Batman Begins

[Red Viper]

You know the old "Ginger or Maryann" question people sometimes use as a personality barometer? I've always preferred "Batman or Superman" as a more telling indicator of whether I want to hang out with someone beyond the initial meeting. I come down solidly behind Batman on this issue, by the way.

Well, when people answer that question with "Batman," they are referring to the character depicted in "Batman Begins," not to the campy TV series, not to the sci-fi spoofy comics in the 1960s, but to THIS Batman. He is brooding, obsessive, wracked with deep personal scars and fighting a one-man battle not just for the salvation of a city, but for his own salvation. Tim Burton's Batman movies weren't bad, really, (the Joel Schumaker films were abortions, and will be discussed no further by me) but Burton did not come so close to capturing the Batman I've always admired from the best of the comic books. Burton concentrated on giving his films a certain look, and did so at the expense of character development.

"Batman Begins" captures that Batman by concentrating almost entirely on character development. It's a fine movie, with an altogether different feel from "Spider-Man," "X-Men," etc. "Batman Begins" is dark ... and creepy ... and thoroughly engaging. It is not marred by an overdependence on computer-generated effects, it is not rendered silly by hammy over-the-top acting. It is a movie that tells a story about one man's irrational reaction to an irrational world. It also is a story about the people who care about him and must decide whether to help Bruce Wayne feed his obsession or give up on him. Michael Caine is brilliant as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman likewise as Lucius Fox. Liam Neeson turns in a wonderful portrayal as a mentor-figure as Bruce tries to learn all that he needs to know to achieve the impossible.

If you are a "Batman" fan who is leery of the movies because of what's been done to the Batman in the past, get over it and head to the theater. This movie gets it right -- except for one moment that I will not mention here because the movie is still fresh in the cinemas. Once the movie's been around a while, I'll be back here to harp on at length about that one problem...

Red Viper, aka Steve Goble

[BethS]

We went to see it last night, and it's probably the best thing to come out of Hollywood this year.

I'm no particular fan of comic books or Batman, at least partly because the usual villains' personas are so over-the-top annoying (the one flaw in Spiderman, IMO, was the Green Goblin himself, not as a man (where he excelled as a villain) but as a monster, where he seemed silly), but the director of this movie didn't make that mistake. Terrific cast, wonderfully moody, beautifully filmed, and most important, it told a good story.

Beth</font id="Script MT Bold">

[Red Viper]

Beth: I agree that the whole over-the-top villain thing is hard to portray in a movie. The makers of "Spider-Man" were trying to remain true to the comic books, and while Willem Dafoe did look silly in his Green Goblin gear, I don't think it was possible to do it any better than they did.

The lack of such a villain helped "Batman Begins" quite a bit. One of my problems with the Tim Burton "Batman" was that Jack Nicholson's performance and the amount of screen time devoted to the Joker took the movie's focus away from the Batman himself. That didn't happen with "Batman Begins."


Red Viper, aka Steve Goble

[EdK]

I saw Batman yesterday. I hate to say it, but I wasn't all that impressed. It was... okay. Christian Bale just didn't work for me. If not for Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Ken Watanabe the movie would have been a complete flop. Those three held the thing together and made it fairly enjoyable. Still, I'd put Fantastic Four and War of the Worlds both above this attempted bit of gothic heroism.

The Ninja training bothered me a bit. Even as far back as the 1930's Bruce Wayne was know to have trained to become the crime fighter he became. In the movie about 90% of this training involved a sword. That didn't work for me. Marshall arts? Sure! But oriental swords? Nah! If Bruce Wayne had invested all that time into training with a sword then you would think a sword would have become apart of his persona. That didn't work for me at all. Another part of his training involved living as one for a time in the city's underworld. During that time he stole fruit off a stand because he was hungry. The Batman I grew up with would never steal. That was ridiculous and jeopardizes the Batman's integrity, justifying stealing when things are bad.

Still, good wins out in the end. The gadgets were good. The villains were good. The butler was great (loved the bit about borrowing the "Rolls" and the line about "what was the point of all those pushups"). The action was fast paced. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't a great movie either.



Edward Knight
Editor
Journey Books Publishing
Amazing Journeys Magazine

http://www.journeybookspublishing.com
http://www.journeybooksonline.com

[Red Viper]

Ed: I liked Michael Caine a great deal, too. And all the cast, really. I guess I'm more of a Batman fan than a Fantastic Four fan, because I preferred Bats to FF at the theaters, but I did enjoy FF and hope they make a sequel.

Red Viper, aka Steve Goble

[DaveCVP]

I think Caine did a great job, but Bale didn't quite work for me. For some reason he didn't ooze the physicality you'd expect frm Batman, nor did he have the sense of menace and inner struggle.....

[ScrewMoonshine]

I've actually avoided seeing Batman Begins chiefly because of Bale's ultra-gravely voice. I overheard my relatives watching the film and was almost rolling on the floor laughing when I heard that voice. If I'm going to crack up every time I hear Batman speak, I doubt I'll get much enjoyment out of the film, no matter how good the script or the set is.

Robert Orme