Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Resident DVD Reviewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,202

    FINALLY - BATMAN BEGINS (Warner Brothers/DC Comics)

    Is it just me or does Christian Bale look a lot like Eric Bana?

    Anyway, FINALLY got around to renting this over the weekend, and this is going to be a kind of surface/odd-styled review because I had way too many distractions in order to watch this from beginning to end properly so I'll eventually rewatch it (either before or after Episode III: Revenge of the Sith when I buy that tomorrow) without stopping.

    My first impressions were very positive -- from the (finally) DC Comics moniker following the Warner Brothers opening logo (which Burton missed in his vision instead during the opening credits claiming "Based on Characters Appearing in the DC Comics...") to Bale's training in the Himalayans by Liam Neeson. Some things that got confusing to me came as the film developed, and perhaps some folks can clear it up for me....why exactly did Neeson's character "turn" on Bale once he's the Caped Crusader and back in Gotham? Was it because Bale burned down the camp where he was training and "left Neeson for dead" (which he really didn’t)? Was it because Neeson felt Gotham needed to be "punished" for their sins? Did this go according to the comics originally?

    What was up with the "Scarecrow" character, who was Arkum, the guy who runs the Gotham mental facility? Why did he flip and use those gases and put on that horrible mask? I thought this was mildly undeveloped.

    Now, the whole thing about how Wayne returns to Gotham, meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and begins building the Batcave, the Batmobile, making his weapons, and everything else, I just don’t know....some of it was cool, as we get a chance to see Bruce tunneling out the holes for the Batcave, but what was up with that Batmobile anyway? It was a prototype dune buggy of some kind that Fox (Freeman) had come up with, but Wayne modifies it as the "first" Batmobile----but it just looked so damn awkward compared to what we got in Tim Burton's version. But this may be going exactly to comic strategy, so I don’t know. And I have to be honest, folks....I know just about everyone in the world disagrees, and that’s okay, but I just didn’t know what to make of Bale under the cape and mask -- there was a small part of me that actually thought Keaton did a better job, especially in the first Burton picture. I thought the suit looked silly in Begins as opposed to Burton's Batman and the Caped Crusader's antics just seemed "off" compared to the way Keaton handled himself in Burton's version. It was almost as if I wish they could have taken Nolan's prequel story about how he is trained by Neeson and then returns to Gotham, and then stapled on Burton's version with Keaton to make the perfect Bat film. In all fairness, this is what Burton's film SHOULD have been, with depicting how the Caped One trained with Samurais and then returned to Gotham as Batman to seek revenge after his parents are murdered; instead, in Burton's version, the action starts off with a bang, with Keaton already being the Caped One and taking out thugs right from the beginning -- kind of what Mark Steven Johnson went for in Daredevil but what Sam Raimi did so right in his first Spider-Man film, where he showed the developing powers of Peter Parker without the need for a prequel story.

    And yes, I thought it was very clever how this newly-minted and helmed franchise is going to re-introduce the next villain, when Bale gets the bag with the Joker card inside it.....I just KNOW whoever plays this guy next (rumor has it it's going to be Johnny Depp) won't come close to Nicholson in Burton's film. And that's what makes this franchise just seem so.....odd right now....and the same thing is going to happen when Superman Returns hits the screens. We have an already-established franchise by Warner Brothers with Tim Burton directing the first two Bat films and Joel Schumacher doing the last two (which completely took us out of the whole Batman mystery with a neon-infused Gotham complete with downright horrendous and off character performances by George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Alicia Silverstone) and now Christopher Nolan comes along and creates an all-new beginning to the franchise and it just seems "odd" in conjunction with the other original franchise collection.....

    But that's not really relevant in that I thought this was clever attempt to re-tell the story as a whole, this time making better explanation of Bruce Wayne's training before becoming the Dark Knight --- and while I still have a soft spot for Michael Keaton in the first role (especially behind the mask) there is no doubt Bale was much better than Kilmer or Clooney in the role. I think all comic-turned-film stories should go this route, that is, having an explanation story attached to them as how they become these heroes; I don’t necessarily believe that they should be done with prequel re-inventions of the franchise, as in this case, but I think Sam Raimi did it best in the less-than-two-hours running time of the first Spidey picture.

    Like I said, I need to sit down and re-watch this from beginning to end without interruption to get a feel for the film again and consider whether or not this would be something worth purchasing, because, to be honest friends, at this point, I just don’t know, if you can believe that.

    Warner delivered a gorgeous widescreen transfer here for Batman Begins, one that I could detect no real problems with. I believe there's a full screen version available separately as well. The video was impressive, that I remember, but I'll go back to reconfirm.

    Audio, surprisingly, only came in a Dolby Digital 5.1 variant (being that the original franchise films were just repackaged with DTS mixes included) but this track was really no slouch -- once you applied the correct amplification to it. A bit soft in dialogue sequences, the track really heated up during action breaks with a ton of panning around the soundstage and, from what I can recall, a WALLOP of LFE which was a very nice touch. In sum, though, the track suffered from what I like to call the "Dolby Digital Decibel Level Syndrome," where you can simply tell a "blanket" could have been lifted off this track so it could breathe a bit better and deliver a bit more punch than it did at lower volume levels.
    Last edited by Lexmark3200; 10-31-2005 at 02:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    I watched Batman Begins this weekend too. Although I’m not a comic collector, I was a big fan of Frank Miller’s ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, the incredible graphic novel that set the stage for Burton’s Batman (Sin City came much later). Miller’s book is the inspiration for the movies that followed and it really developed the psychological backstory of Batman – the revenge, the guilt, the billionaire playboy vs. sadistic punisher of criminals. Keaton was good because his portrayal made batman a little mentally and violently unstable--Miller’s Batman is a hero with some hostility issues. Bale is terrific because in his portrayal, Batman’s sadistic impulses serve as an outlet for exorcising personal demons and come from cold intellect and rational, considered vengeance.

    Where Burton’s vision kept an element of comic book camp, Batman Begins generally keeps the characters very real. You don’t get that larger-than-life hero/villain thing going that pushes a movie more into fantasy. I thought the Himalayan training sessions were the least enjoyable part of the movie, BUT they were some of the better superhero character development scenes I’ve seen. They both explain why Batman is such a psychopath when it comes to nailing the bad guy, and why he draws the line where he does. It is where the line is drawn that makes Batman a ‘good guy’ and is also why Batman is an interesting superhero. Keaton's Batman was a good guy that could lose it and become Batman, Bale is an vengeful demon whose rational human-ness keeps him contained as Bruce.

    The best bit about Batman Begins?…The bats! Not only great graphics but very well integrated into the character development. Batman's got a thing about bats. It goes deep. Nicely done.

    The next best bit?… the fight scenes. Not the training ones, they were par. But the Batman ones. Lots of close quick editing. I was surprised it didn’t feel choppy. It was all very cohesive. Really gave the sense that Batman is a creature of the dark. Tension and action, not quite sure where that next blow was going to come from.

    The other best?…We didn’t cram in too many big villains. Uncluttered story. The story was good and Nolan resisted the temptation to ruin it. The movie had big spectacle, but it wasn’t forcing it on you.

    I too struggled a bit to hear the dialog in 5.1, it got late and I switched to headphones. My DVD player hung up a lot on the new DVD as well, a layer transition, and a few freezes. Maybe indicating not the best audio transfer, but that’s speculation. Video looked nice. Katie Holmes clearly had to do a lot of her scenes in chilly rooms.

  3. #3
    Resident DVD Reviewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    I watched Batman Begins this weekend too. Although I’m not a comic collector, I was a big fan of Frank Miller’s ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, the incredible graphic novel that set the stage for Burton’s Batman (Sin City came much later). Miller’s book is the inspiration for the movies that followed and it really developed the psychological backstory of Batman – the revenge, the guilt, the billionaire playboy vs. sadistic punisher of criminals. Keaton was good because his portrayal made batman a little mentally and violently unstable--Miller’s Batman is a hero with some hostility issues. Bale is terrific because in his portrayal, Batman’s sadistic impulses serve as an outlet for exorcising personal demons and come from cold intellect and rational, considered vengeance.

    Where Burton’s vision kept an element of comic book camp, Batman Begins generally keeps the characters very real. You don’t get that larger-than-life hero/villain thing going that pushes a movie more into fantasy. I thought the Himalayan training sessions were the least enjoyable part of the movie, BUT they were some of the better superhero character development scenes I’ve seen. They both explain why Batman is such a psychopath when it comes to nailing the bad guy, and why he draws the line where he does. It is where the line is drawn that makes Batman a ‘good guy’ and is also why Batman is an interesting superhero. Keaton's Batman was a good guy that could lose it and become Batman, Bale is an vengeful demon whose rational human-ness keeps him contained as Bruce.

    The best bit about Batman Begins?…The bats! Not only great graphics but very well integrated into the character development. Batman's got a thing about bats. It goes deep. Nicely done.

    The next best bit?… the fight scenes. Not the training ones, they were par. But the Batman ones. Lots of close quick editing. I was surprised it didn’t feel choppy. It was all very cohesive. Really gave the sense that Batman is a creature of the dark. Tension and action, not quite sure where that next blow was going to come from.

    The other best?…We didn’t cram in too many big villains. Uncluttered story. The story was good and Nolan resisted the temptation to ruin it. The movie had big spectacle, but it wasn’t forcing it on you.

    I too struggled a bit to hear the dialog in 5.1, it got late and I switched to headphones. My DVD player hung up a lot on the new DVD as well, a layer transition, and a few freezes. Maybe indicating not the best audio transfer, but that’s speculation. Video looked nice. Katie Holmes clearly had to do a lot of her scenes in chilly rooms.
    Nice summary, Noddin. I pretty much agree with everything you say here. And I KNEW it wasnt just me who was hearing that "low decibel" issue with the dialogue on this Dolby track; the mix itself was nice -- lots and lots of detail, surround information, directionality and thuds of LFE, but there was that typical Dolby Digital "quietness" to the mix that some say comes from Dialog Normalization techniques. I agree the video looked nicer than the audio sounded on the disc.

  4. #4
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    Still waiting for mine in the mail. Nice reviews. I don't remember too much from seeing it at the theater, so you guys have really wet my appetite. I'm really looking foward to seeing this one again.

  5. #5
    Resident DVD Reviewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by L.J.
    Still waiting for mine in the mail. Nice reviews. I don't remember too much from seeing it at the theater, so you guys have really wet my appetite. I'm really looking foward to seeing this one again.
    Sorry I couldnt give this more input, LJ, as I myself need to rewatch it under better conditions because there's just so much that was missed and that I didnt understand, but Noddin seems to be the bigger Batman fan here and has knowledge of the differences between the pictures and their visions; I guess you liked the film enough to buy on DVD even after not really remembering much about it in the theater, huh? Here's what Im still stuck with:

    -Is Nolan's "Begins" going more according to the comics or the Dark Knight legacy thing?
    -Is the tumbler car what the Batmobile was supposed to look like according to the comics -- not the flashy thing we see in Burton's version?
    -Is Bruce's whole training sequence in "Begins" accurate to the comics or were there liberties taken like Burton did in HIS version (The Joker killing Wayne's parents, etc; in reality, Joe Chill murdered Bruce's parents but Burton changed it to Jack Napier AKA The Joker; WHY?)

    Im just confused as to who made the more accurate film in terms of following the real story of the Caped Crusader.

  6. #6
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lexmark3200
    Sorry I couldnt give this more input, LJ, as I myself need to rewatch it under better conditions because there's just so much that was missed and that I didnt understand, but Noddin seems to be the bigger Batman fan here and has knowledge of the differences between the pictures and their visions; I guess you liked the film enough to buy on DVD even after not really remembering much about it in the theater, huh? Here's what Im still stuck with:

    -Is Nolan's "Begins" going more according to the comics or the Dark Knight legacy thing?
    -Is the tumbler car what the Batmobile was supposed to look like according to the comics -- not the flashy thing we see in Burton's version?
    -Is Bruce's whole training sequence in "Begins" accurate to the comics or were there liberties taken like Burton did in HIS version (The Joker killing Wayne's parents, etc; in reality, Joe Chill murdered Bruce's parents but Burton changed it to Jack Napier AKA The Joker; WHY?)

    Im just confused as to who made the more accurate film in terms of following the real story of the Caped Crusader.
    You may have to do a little research to find those answers. I talked with my dad about the training in the mountains part and he believes this was accurate with the comics. That's the best answer I can give you. I flipped through some comics and watched the comic based cartoons as a child but I didn't make it my lifes work. We all know the stories of these well known super heros(Spider-man, Batman, Superman, etc) and how they got their powers so as long as the story flows well with those orginal concepts I'm happy.

  7. #7
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Lexmark3200
    Here's what Im still stuck with:

    -Is Nolan's "Begins" going more according to the comics or the Dark Knight legacy thing?
    -Is the tumbler car what the Batmobile was supposed to look like according to the comics -- not the flashy thing we see in Burton's version?
    -Is Bruce's whole training sequence in "Begins" accurate to the comics or were there liberties taken like Burton did in HIS version (The Joker killing Wayne's parents, etc; in reality, Joe Chill murdered Bruce's parents but Burton changed it to Jack Napier AKA The Joker; WHY?)

    Im just confused as to who made the more accurate film in terms of following the real story of the Caped Crusader.
    I wouldn't worry too much about accuracy. I never read the serial comics but DC has their 'DC Universe' to protect so I would imagine the movie doesn't contradict anything essential. The Dark Night Returns has batman coming out of retirement years after Robin died...so it comes way after any of this plotwise. I think the serial comics then had to go and kill Robin, to make the storyline fit-- the contribution is more in the tone of the movie. As to the batmobile... you can check this out
    http://www.batmobilehistory.com/

    The Dark Night Returns Batmobile
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •