Batman Begins: The Thread

grr.

"Silver Surfer", "Ghost Rider", "the Inhumans", "the Avengers", "the Green Lantern Corps", "DR. STRANGE!"

I do think Michael Caine as Alfred is an inspired choice, though, I'll give them that.

See, here's where I have a problem.

the music is weak

In its own bombastic way I do still love the soundtrack Elfman did for the first film, so what are we dealing with now?

CHRIS TUCKER IS THE GREEN LANTERN

(Topher Grace as Schroeder)

Yes, yes, but the really important thing is that there HAS to be a 3-D animated Snoopy that smirks and does a moon-walk in the ads.

A) there's a bit of the cypherish blandness to a lot of the non-big comic properties as a result of their lack of, um, bigness (and by "non-big", I mean the characters in the Marvel / DC universes that serve as the Special Guest Stars in the books featuring the characters that are raking in the hundreds of millions);

B) no doubt the (presumed lack of) success of recent property-born superhero flicks (cf. Blade: Trinity & Ang Lee's Hulk & Elektra & Daredevil) would limit the $$$$ studios want to budget for these type of mid-level things (barring involvement of a Cruise / Soderbergh-type), which would probably relegate such works to Sci-Fi Channel purgatory (HELLO MAN-THING!);

C) in light of the success of The Incredibles, studios will probably opt to "politely borrow" from these mid-level properties in creating their own version of, say, the Silver Surfer, as it's more cost-effective, and the opportunity to sucker in non-comic folk (where the box office receipts really lie) who could give two squirts about the source material trumps the $$$$ lost from folks who feel their favorite character has been slighted and maligned by the Hollywood machine;

D) Characters like Batman and Spidey (and Superman!) have enough substance to them to carry the burden of fifteen bazillion sequels, and as long as quality folk are attached to the making of these fifteen bazillion flicks, I'm all for Hollywood pumping them out like Play-Doh snakes; I don't know that a Ghost Rider or GREEN LANTERN CORPS (eeesh) has that sort of innate substance to be able to justify even one flick worth a damn.

Also, this is soooooo nitpicky, but be careful conflating "super-hero" w/ "comic book", unless we're going to raise our pinkies from our wedgewood demitasses and call the source material for American Splendor and Ghost World "graphic novels".

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/89/00/12m.jpg

CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER
CHRIS TUCKER IS MR. SINISTER

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/hukl/batspank.jpg

-- latebloomer: Pain Don't Hurt (posercore24...), June 7th, 2005.

to clarify, i was agreeing with his enthsiasm for this:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/hukl/batspank.jpg

ihttp://wetmen.provocateuse.com/show.php/christian_bale

Completely Optimistic Batman Begins Anticipation Thread

- Bale was well cast but not genius
- Holmes is worthless, except for her stunt nipples
- Caine was great
- Neeson was great
- Freeman plays himself, or whatever it is that he does on every film he's in
- Oldman was nearly unrecognizable
- C. Murphy was genius cast
- Wilkinson wasn't great
- the script was fairly great with only a few "ham it up for the retards" lines
- beautifully shot and directed

sounds great. (OTM re: Morgan Freeman. so tired, so one-note. "let's get a token black guy in this movie" = his entire career)

DR. STRANGE appears to be back in turnaround, despite a draft by David (Blade/Batman Begins/Ghost Rider/The Flash) Goyer. This is not surprising In Teh Current Climate, given that the lead wears tights and a cape, sports meticulously groomed facial hair, is generally persnickety, and lives in Greenwich Village with his Asian houseboy.

Nonetheless, I see Jennifer Tilly as Clea the Magic Beard.

SILVER SURFER is rumored to be moving forward again. Probably start from scratch, though Andrew Kevin Walker may have done a draft back in the last millenium and Vin Diesel once expressed interest. Dude, Radd!

And of course, Nic Cage IS Johnny Blaze. Which is a bit of a disappointment, as Clifford Smith would have been the natural choice.

And Paramount just scuttled WATCHMEN.

Electric Company excepted, presumably

Clea the Magic Beard is my new children's band.

(I never saw Electric Company - I'm thinking more of the numerous token black guy/Uncle Tom roles he's played with what the Academy would probably call "a quiet dignity". Robin Hood, Unforgiven, Driving Miss Daisy, etc.)

they were minimal roles.

Is it just me, or is he actually very rarely recognizable? Like, I think the only time he was in a movie I realized it was him instantly was in Harry Potter.

I don't know. I like him. He's like Owen Wilson, or even Paul Newman. He's not got a huge range, really, or maybe just doesn't make very bold choices in terms of roles, but he's always interesting to watch. He's got PRESENCE.

I'd rather them play the token quiet black guy than the token black thug/sidekick, frankly. Even if they don't have much range.

Nic Cage is SOOO wrong as Johnny Blaze though.
http://aintitcool.com/images/johnnyblaze.jpg

(he did do a great voiceover as the posessed motorcycle in Heat Vision and Jack)

Tim Booth from James?

Keep in mind, Freeman went from being recognized mainly as Easy Reader on The Electric Company to playing a bunch of convicts, cops, and criminals, and getting his big break as the scariest pimp in screen history in 1987's Street Smart. Maybe he's played variations of a troubled, moral force ever since, but I never get sick of watching him in Johnny Handsome, Clean and Sober, Driving Miss Daisy (a bum rap in the making for a dude who once played Malcolm X), and Se7en. It's not necessarily his fault that Hollywood otherwise doesn't have enough imagination to cast him in anything but the roles of a loyal black friend or respected elder (Joe Clark, the president, God, etc.). Nurse Betty came close. Somebody should get him to play Professor Longhair.

Dude, Constantine was good! Better than Hellboy or any other supernaturally themed flick I've seen lately. I went to see Constantine expecting nothing of it, but to my surprise it never rang a false note. Also, it did something none of the recent superhero adaptations have done: it didn't rely on special effects. Who needs a CGI Satan when you can have Peter Stormare in make-up?

He's Lucius Fox, who, in the comics, is a fairly younger brilliant financier who covers Bruce's fop-acting ass in the boardroom many a time, whereas in the flick, he's a brilliant inventor of Bat-shit, which strikes me as more interesting for a film than for his character. I think he was even white in the old animated series, which may have been a nod to Billy Dee Williams in the first 2 films (Harvey Dent being the half-white half mutilated Two Face for decades).

So all of those shots of Hell in the promos were filmed on location???

Even though I recognize all the names, this sentence makes no sense to me.

very entertaining. bale actually pretty good as non-stiff batdude, i thought. a few problems though:

1) action scenes suffer from cutting too close & too fast, the bane of modern action cinema. not convinced nolan is an action director.

2) bad one-liners

3) somewhat anti-climactic (also common bain of modern action)

4) gary oldman looked perfect but his arc overlapped with katie holmes's too much ("one good man in a corrupt legal system"). glad they went the batman: year one way with him, at least a bit.

still... i liked it!

If he was in it, it must have been only for a minute because I don't remember seeing him. My whole review would have been about "Eww, Tim Booth, eww!"

I thought the same thing about the action scenes, s1ocki.

2) totally. especially the "i gotta get me one of those" lines.

the other two i'm ambivalent about.

i loved how they created bruce wayne the celeb.

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=460f2057b5d1ba047dc259334f6b7ca9&threadid=35579

do you (haha) actually remember the name of the league of crimefighting ninjas? i need it for my review and they didn't give me no press kit!!

I'm getting in line RIGHT NOW.

*pats slocki on head* There there, The Family Guy is waiting for you.

ned my point was that i liked batman better than star wars (my point was also that i made a stupid pun). thus, batman is waiting for me.

Bale was superb, subtle, even. The more you reflect of his turn, the more you dig his skill.

AND HARDLY ANY CGI !!!

Ahem, anyway, whoah, Nolan does love icebergs, doesn't he?

The whole shantytown of misery surrounding Gotham was a great visual.

Caine was Caine--ie, fab.

(Yeah, Freeman in NURSE BETTY is fine creep-ah.)

Murphy truly was unnerving, like an inflated sneery GOP-advisor Depp.

Actually, lots of serious stuff here, presented in only slightly annoying serious mode. Combining David Goyers (BLADE123) and Nolan was a prefect balance, neutering the undesireable in both.

And I want a tee shirt that says "Does it come in black?"

And Liam's haircut was really disturbing.

I'd pay to see it again--scary.

xpost- whoa, Bullit? Fuckin A!!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40625000/jpg/_40625560_batman_kilmer203.jpg

Ten years is a long time for expiation.

That's what I want to do too, see it again at the IMAX.

I don't know if it is time yet to suggest my alternate casting choice for the scarecrow.

I thought it was a pretty decent time at the movies, but the humorlessness is really a little much. The lead actor, Christian Bale, spends two hours scowling, pouting, punching and suffering. Co-writer/director Christopher Nolan is so determined to make him a tragic hero that he forgets many tragic heroes (like, say, Hamlet, to whom this Batman is a cousin) get to throw off a few one liners here and there. When the movie's two elder statesmen, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, actually get to crack a few smiles and throw off a few quips, it's like a sip of fresh water after a thousand miles crawling in the desert. On the up side: A terrific and spooky villain played by Cillian Murphy, a dynamic and mysterious mentor performance by Liam Neeson, and real visual grandeur.

Actually what's going to be interesting to me is how Burton's execution of action scenes matches against Nolan's, in that I don't think Burton could do much with those (or maybe more accurately his editors couldn't, I'm not sure) and it sounds like Nolan falls down a bit on that front. Oh well, roll on tonight!

i'm still a defender of burton batman, though. visually it kicks so much ass that i will always luv it! and i like keaton!

Oh, I thought he was good too. The only thing is, he was cute enough that part of me kept kept rooting for him to get away with it. They needed someone slightly creepier looking.

partly wanting the him to get away with it is what makes a good villain. that was why Gladiator sucked, the dude was just a whiny little bitch

i've been folllowing c. murphy since he was nothing. i really hope he doesn't suck in this

Oops, sorry Nicole!

that must be an homage to Kim Basinger's nipple pokies in Burton's Batman, which were quite loudly pointed out to me (though I was quite aware of them, having just turned 12 in June, 1989) by my uncle.

i like burton's batman movies ok, though burton has made a bunch of better movies, to be sure.

bale shirtless. rowr.

michael caine. the only actor in the movie who rose above the plot-point dialogue. mentally cheered whenever he was on-screen.

cinematography. beautiful in places. the drop-off scene in the warehouse where the thugs are all like "oh no, someone's in here" and they're walking around slowly and shooting into random corners -- there's this one bit where the camera catches a whiff of smoke coming up from the guy's semi-automatic, and i was like "woah."

one small bit near the end where gordon's driving the Mach 3 Turbo-mobile -- he runs over some cars and there's this great reaction shot of him wincing and whispering "sorry," which is awesome because these types of scenes always cut to the hero looking stoic or whatever, but that line just made Oldman's character and the whole situation about 1,000 times more human, at least for a minute or so.

nay:

neeson and ninjas and the whole league of shadows thing. i don't know, it just seemed impossible to treat seriously in any way. neeson's much too human-sized to fit the cartoon of an immortal freemason-type committing genocide every hundred years or so. he's a great actor (see: kinsey), not a great piece of contrived plot machinery.

katie holmes. see david edelstein's review for a totally OTM take on her.

Overarching Themes: vigilante justice vs. due process. does this seem like a relic to anyone else? like a strange meme that defined a couple of U.S.-centric decades last century and allowed so much shit to go down? i.e., the macho stories we tell about ourselves to allow us to have our 'justice' cake and eat our 'benevolent' image too. very war-in-iraq, fox-news-esque. this was really repellant to me in the movie. seems so stupid and beside the point. do i need to loosen up here? probably.

the action scenes. just totally uninspired, incoherent, way too much close-up.

overall, a big disappointment, mainly because i had high hopes. memento and insomnia were incredible, but this felt like it was made by committee = what the hell happened nolan? i mean, it's probably not near as bad as half the movies coming out this summer, but don't expect something inspiring. spend your $10 on a cd or something, save this one for netflix or any situation where you can watch a movie for cheap, at home, with booze and friends and such.

I suppose it did but -- not that this is required, obviously -- at the same time it wasn't per se unique. (See the Pinter-scripted Betrayal from the early eighties as one example; doubtless others exist.) I suppose the other tag was meant to be the identity of the killer, which alas I guessed five seconds after I first read something about the film years back, so that reduced it back to the conceit. In some respects I'm actually really looking forward to this film precisely because it might be the first Nolan film I full on enjoy.

The rooftop chase is 'third person', and hence almost lyrical--if your lyrics were emoted while on speed.

Regarding Holmes--good agent.

neeson and ninjas and the whole league of shadows thing. i don't know, it just seemed impossible to treat seriously in any way. neeson's much too human-sized to fit the cartoon of an immortal freemason-type committing genocide every hundred years or so.

oh come on! you cant go wrong with ninjas.

I enjoyed it. Thought it looked GREAT and hurrah! for subtle CGI whenever it was used. Could've done without the requisite loud car chase smasheroo and the stupid oneliners (plus, the "I'm Batman" line is old and tired by now. Guess I don't like my Batman jokey). Ending wasn't as suspenseful as I think they planned it to be - just loud and choppy. But I loved Scarecrow -- scariest villain in a movie in a loooong time (bats coming out his mouth?!? Whoah.) --- and overall thought the thing was just really well put together.

P>S> Why does Katie Holmes' face look like it's melting at the sides?

Biggest problem I don't think has been mentioned yet but it's a disjointed film in ways, one that hangs together and then doesn't, almost a crazy-quilt. More on that tomorrow, I'll type up something for FT I think. Still, though, worth it and well worth seeing on an IMAX screen. Might see it again in the theaters but...we'll see. Have to think about it. Definitely will get the DVD eventually though.

Cast a Schumacher-directed _Batman Begins_

Haha the scarecrow was all 'the Bat-MAN', stole the fucking show

* It's a film with too many ideas/approaches rather than too little, and better the former option than the latter. It has to maintain a careful balancing act which it doesn't quite succeed it but comes very very close to with. Packing in everything from classic urban/conspiracy theory paranoia (modern variants beginning with the 'mysteries' genre in popular fiction in the nineteenth century in Europe) to working schlub woes is a noble attempt, actually, the more so because it demands shifts in tone that flow well in order to work. As such the film occasionally falls down, feels clunky, steps out of its flow, though not so much as to damage. It did stop me up a few times as it goes, though, partially because there *were* scenes when such transitions were handled with aplomb (think Wayne having to dismiss the party guests when he has just found out the true (?) identity of Ducard) if not perfect grace. But I never felt completely taken out of the film even when I could sense some parts and exchanges I could almost literally look past or slightly ignore. Importantly, whether in terms of language or motivation or even just general depiction, Ebert's call on the film -- "The movie is not realistic, because how could it be, but it acts as if it is" -- nails it. Much like, say, Peter Jackson's interpretation of Lord of the Rings where a guiding principle was to avoid irony completely, here the same principle clearly works. Much of what is in the plot, and even the specifics of the script, could have been purest camp if played/directed differently. Here Nolan and crew took the chance like Jackson et al that if they filmed it and played it straight it would work more often than not. So Christian Bale's "I AM DOOM" Batman voice *almost* could fail but holds through well and in fact arguably works even more effectively as the film goes, as we get used to it more. With that as an effective anchor, the rest follows.

* Hands down best overall performance -- Oldman. Nothing against Bale at all, in fact, because I think he did a fine, fine job, but Oldman was, just, the best balance between the hyperreality of the setting and story and a regular Joe, and played it as such, and never stepped out of it. That Oldman knows how to nail an American accent was clear years ago, he's done many inspired performances since with many different varieties of same. That he could *perfectly* disappear into the role -- reminiscent of Miller's Gordon in his Batman: Year One without being an exact equivalent -- was inspiring, in a way. He was easily the best character I could enjoy seeing a separate movie about, an alternate approach where it's Gordon's story with Batman to the side. Part of it was the deft hints at there being more to say -- the brief observation of his family at home, the sense of his frustrations and disappointments over the years -- but part of it was him feeling very lived in, very there. It was almost too good at parts, if that makes sense -- where Katie Holmes was just bluntly functional at best (I honestly think the tone of her voice was the worst part, something too...I dunno, light, breezy even?), Oldman's Gordon could have been something near to a documentary performance. And as noticed above, that brief 'Sorry!' almost says it all.

* As for the rest, good ensemble cast with some standouts and some thankless parts. Caine basically played Alfred-as-Caine but the humour was definitely a good outlet without making his role comic -- his combination of frustration/anger/sarcasm/being 'proper' when delivering the push-up line as the Wayne manor burns was emblematic, as was the one time when his sudden burst of anger towards Wayne gave just enough hinting of depth without being a forced "Look! See! Depth!" moment. I liked Freeman's easygoing nature but the role was plug and play, more's the pity. Hauer having gone from being Roy Batty twenty five years ago to being a proto Dr. Tyrell now was kinda funny if you look at it that way (and I do). Holmes, as mentioned...well, anyway. Did a poor job handling The Big Issue Speeches, but then again she was stuck with them -- as was...

* Neeson, who essentially played a Dark Side of the Force Quigon Jinn. Now don't get me wrong, he did a fine job of it, though as friend Tom told me afterwards, "He has to watch out or he'll be typecast as Mr. Miyagi from here on in" (and for all I know he was that in Kingdom of Heaven). And as I mentioned, the whole trick lies in playing it straight, which he did -- I could be wrong, I don't think he smiled once in the film, which was true to the character as set up in this interpretation, a pitiless man with an overarching mission. But as an opponent for Bale things fell apart a touch when the two of them were facing off verbally towards the end -- given that the actual knock-down drag-out final fight was a mash and mush of quick edits that frankly I found hard to follow, the confrontation in Wayne Manor needed to work more than it did, especially since the twinges of ambiguity worked much more effectively at the start of the film during the training than at the end. That the film allowed Bale space to explore the ambiguity more during its length is to its credit, that it fell off too swiftly towards the end isn't. In the end, the last two-line exchange between the two on the train before Batman escapes works better and says more about the two characters than the Manor sequence as a whole.

* Meanwhile, Murphy was *very* nice as Scarecrow, the more so because he played him as a character who wasn't necessarily invested in being Scarecrow all the time, or rather that he didn't need to become Scarecrow to be unsettling, evil-doing, etc. The spookout sequences with Batman and Falcone were brutally effective (though the bad 'lighten up' joke with Batman shouldn't have been there) but the absolute most scary part was Crane introducing Holmes's character to the poison prep room and calmly, casually talking about what happens next. Followed as it was by her panicked bolt away (and how that was edited), the scenes worked *very* well. I would like to see him come back if they can make the character all the more damaged from the results of this film, building on it rather than just simply more of the same.

* And speaking of scary. Y4ncey called it and while I don't think it was truly *always* creepout central it got closer than not. Where I think the action scenes could be flawed they were at their best when suggesting uncontrollable chaos and fear, thus the panicked men at the drug dropoff being taken out in a group. But it was the building up to that point which made it work, the sense that something was picking them off one by one. It immediately reminded me of Alien, an impression further heightened by the way Batman would grab victims at points to suddenly haul them up in the sky, unexpected, terrifying -- think of Harry Dean Stanton suddenly hauled up into the shuttle bay by the still not full seen/apprenhended alien itself. Another film referenced, at least semi-consciously, was probably The Silence of the Lambs -- anything at least partially set in an asylum might well have to deal with that nowadays, but the sense of different layers and atmospheres in the asylum, as well as the spreadeagled (but not eviscerated) Falcone on the searchlight, called the comparison to mind. There were other steals and references but always fairly deftly done, no complaints there at all -- when it works, it works well.

* Random thoughts since I actually do have to work a bit here -- the music wasn't that bad, but didn't stand out, it was appropriate, for better or for worse; the Iceland-based shots for the training at the beginning were indeed really something, very good atmosphere, as well as excellent set design for the monastery itself; similarly using Chicago as the base for the city itself was a nice variant on using NYC, say -- favorite shot might actually be the early morning one where Batman stands calmly on an outcrop of building while the camera swoops around to silhouette him against the rising sun; the Batmobile made me think of the Dark Knight Returns tank in miniature -- and why not?; a couple of instances aside, the humor throughout seemed to be handled just fine so I'm not too sure about the complaints there; the actual death of Wayne's parents was I thought kinda weak (and the whole stethoscope thing and all that...eh, whatever); absolutely LOVED how there were no credits at all until the very end, not even the film title; sound and visual design top notch.

And there ya go. For now!

I'm glad you picked up on the Gordon stuff, Ned. I was re-reading Year One last week and feeling that it was as much Gordon's story as Batman's and, geez, if Gordon's POV wasn't the more interesting one, especially as it allows us to indulge in the intended effect of a man dressing up as a bat, rather than peer inside his mind.
Also, I noticed some heavy Taxi Driver riffs in YO that I didn't notice the first time I read it (which, um, I don't think I'd seen Taxi Driver when I was 12, so big whoop).

Anyway, I love Jim Gordon, and Ed Brubraker did a really cool "imaginary story" about Gordon post WWII called Batman: Gotham Noir a few years ago, that's everything the title implies.

Absolutely would have loved it. It was killer casting and man if he didn't take an on-the-face-of-it subsidiary role and make it crucial.

I was re-reading Year One last week and feeling that it was as much Gordon's story as Batman's and, geez, if Gordon's POV wasn't the more interesting one, especially as it allows us to indulge in the intended effect of a man dressing up as a bat, rather than peer inside his mind.

Very much so. I don't want to over-read a potential Year One influence into Batman Begins but I think Gordon's character/appearance was one part of a clear bleedover.

Also, I noticed some heavy Taxi Driver riffs in YO that I didn't notice the first time I read it (which, um, I don't think I'd seen Taxi Driver when I was 12, so big whoop).

You know what the scenes with Gordon in the film made me think of, when was partnered with the corrupt cop? Serpico, The French Connection -- very much had that feeling, down the line. (The club scene with Falcone also suggested the club scene near the start of French Connection, when Hackman gets his first suspicions.)

Ha, I guess you're right! I know that much about the varying stories at least.

The Batman myth presists and matters because it affirms that some insults don’t heal with time—nor does the struggle not to use past scarring as rationale for present bad behavior. Burton understood this, but romanticized his hero’s suffering, glamming it up in freakshow goth. In a final paradox, Nolan, who name-checks Jung to affirm his awareness of archetypes, strips his incredibly inventive film of any character-distancing fancy. In this finest iteration of the partially destroyed child-man legend, Nolan makes us feel protective of both his literally bipolar hero and the extraordinary movie he inhabits.

Thing is, the more I play the movie back in my head, the more really impressive things come to me. (Something I might expect from an Ozu film, say, but not Nolan, who I really was sort of distnatly interested in before this.) I'm seeing it again this weekend. Paying, even!

I just read somewhere that Sarah Michelle Geller was up for the role visited by Cruise's new cover story. Hmm.

I'll grant ya that, but it's definitely one of the most "DO YOU SEE?" moments in modern creative lit -- perhaps by default and perhaps because that's what the medium/story would have allowed/demanded at the time. As Huk notes this isn't an auteurist film, despite many trappings (I haven't even talked much about the beginning of the film yet!) -- something that would have made it more so might have been pulling the 'what you don't see gets more horrible in your imagination' trick, which in respects is much of the rest of the film.

I could argue that, with his otherwise pretty rigorous psych approach, it would have been more powerful if Wayne's memory of the event had been more fragmented, more open to multiple takes on the memory, as it would in real life.

Not the highlight of the film, for certain. But so much other good stuff.

They should have John Malkovich as a villian in the next one and then Glenn Close in a role in the one after that and then huzzah! All of Dangerous Liaisons would have been in a Batman movie one way or another. Except for Keanu. Good thing too.

"I'm THE BARBER."

SPOILER:

THE BIT WHERE HE SUMMONS BATS

using Chicago as the base for the city itself was a nice variant on using NYC, say

It was very well done, and the "this city's whole goverment is rotten and everything's run by gangsters" angle fits Chicago very well. I loved the Board of Trade building as the Wayne Building. Some of the helicopter shots of the city were unretouched, I noticed -- just shots of Chicago. Nice.

BUT there's one overriding reason that Gotham cannot be New York City, and has to be Chicago: Chicago has alleys. You have got to have alleys. That's where the bad crime happens, and where the bats drop from fire escapes in the rain. Do you see?

Hay guys let's remake knight rider except instead of a super gay 80s corvette we can make him a busted up Hummer with rocket launchers

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/batmobilerollingstone.jpg

do people who write this kind of thing know what 'auteur' means, where the idea comes from? as it happens howard hawks and alfred hitchcock worked once in a while with the world's biggest entertainment conglomerates.

And my memory is a little hazy, but didn't Burton's movie limit that scene to shadowy flashbacks (a hand holding a gun, etc.)? I think it was already done the way you suggest, and given the increased time spent on Wayne's childhood and parents, it would have been a copout not to actually show the shooting.

I was gonna ask the same question as Jordan re: the death scene, but was gonna be really rude about it, as is my wont. From what I recall (and don't mind me if I remember things a bit slanted):

Burton - slow-mo echoed horsecrap, almost pantomimed, leering sinister crooks, and OF COURSE that crook becomes the Joker (oh the pathos!)

Nolan - in real-time, actual interaction between the criminal and the victim, actual TENSION (cf. when the wallet drops), crook as lost befuddled desperate soul driven to such depths (apparent even w/out all the depression discussion), actual Bruce-parent interaction prior to that so viewers give a crap when the parents get popped, the insertion of Bruce's guilt into the scenario (cf. wanting to leave the opera house), and the lack of romanticized foofah when the gun goes off (tho, in hindsight, Mr. Wayne getting off that one line is a bit hokey, but, @ the same time, it dovetails nicely w/ what preceded it).

Yeah, yeah, but maybe I didn't put fine enough a point on it. Batman is not just any filmic property, he's a fucking brand, and a pretty big one. For the last 20 years, Batman has been the biggest (and nearly ONLY at times) moneymaker from DC Comics. On the one hand, yeah, Batman is a modern myth, an operatic iteration of the post-Depression urbanization, but on the other hand, Batman is Ronald McDonald.

I admit I actually liked the creepy sense of slow motion/unsettled music in the Burton depiction, at least as the scene begins. With this version, I suspect part of me may well have just been *impatient* -- like a, "Look, we know, okay?" Which for those that don't know is admittedly unfair. But also I thought the conclusion of the scene -- kid slumped to his knees, folks sprawling out on either side -- was a little too self-consciously staged in a movie where most such scenes are done with plot-derived intent (the multiple ninja scene in the monastery, for instance, or Falcone spreadeagled on the searchlight).

Also, frankly, I was a bit dulled by the young Bruce's reaction to it all. I suppose it's really hard to convey near instant shock and make it seem like something as compelling as "I've got a splinter in my foot. Ouch. I think I'll vaguely sniffle." The fact that it's immediately followed by Oldman's first appearance trying to figure out *how* to convey sympathy/assistance to young Bruce -- you can sense him trying to find the right words/attitude/etc., like you suspect just about anyone else would in that situation -- kicks the acting up a notch and has more of an impact in my mind.

xpost

I guess I can see where Burton's self-aware staging of the event is less cloying than Nolan's "less artistic" attempt at verisimilitude, but at the same time, Ned, you're on crack, and you like Star Wars, so SHAVE THOSE SIDEBURNS HIPPY!

Off-topic: did anyone get the long Charlie & the Chocolate Factory trailer? W/ the usual Burtonesque weirdness and the strange "hey, it's a KID'S MOVIE!" vibe? What the hell?!?

The trailer I got was pretty much the same as the one I had seen with a couple of different camera shots.

Linus Roache was so good as a child molestor in Priest that he's given off that creepy vibe in every movie I've seen him in since.

SCENE: THING looks across a dinner table at INVISIBLE WOMAN

CUT TO: THING looking much different

THING: "I had a wonderful time contemplating things."

CUT TO: INVISIBLE WOMAN looking somehow older.

I.W.: "I think there are bad things."

HUMAN TORCH is seen in high chair smearing food over his face.

Sky High may not look "good", but it had Dave Foley, Kevin MacDonald and Bruce Campbell so I'll give it a shot.

http://vondoom.free.fr/Images/Interviews/Paul%20Ryan/byrne2.jpg

I feel kind of embarassed about it but I liked Constantine WAY better than this movie. Batman Begins should have been better with the amazing cast but Constantine was just so much more fresh and different. Batman Begins was a little too good and by-the-books and ultimately just predictable and dull. The criticisms of the mind-numbing action close-ups are OTM. Katie Holmes was pretty bad.

I think it's insane that anyone would genuinely argue that this was a better movie than the first Burton Batman. Perhaps too much time has passed and people are forgetting the impact of seeing that first Batman for the first time.

"a little too good" oops. My point there being that it was too boringly faithful or something. Too much what you might be expecting from a modern Batman, so that there were no real surprises.

Batman Begins is probably the 1st Batman film audiences will be emotionally engaged with. It seems so right to take things back to a place of primal, thematically confident origin. The quickly cut close ups in the fight scenes didn't bother me like they do in Bruckheimer films, as this method of covering the action is actually motivated in Batman Begins, since Batman is feared (and described) as a kind abstraction. I was actually specifically impressed while watching it that Christopher Nolan was able to motivate a feeling of viewer disorientation in this way.

I got that in spades, but that might've been because I saw it on an IMAX screen. Not recommended for movies with a lot of cutting and hand-held camera.

That said, Theodore's thoughts on Burton v. Nolan here are pretty apt, I think. There *is* nostalgia at work here, and the slam-bang nature of the first Burton film's trailer didn't really match up with the end result, where the Nolan trailers here are pretty much OTM in terms of the feel and impact of the final film.

Batman Begins is probably the 1st Batman film audiences will be emotionally engaged with. It seems so right to take things back to a place of primal, thematically confident origin. The quickly cut close ups in the fight scenes didn't bother me like they do in Bruckheimer films, as this method of covering the action is actually motivated in Batman Begins, since Batman is feared (and described) as a kind abstraction. I was actually specifically impressed while watching it that Christopher Nolan was able to motivate a feeling of viewer disorientation in this way.

-- theodore fogelsanger (tf28390...), June 18th, 2005.

otm

Anyomne who's been involved in violence, whether street level or the more refined sort of a martial arts bout, will report that it looks a helluva lot more like Nolan's version than The Matrix.

My argument to a large degree rests on taking Nolan's insistance that there was no real second unit director--that the film cost so much and took so much time because when it came down to designing shots and actually shotting film, he was always running the show.

On a second viewing, there's a wonderful sort of two-part invention thing going on in the monorail scene that obliterates the stance that Nolan cannot direct easily-pased action.

The shot of the train, its raidly moving place in the city, Gordon's movement of the Batmobile to its ultimate location, the train breaking in two, cut to Liam steeling himself for his ultimate fate--this is all done in classic, clean form.

The final human battlebetween the two within the train is a nightmare of flaing arms, falling bodies, blur edits and so on--the violent din of their last battle, a visual echo of their first fight, their relationship's real beginning, on the lake.

It's really quite brilliant, really. Elegant, even.

I mean he's addressing two events from two aesthtically consistent POVs, staying true to his design schemata.

We need clean, fairly basic filmmaking to know what the hell is going on with the monorail--long shots of the rail, the place where it will fall, etc--Gordoon--moving the car into position *under* the rail--etc.

While we need the emotional cacophony, the drama of the man to man violence--which, as I said, is an action continuation of their relationship as characters.

It's more 'real' and less pornographic--that is, an invitation to fetishistically enjoy the violent act via visual manipulation.

The Matrix films play with spatiality and time to allow us to deeply wallow in the trajectory of the bullet and multiple ways we can view the spectacle, building anticipation of the inevitable cumshot of it hitting someone, and subsequant, literally 'cool' ways to show that impact. Cool, because the violence has become completely abstracted and decoid of human drama.

Bruckheimer just piles on endless visually saturated shots of whatever moving somehwere really fast until the inevitable fussilade of camera angles showing whatever getting blown up by something colorfully and then onward to the next reiteration. It's Videodrome on amphetimines and with the aesthetic sense of a low attention span serial killer.

Nolan's approach is the only one I'd label admirable.

And one that will invite a fair amount of reverence. Which probably best explains why I felt left out in the cold by this one.

Maybe because that would make the widely-acknowledged subtext a little too creepy.

http://www.fusedmagazine.com/Assets/Images/Articles/article_full/batman.jpg

I guess that's why it bored me. I'm not really looking for realistic portrayals of violence when I go see a comic book movie. I would have gladly sacrificed some of that realism for a little more style.

But 'realism' is a style. I mean, this is *way* stylized--and in several modes.

When first I heard that Nolan was intent on NOT making a comic hero film, I was like, Oye, great.

But he's done just that--it's almost sui generis it's so, um, sui generis.

basically I liked most of the scenes that didn't actually have batman in them, and there were a lot of notable performances. and while I never really liked Burton's batman's movies, it's apparent to me now that he did bring something special to the table. I'm thinking back to the indescribably sad army of penguins in Batman Returns.

C Bale = great bruce wayne, hilarious batman. his batman voice was too overdone, and the actual batman mask had the unfortunate effect of making his head look like a giant, engorged ham.

This much is OTM.

Still, this one was pretty darned good as these things go. I'm anti-Burton, though, and always wanted a Batman movie that played more like a crime thriller than a superhero thriller, so I was an easy sell on this one.

Oh, come on. There's effective and ineffective pornography, and there are effective and ineffective fight scenes. The fight scenes here were more inscrutable than in Gladiator, and that's hard to do. D- on the fight scenes.

Loved the movie, though, I should say again.

I actually liked that way that was handled a lot -- other movies were much worse at making the Batman rasp sound forced/camp. In this one, I understood explicitly that the reason he was talking that way was to disguise his voice. An improvement.

I forgot to mention how awkwardly the origin story was handled. It somehow managed to feel overly long and yet rushed at the same time. I felt like the whole audience was sitting there impatiently wondering "OK, when is the action going to start" but at the same time, the filmmakers seemed to be aware of this problem so the dialog and editing were pushed along to compensate. The pacing wasn't slow enough to create a real sense of mystery and tension but it took long enough to get to the real action that the beginning felt like it dragged.

Which reminds me - what are they going to call the sequel? "Batman Continues" is unbearably lame.

I don't mind the long exposition, either, but I agree that the pacing in the first half-hour or so was strange and disconnecting. A bit of deliberately disorienting Memto pacing in a movie that had no use for such fanciness.

Loved it. Did I say that already?

I feel the opposite way. The back-story gave us plenty of plotting and not enough atmosphere. I would have loved to see more scenes of Bruce Wayne brooding in his prison cell or crouching Wind-up-bird-chronicle-style at the bottom of his well. Instead we were told what happened to him rather than seeing it for ourselves. All of that awful you have to become your fear / embrace your fear / I'm afraid of bats / bats are scary crap was completely unnecessary. Same with the awful closing line about the man beneath the mask and I-yam-what-I-yam no, you are what you do, etc.

Sure they can -- the same way I can still admire "Batman Forever" as a gay-Kilmer-camp-fest and love it dearly (and somewhat oddly), and still think this was the Batman movie that that should have been made the first time.

(More seriously, there are things about the Burton Batman films I loved and others that sucked or felt forced both at the time and now as well.)

From me, it's not revisionism. I thought they were crap then, too. If you have some idea that the love for them was unanimous, that's your problem.

I didn't find it especially compelliing, but I did find it exactlty what you do not -- necessary. Backstory is something that, even in the Burton movies, Batman lacked.

Burton, for all his talents, made not only cartoons, but fairly boring ones, when the day was all over with.

It's driving me crazy! In 2005, after some good and bad Batman films, after X-men and Spiderman, post-Matrix and a billion other by-the-numbers "dark & gritty" sci-fi movies, is this Batman movie really that much of an achievement? Is this really the best they can come up with? The jump between Superman and other previous superhero films and the first Burton Batman was immense! Plus Burton managed to find a middle ground between the darkness and the camp (which, you know, some people actually like). And to return to this discussion about the back story, the Burton movie managed to convey who Batman was and what motivates him just fine while still managing to be fun.

All of the dialog about conquering your fears was necessary? Because, you know, I got the point perfectly well when all of the bats flew at him as a kid. But I felt like I was being reminded about it every 10 minutes for the next hour.

1. Denny O'Neill/Neal Adams
2. Frank Miller (and sometimes David Mazzuchelli)
3. Alan Moore/Brian Bolland
4. Matt Wagner

All told, pretty slim pickins from the history of the character, true, but it's what I've liked and it ain't hardly fun.

Let's assume, as I do, that a superhero needs a cultural context in order to be super. And when they get updated, they need an updated context in order to work properly.

X-Men -- Loved the gay subtext. Best and cleanest update ever. Spiderman -- the message about "responsibility" is a little muddled, and the second movie was wise to keep everything firmly in the ridiculous, even though the reason people read comic books is not to feel ridiculous. Matrix -- ok, whatever. A great potential myth that pissed on its own fire. Quickly, no less. Matrix doesn't belong in this conversation. Not that you really put it there.

But Batman can still work. There is real potential in Batman, like I said before, in the fear of urbanization. The crime and density and alienation and the feeling of being alone and weird and friendless -- these are HUGE themes, and Batman can conceivably cover all of them very well, if written properly.

Superheroes are us, or they are nothing.

ok back up here... despite my love for burtonbatman and stuff, superman i & ii are still WAAYYY better movies. supes 1 is still my favourite superhero movie of all time, i think.

Also, sweet jeebus, I have no idea what you folks are bitching about wrt the origin cross-cutting. It seemed pretty clear that the scenes in Asia and the scenes in Gotham were happening at two different times, and the script was pretty explicit on when these transitions between Asia and Gotham were going to happen (cf. Qui-Gon asking "well, what do you fear?" and then, hey, kiddie bat flashback, or "well, why can't you exact your revenge?", and then hey, Jack Ruby flashback). Yeah, bitching about the few misgivings folks are having for a flick that they're generally impressed w/ might be nitpickery of the worst kind, but COME ON PEOPLE.

If you're gonna bitch, bitch about the convenient action-movie tropes that the overall excellence of the movie managed to disguise - "hey, there's Officer Gordon chatting w/ Commissioner Loeb right at the spot where the Batmobile lands after jumping the bridge into The Narrows!" Or, "Wow, it sure was convenient for Batman to get gangtackled by those tweaked civilians right under the train line just as the train was passing!" Or, "Gee, it's a good thing Alfred was able to take out that League of Shadows thug w/ one swing of his driver!"

(PS Ned: you are completely, totally, utterly wrong about the death scene. XOXOXO.)

But oughtn't the utter silliness of the whole concept be played for fun rather more, as done with "Dr Who", say. Rather than treated so portentously. They were laughs, certainly, but I'm not sure how intentional they were. But this should only be done very carefully, as wasn't in the post-Burton Batman films.

Certainly much more to my taste than "Star Wars", though I'm not sure it would measure up against "Spiderman II", which of this sort sounds the most I'd like (need to see that urgently). But seriously, a genuine sense of the absurd would have made it all even more palatable.

- establishing a credible origin for Batman in terms of moral center, skill set and equipment
- establishing Batman's allies within the system
- establishing the origins of Batman's Rogue's Gallery and escalating the criminal core of Gotham to its costumed insanity point

It delivers very well on all three, all the while telling you a complete story but leaving you wishing the second installment was just around the corner AND putting these plot points forward with well-realized characterization.

Also, playing the concept for fun kind of undercuts the inherent trauma of an 8-year-old watching a thug gun down his parents in a dark alley.

I agree that the approach is difficult to pull off, but maybe I'm just feeling something of a residual fondness for the old TV series, which used to be on when i were a kid, so like. The very first Batman movie, from 1966 lest we forget, ought not to be considered a completely invalid approach to the franchise.

Yes, there were a few chuckle-worthy lines and bits (Wayne. "A guy who dresses up as a bat... has to have issues"), but there could have been more without detracting from the overall mood. Yet, it certainly stands as way better than "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin", must be said.

And I was certainly never suggesting they play the actual trauma for laughs, though I actually found that the Opera scene rather successfully tread that line between silly and dark.

(i was responding to this. i agree & i really reject the idea that nolan's batman invalidates anything!)

And, yeah, s1ocki OTM re: the strength of comic characters (and "pulp" characters in general) being their malleability and adaptability. It's not dissimilar from how Shakespeare's plays can "survive" being performed in different costumes / settings (thinking more of stagings of plays circa WWII or in a corporate setting more than the Baz Lur. Romeo), or adapted to fit a certain story (cf. Ten Things...). (Hey, look at me going for the canonical comparison point to validate funny books! I'm such a goof.)

I WUV YOU TOO.

I R pleased that you lurv the film, but I am also not surprised either. ;-)

Somebody told me/I read somewhere that somebody was rumoured to be playing the Joker in the next one, but I can't remember who it was - anybody heard anything?

Mark Hammill, astonishingly.

The goggles, they do nothing (because they weren't on Batman's ass)

That was it! Imagine!

Hammill does the voice on the animated series and has kind of become the definitive Joker voice because of that. I kind of can't imagine him prancing around in a real-life Joker outfit, though.

(also, both myself and the folks I went with wanted to see the Batman Begins movie again almost immediately - Spiderman I *did* see several times in rapid succession and each time I thought it got worse).

Read upthread. ;-)

jocelyn, he looks like Jim Gordon!

ahhh - that's right, that was nagging at my brain. Cuz movie's Flass = comics' Harvey Bullock.

in other words, Rex Reed is gay and he's angry that this movie didn't provide any wanking material.

x-x-x-post godDAMMIT!

(xpost: Judging by what my straight female and gay male frineds have been saying, Christian Bale sans shirt = primo wanking material.)

That Rex Reed review reads like he was almost watching a completely different movie from the one I saw.

(I remember the Flash TV series - it sucked, but Mark Hammill had a wacky two-toned costume... shit, I forget who he was, off to IMDB).

Bale as Batman was the first to put pen to paper, followed by Caine as
butler Alfred and Freeman as Bruce Wayne's business associate Lucius Fox.

But Holmes won't reprise her role as district attorney Rachel Dawes --
reportedly because Warner Bros. is angry her engagement to Tom Cruise has
stolen media attention away from the movie.

A source tells Page Six, "Everyone is in agreement that the movie's
strength is with Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman."

Adding of Holmes, "She won't be in the sequel ... the next romantic
interest will be a much stronger actress.

"Warner is happy that people are now focusing on who'll be playing the
Joker rather than Katie and Tom."

CRISPIN GLOVER as the Joker!

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Rex Reed has recently pushed for NYFCO acting awards for Jeremy Sumpter and Emile Hirsch, so there you have it.

"OMG BRUCE WAYNE IS BATMAN!"

Imagine him doing this one.
"OMG BRUCE WAYNE IS BATMAN!"

And yet I'm reading scores of defenses for this film's elementary chronological juggling and its lame fight scenes.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40641000/jpg/_40641684_cruise203.jpg

CRUISEBOT CARES NOT THAT HOLMESBOT IS NOT RECAST. CRUISEBOT HAS OTHER THINGS TO DO. I ACKNOWLEDGE CROWD.

True.

Ah yes, the Trickster. Sub-Riddler character.

oh man. the riddler is already so sub-joker.

Sir, at heart I am only cruel to you.

OW MY BRANE

He keeps this body morphing shit up, he'll kill himself. To go from less-than-dead to buff, well, I imagine that for months he:

Woke up at 4AM. Shoot up steroids, drink a shitload of protein, aerobics for an hour, pass out.

6AM. Woke up, sho0t up with Human Growth Hormone, more aerobics, eat some high calorie meal, pass out.

8 AM. Wake up, take more androgens, puke, pump iron for a few hours, answer email briskly.

Noon. More iron pumping, probably more drugs.

2PM. Another big meal.

3PM. Boxing, or some other stretch/pull excercize, perhaps enhanced by some sort of speedish drug.

5 PM. 3 steaks.

7PM - 8PM. Vibrate; take some Xanex.

8:30. Puke.

9PM. Watch Val Kilmer BATMAN, hiss "Pussy!", pass out.

Repeat for several months, no days off.

The whole beginning was just...MY KINGDOM FOR A CONCRETE NOUN. Control your fear, my anger outweighs by fear, vengeance your truth, all this grandiose talk that added up to jack shit. Between this and Episode One I'm surprised Liam Neeson hasn't jumped off a roof. Morgan Freeman bringing amiable warmth to a movie is right up there with me taking a good shit after eating taco bell in the Not News department. Michael Caine got shouldered with the rare and clumsy capper quips. Christian Bale was passable as Bruce Wayne but added little and JESUS CHRIST his Batman voice is hysterical. He already sounds a tad awkward anyway but when he gravels up and goes for ominous he's just pathetic. Michael Keaton did a way better job giving Batman a personality.

Aside from a few early moments with Thomas Wayne (well cast) and maybe Gordon (Gary Oldman was the only actor who seemed really intriguing in the parts I caught, sort of reminded me of Laurence Olivier in The Boys From Brazil in his determination to not just coast on skills a la Caine and Freeman but have something going under the surface despite being in an overwraught joke of a movie), the scenes just zipped along without gripping me despite their weighty tone. Actually it might be BECAUSE of that tone. I know a lot of people are anxious for a 'serious' Batman movie but Batman and all superheroes are to some degree completely ludicrous. It's hard to look at a LIVE HUMAN wearing that outfit and not giggle, ESPECIALLY when they're being excruciatingly earnest, and this movie seemed to be under the notion that we were at church.

I have a hard time believing this movie is gonna have legs at the theatre, but hey evidently people like draggy, self-serious tripe. I did like Holmes' homage to the batnipples.

Can you point me at a movie that is enjoyable if you sleep through half of it?

DAMN YOU DANG!

(xpost: HAHA)

x-post dude I was SO paying attention to the movie. I wasn't blitzed off my gourd.

"Oh god no! I fell asleep five minutes in! The music were awful, the lyrics were laughable, the costumes were ludicrous, and the blocking was from a public-school talent show. Nighttrain?"

Miccio wins!

(xpost: Tom, I don't know exactly how much I'd have to drink before voluntarily watching "The Hunger" but I suspect it might put me in the hospital.)

Dammit how come I remember the exact track order of Morrissey albums and not the names of lesbian vampire films?

BTW if Miccio had posted saying "I walked out halfway through, it was shit and here's why" would people still complain? I agree the "easy dismissal" comment was way cheeky.

Tom, please to research the name of this "lesbian vampire" movie so I can get my post-work alcopop schwerve on. (Oh dang was it some Deneuve / Sarandon nookie? Oh yeah.)

ESPECIALLY the batmobile. The batmobile ESPECIALLY.

NB: I have always hated Batman.

No not that one either Andrew :(

Confirmed: Yes, Tim Booth from James as Mr Zsaz!

(xpost: ... "Queen of the Damned"? Hahahaha.)

Also I love IMDB so much: all 15 films with vampire-lesbian as a plot keyword

Well, yes. See above:

I have a gigantic list of mean things to insinuate about people who didn't like this movie that I might get around to posting after lunchtime. So far this is easily my movie of the year.

My unreasoning ardor aside, the thing I'm reacting to here is the idea that if you only watch part of something in an altered state, your opinion on it is just as valid as someone who watched the entire thing sober. That particular flavor of egomania really, really, really irks me (largely because I am prone towards displaying it and therefore seek to crush it in myself and wherever I perceive it).

Also, I would LOVE to know where one can glean any humorlessness from my posts. Do I need to wear a clown nose on my wang to get roffles?

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0066518/

xpost I think the critical line "If this superhero blockbuster was any good I wouldn't need to watch the entire thing sober" is a valid one! If very Miccio-ish.

I am not a humorless person who is a fan of Batman.

And to demostrate that I have a sense of humor, allow me to cut and paste the entire contents of a joke-of-the-day mailing list that I have been receiving for 4 years in my next several posts...

x-post

He's the guy that Dr. Crane is defending in his first scene, and the one that Batman swoops on when they're all menacing Katie Holmes near the end.

Dude, see it sober, and know when to stay down.

On and on the rain will fall
Like tears from a star like tears from a star
On and on the rain will say
How fragile we are how fragile we are
How fragile we are how fragile we are

;) ;) ;) ;) :P :P :P :P %) %) %) %)

http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/batman_infrontofbatmobile.jpg

TurdTank, AWAY!

http://www.spidermedia.ru/comics2movie/b/batman/5-begins/pics/batmobile/batman2.jpg

Yeah, wtf, I said this at the time as well! I was 7.

Tom, have you seen the second part of that trilogy, Lust For A Vampire? The girl who plays Carmilla in it is so, so hot!

The opinion of a half-awake drunk >>> the opinion of someone who doesn't like the Hunger.

And will there be a "delete Katie Holmes" option on the DVD? Seriously, whenever she was on screen it felt liked someone hooked up a 16-ton weight to the movie and threw it off a bridge.

Liam Neeson should play more bad guys.

ET OTM about Liam Neeson.

Dan OTM about backstory et al.

Well, yeah. Batman was a total riff on The Shadow & like-minded pulp characters. To wit:

"[Bob] Kane and [Bill] Finger got together and brainstormed the new character DC wanted. Kane suggested a pair of bat-style wings, which he'd doodled in sketchbooks for years. Finger proposed the wings be turned into a more practical, yet uniquely scalloped cape, then added a triangular motif to the costume, including triangular "fins" protruding from Batman's gloves, and pointy bat ears. In formulating the basic story line, the two drew upon favorite films (such as The Bat Whispers, in which a detective prowls the night as a killer wearing an ungainly bat-mask); novels (such as Johnston McCulley's All-Story Weekly, in which the rich playboy Zorro becomes an avenger by night, and the various books featuring Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, who utilized deductive reasoning to solve crimes); and radio programs (such as The Shadow, in which wealthy playboy Lamont Cranston used his mastery of disguise to strike fear in the hearts of criminals)."

Still waiting on this list, as it applies to me.

the thing I'm reacting to here is the idea that if you only watch part of something in an altered state, your opinion on it is just as valid as someone who watched the entire thing sober.

Incidentally, I consider watching it in IMAX to be tantamount to an unplesant altered state. That's why I'm still willing to hold out "final" judgement on, if nothing else, the "coherence" of the action sequences, until I see it in a realistic format. (Though I'm guessing the overall emo dourness of the film is probably just as overbearing in 35mm.)

(xx-post d'oh, beaten to the emo-labelling punch!)

The guy sitting behind me kept snickering at the dialogue. Being an action film I didn't really expect much in that category but he was right to laugh.

YAY

It was okay, but certainly no great shakes. Like Spider-Man, it was too concerned with setting up the backstory for sequels so that the Arkham plot was rushed and unsatisfying. If the entire movie had been the setup, I think I would have been happier (obv. this would never sell as a blockbuster action movie).

Way too thick on the Will to Power speechifying from Neeson at the beginning, and Holmes last "man I loved" speech was ridiculous and unbelievable given the amount of screen-time they shared. Basically read as a Spider-Man 2 'time to win over the girl's heart this time' play, or else an excuse to insert a new starlet/love interest for Batman Begins Again.

Bale's 'deep/gruff' superhero voice was mega-lame.

GTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!