.

Not to mention that faithfulness to a weak original material - if the case is given - does nothing for quality.

Now you explain me why faithfulness immediately means quality.

 

[David Rice]

I just recently watched this movie again for the second time since i saw it in theaters, and while there were some good parts (mainly near the end), at the end i felt this movie was just OK, but certainly not a movie i would watch over and over. naturally, i had to compare it to the first Batman and even the second since i enjoyed those so much over the years, and this new one just doesnt stack up. i found christian bales bruce wayne to be a bit boring at times, and i didnt find him nearly as interesting as michael keatons bruce wayne. many of the actors in this are top notch, but noone really does anything worthy of rememberance. there are no memorable jack nicholson/danny devito-type performances in this, everyone just kinda downplays everything, almost like its not even a batman movie. the villians reminded me more of a james bond movie then a batman movie, but i think maybe thats what they were aiming for, since morgan freeman plays the obvious Q character. i have read many comics in my lifetime, and this movie didnt really remind me of any of them, except at the end which reminded me of year one, but thats it. overall, i found it to be quite dull and dry, and I am pretty dissapointed. hopefully the sequel will be better, if there is one.

Really? What parts?

You said you read Batman: Year One? I guess you missed the part where he used sonar to call the Bats. What about the parts where Jim turns around and he's gone? What about the Bruce Wayne playboy part? I'm sure I've seen that in the comics once.

The trurth is "Batman Begins" is closer to the present day Dark Knight and "Batman" is closer the 40's Dark Knight. One is not better than the other, but at the time they were released (1989 & 2005) Batman Begins is closer to the Dark Knight of it's time.

Oh, and one last thing forgot... I saw Batman when I was 12. I loved it then and I still do. That movie made me switch heroes from Superman to Batman in a single day.

Just one problem... I can't see Keaton really being Batman and doing all that cool stuff. Bale on the other hand is different story. He is bad ass and anyone who has seen Equilibrium will know this! Not to mention that he's the same height, almost the same weight and looks just like Bruce Wayne.

Just MO though...

 

[Matt.S99]

well,i liked burtons movies better than BB,but i still really like the movie...

 

[The Empire Ape]

Not to mention that he's the same height, almost the same weight and looks just Bruce Wayne.

Just MO though...

Batman in the comics: 6'2
Christian Bale: at most 6'0
Bruce Wayne in the comics: square-jawed masculine face
Chrisitan Bale: babyface

 

[bane]

Batman in the comics: 6'2
Christian Bale: at most 6'0
Bruce Wayne in the comics: square-jawed masculine face
Chrisitan Bale: babyface

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
**** newbie, Bale is 6'2 and his face is manlier than Keaton's ever will be...

 

[David Rice]

Batman in the comics: 6'2
Christian Bale: at most 6'0
Bruce Wayne in the comics: square-jawed masculine face
Chrisitan Bale: babyface

Do better research dude! Bale is 6'2. He's the ONLY actor since Adam West to stand as tall as the comic book Batman. Google it!

Oh, and he's not a baby face... ask any female.

 

[The Empire Ape]

Do better research dude! Bale is 6'2. He's the ONLY actor since Adam West to stand as tall as the comic book Batman. Google it!

Oh, and he's not a baby face... ask any female.

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Christian-Bale-721.html

And yes, he is a babyface. He is a "pretty boy" without a "hard" face.

 

[The Empire Ape]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
**** newbie, Bale is 6'2 and his face is manlier than Keaton's ever will be...

I doubt it. Perhaps he is "better looking" but manlier... no.

 

[lujho]

Bale has a somewhat weak chin and jaw but by no means whatsoever does he not have a hard face - he's very angular, all bone-structure. Unless you happen to go by pics where he's heavier than usual.

But there's no way he's 6'2". IMDB says 6 foot, Celebrity Heights says 6 foot, Bale himself says 6 foot. 6 foot 2 was his old exaggerated height - not uncommon for any actor to have that. Not that it matters a single bit - it's only 2 inches.

But yes, Batman Begins is pretty average.

 

[Sccmj23]

Because you can do frame by frame the exact same thing as in a comic book and still have an irregular pace, not very good acting, lines sounding unimportant or pretentious and not translating the depth of the original source, simply ruining it.

That's why some people do Shakespeare word by word and they still stink. Because Shakespeare words means nothing if the direction and acting is weak.

Not to mention that faithfulness to a weak original material - if the case is given - does nothing for quality.

Now you explain me why faithfulness immediately means quality.

So you think BB has poor acting and the dialogue was unimportant? Wow....simply wow. I dont understand that, all I can say is its gonna be hard to find anyone who agrees with you. BB has been critically acclaimed and supported since it was released.

I didnt say faithfulness IMMEDIATELY means quality, but if its done the right way faithfulness can mean very good quality, such is the case with BB

 

[The Empire Ape]

Bale has a somewhat weak chin and jaw but by no means whatsoever does he not have a hard face - he's very angular, all bone-structure. Unless you happen to go by pics where he's heavier than usual.

I just dont like it when people scream "Oh yeah, Keaton didn't look like Bruce Wayne, but Bale is looks ssooo alike". Bruce Wayne's comic face is heavy jawed, like (Mel Gibsons's for example ) but when I look at Christian Bale's face I wouldn't say "This face belongs to a very strong guy who could kick your a**"

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Bale's face kind of reminds me of the Tim Sale rendition of Bruce Wayne, which i love.

 

[David Rice]

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Christian-Bale-721.html

And yes, he is a babyface. He is a "pretty boy" without a "hard" face.

One website says he's 6... so what... I can give you 20 that say his 6'2"

What the heck do you want him to look like? Marv from Sin City?

Bale has a somewhat weak chin and jaw but by no means whatsoever does he not have a hard face - he's very angular, all bone-structure. Unless you happen to go by pics where he's heavier than usual.

But there's no way he's 6'2". IMDB says 6 foot, Celebrity Heights says 6 foot, Bale himself says 6 foot. 6 foot 2 was his old exaggerated height - not uncommon for any actor to have that. Not that it matters a single bit - it's only 2 inches.

But yes, Batman Begins is pretty average.

You do know that IMDB is not fact right?

Really? When did he say that?

Wrong, Sorry!

 

[patrickbateman]

Perseverance does not equal worthiness. Next time you want to get my attention, wear something fun. Low-riding jeans are hot.

 

[David Rice]

I just dont like it when people scream "Oh yeah, Keaton didn't look like Bruce Wayne, but Bale is looks ssooo alike". Bruce Wayne's comic face is heavy jawed, like (Mel Gibsons's for example ) but when I look at Christian Bale's face I wouldn't say "This face belongs to a very strong guy who could kick your a**"

I guess you haven't seen Equilibrium.

 

[El Payaso]

So you think BB has poor acting and the dialogue was unimportant? Wow....simply wow. I dont understand that, all I can say is its gonna be hard to find anyone who agrees with you. BB has been critically acclaimed and supported since it was released.

I wasn't claer. It was a random example of how faithful doesn't mean immediate quiality. I don't think faithfulness has something to do with Batman Begins' flaws for me. The acting was excellent except - for me - for Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy. My other gripes were some Goyer dialogues and the action.

I didnt say faithfulness IMMEDIATELY means quality, but if its done the right way faithfulness can mean very good quality, such is the case with BB

Being the key idea 'if it's done right.' For that matter a not so faithful story can be done right too. Or if the we say faithfulness means quality if it's done right, then we can say there's a chance to be done wrong. You said it was a lot towards quality. How so then? I think it goes towards quality simply when it's done right and it's faithful enough to still being the character of course.