Saw this on a thread in IMDB:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0372784/board/nest/21399463

So that's the reason for the differing pronunciations, apparently.

There are rumors going around as Justin Timberlake being picked to be Two Face.....????


Can anyone see this because i cant.

Hey, I like Timberlake, but only to sing and shake his grove thang. He would be utterly distracting in such a high caliber film.

Well, thanks to a combination of professional and personal pressures on my time, I didn't get a chance to see this until yesterday. I saw Revenge of the Sith Saturday, so I guess I'm getting caught up. Better late than never, right?

And speaking of getting caught up, I just read 28 pages of posts on this movie. Whew!

Oh yeah -- it seems that everyone in this thread has seen the movie, but just in case, I want to warn everyone that there are a bunch of SPOILERS BELOW. I don't want to encase my entire post in a solid block of black, so I'll just warn you -- if you don't want to be spoiled, skip this post.

Anyway, in terms of atmospherics, Nolan hit all the right notes. This felt more right than Burton's vision of Batman and Gotham and far more right than Schumacher's vision of Gotham.

Casting? Another home run. I particularly liked Michael Caine (but who doesn't), Gary Oldman, and Cillian Murphy, but everyone was right for their part.

That said, I thought the movie was pretty crappy. The pacing was attrocious. We spend the first hour or so meandering through dime-store philosophy on vengeance, justice, and fear, coupled with flashbacks just so we can be sure we get it. Then another half hour or so of Bruce Wayne wandering around Gotham announcing his intention to be Batman. I get it, Nolan -- I bought a ticket to a movie called Batman Begins. I know he's going to become Batman. Do I really need to see him spray-paint his Bat suit? I don't think so. And I really don't need to see him do it a good 10 minutes before I even see him put the damned thing on.

Another problem was the fights. It's not particular to Nolan -- it's a sin every action movie of the last 10-15 years seems to have committed -- but jerking the camera around and putting a cut every 40-50 frames does not make the fight scenes more exciting and action=packed. It makes them incomprehensible and impossible to follow. You might as well just cut to the next scene and have Batman say "So I beat those guys up. Anyway ..."

In short, this movie badly needed an editor.

But that's not all it needed. It also seriously needed a script doctor. And that's leaving aside the whole issue of filming a Batman movie in which Batman doesn't appear until more than halfway through the film. Simply put, parts of the movie made no sense whatsoever. This ranges from the big stuff to the little.

First, there's the master plan. Let's leave aside the fact that, as many have pointed out, a microwave weapon powerful enough to vaporize the water in the city water mains would also vaporize the water in the city inhabitants. And don't give me any of that "It's focused" BS, because we saw it blow every water pipe on the boat that brought it to Gotham. Put that out of your mind. Recall what the master plan was -- Crane dumped the fear toxin in the water, ready to be activated when Ra's al Ghul blew into town with the microwave. He'd been doing so for weeks. Now, I'm not the most scientifically-minded guy, but I'm pretty sure that you don't need a high-tech microwave weapon to vaporize water. Are we supposed to believe that during the weeks leading up to the attack, nobody had made a kettle of tea? Taken a hot shower? It defies logic.

Speaking of defying logic, what was up with Lucius Fox? He apparently keeps inventing spectacular things that the army is uninterested in, and so he winds up as the only employee in Wayne Industries Applied Sciences division? What the hell is up with that? And the excuses he gave for why his inventions weren't being sold? I mean, I understand the army not wanting to outfit each soldier with a $300,000 battle suit, but you'd think there would be certain circumstances under which they might be of some use? We paid $14.5 million each for Apache helicopters back in the early 1970s, and those were two-man copters. And the Batmobile? What was wrong with that? It was useless because it turned out that after you drove it over rough terrain at speeds in the neighborhood of 100 m.p.h and jumped a ravine, you couldn't deploy a bridge behind you? Well, that's just a useless invention! Throw it away! But be sure to keep the division that created it operating with just one man.

As long as we're on the subject of the Batmobile, it was an absolutely ridiculous Batmobile for Batman's mission. Sure, Bruce -- when I'm chasing criminals in an urban environment, I want a mini-tank that will smash up the city's infrastructure and endanger bystanders. I mean, the chase scene? Why didn't Batman just start shooting at the police cruisers (and any pedestrians he might have passed). For all the care he was taking, he might as well have done so.

I really liked the part where the Scarecrow gave Rachel such a huge dose of fear gas that she could have been killeded!!!!1!!1 And then she's in the Batmobile sounding like my Mom giving me driving lessons ("Slow down! You're going to hit something! Oh my God, we're jumping from roof to roof!" OK, my mom never said that last one.) Then she's back to being so scared she's unconscious and if we don't give her the antidote in time, she'll die!!!11!

But clearly the fear gas can't be that bad, since the resolution of the movie was to have an entire neighborhood exposed to the gas with no antidote in sight for weeks. Don't worry, folks! It's just the poor part of town! Who cares!

I also think that the use of the Scarecrow in the movie was the biggest waste of a Batman villain since ... well, they've been wasting Batman villains at least since they misused Two-Face in Batman & Robin, so I guess it's just carrying on a noble tradition. But really. The guy got taken out by Joey from Dawson's Creek with a Taser. That's not a villain; that's a schmuck.

And last but not least, there's the thematic journey Bruce Wayne undergoes, from the young man who wants to get revenge on his parents' killer by shooting him in cold blood, to the wiser man who recognizes that justice means saying things like "I won't kill you ... but I don't have to save you either?" Truly a heroic journey, or possibly a sociopathic journey.

Oh yeah -- most of the one-liners sucked. "Nice coat?" Give me a break.

I wanted to like this. I really did. Like I said, it did a spectacular job of capturing the atmosphere of Batman, and the casting was spot-on. It just needed about an hour cut from the film and another half hour added in, along with a bunch of spackle to fill the plot holes.

And in it's defense, not only is it not the worst movie I've seen, not only is it not the worst superhero movie I've seen, it's not even the worst Batman movie I've seen. So I suppose it has that going for it.

As for some specifics that have been mentioned:

I didn't take Ken Watanabe's Ra's al Ghul as a decoy. The message I got was that Ra's al Ghul is a title, and when Watanabe was killed, Ducart stepped up as the heir to the throne. But I suppose the decoy idea is just as plausible.

Whoever said that once Joe Chill was caught that Bruce wouldn't need to be Batman --- no, no, no. That is simply wrong. That was the whole lesson Bruce was supposed to learn on his journey through Asia -- that there is a difference between vengeance and justice. I HATE interpretations of Batman that say he is doing it because his parents' murderer is still out there, or went unavenged, or whatever. Batman is doing it so that no other little kids will see their parents lying dead in an alley. It's not about him; that's what makes him a hero and not an idiot who needs therapy.

Though I don't care for his music, I have no hatred toward Justin Timberlake. I thought he was great in Saturday Night Live but I think he'd be a terrible choice for Harvey Dent. Unless they went with Clive Owen, I think David Boreanaz would be a good young Harvey Dent.

I agree with your tea kettle comment, JasonF but as for Fox and applieed sciences... The army didn't reject the suit or the Tumbler. The acccountants of Wayne Enterprises decided the cost-benefit ratio of the suits didn't warrant the expense of mass production. As for the Tumbler, it was a bridging vehicle. It wasn't designed for combat. So the logic was "if all it does is make instant bridges and the bridges don't work, why would anyone want this?" Basically the bean counters hated Fox's ideas and never put them to use. As for the department itself, it was basically just a big archive when Wayne met Fox. It wasn't a functioning department at all but an excuse to keep Fox out of the way.

I will grant you that the Tumbler caused too much destruction but this was Batman's first year and he was completely consumed by his concern for Rachel. Hell, even Alfred chastises Bruce for all the mayhem he caused. I doubt he'll be so reckless again.

As for the Tumbler itself, it makes a whole lot more sense than a cool sports car given that people will undoubtedly be SHOOTING at it and trying to RAM IT out of the way if they ever were trying to evade him.

As for Scarecrow, he wasn't even in this film until the very end. Sure, Crane was there throughout but he was just some sadist with a fear fetish. Only towards the very end were we given a glimpse at Scarecrow. I'm not reffering to the mask but to the fact that Crane completely lost it at the end. He was consumed by his fear toxin and evolved into a new persona. I'm sure we'll see him again in one or more of the sequels.

Ken Watanabe was a decoy. Remember Bruce's line of "cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity, Ra's." This would have worked better had Nolan kept a brief scripted comment from Ducard to Bruce in the prison cell.

Here's how the scene went in the script:

Pair that with Bruce's "parlor tricks" line late in the film and you get that Ra's was using the Ubu-esque decoy portrayed by Ken Watanabe as a means to keep his attackers at bay. Also, not that his other decoy was another bal asian man. Obviously, Ra's pics similar traits for his decoys so that when one dies another (after avenging the killer, of course) may take his place and people assume that it is impossible to kill Ra's Al Ghul. I fear, though, this might mean we will not see the Lazarus Pits in any of the sequels (though I still hope we'll see both them and Thalia).

As for the Narrows, as Gordon pointed out during the final scene of the film "the Narrows is lost". I'm sure some got the antidote in time but, sadly, many are permanently screwed. And I'm sure members of Batman's rogues gallery will emerge from the Narrows. It goes with Grodon's comments about escalation.

I disagree.

But to each their own. (Mostly because I found all the stuff they did leave in to be a very effective build for the character, and didn't see any plot points that needed additional coverage (alas, I didn't see many things as actual plotholes).) That... and I found the pacing to be dead on perfect.

Agreeably, more/better use of Scarecrow would have been a lot more satisfying. But he'll probably be back in the future.

Next two Batman films shooting back-to-back?

Seems the return of the Caped Crusader has been quite a successfull run, and as a result, Warner might be throwing Gotham a few extra bucks.

According to Batman-On-Film.com, the next two "Batman" films may be filmed back-to-back.

As their storylines are semi-connected (Harvey Dent and the Joker appear in both instalments), it seems very, very possible, and it might be a good way of making sure Christian Bale sticks with the suit - we don't want our latest Bruce to change his mind about the charcoal cape and for the studio to have to book Val Kilmer for the third film now, do we?

More on this when Gordon issues an official report.

[MOVIEHOLE.net]

So it's a waste of time to set up the themes the movie is going to explore? It's a waste of time to establish the psychology of a man who decides to dress like a bat and fight crime?

That never happened.

This movie was about the formation of the Batman identity. Why gloss over the creation of the suit and they acquisition of weapons? Seems pretty vital to me.

Superman didn't make his first significant appearance until about the halfway mark in Superman: The Movie. The same is true for Spider-man. Neither of those films suffered for it. Part of the value of origin stories is seeing how characters get pulled from their ordinary worlds and the steps they take to assume the mantle of hero. That's why Unbreakable was such a great film and the "hero" didn't even appear until the END of that movie.

A certain amount of suspension of belief is required for films, especially those of the comic book action adventure nature. Is this any less crazy than the idea that Lex Luthor would have an underground penthouse (or that missile scheme, even), or that Osbourne would use products developed by his company, destroy the board, but no one would put two and two together? Or Magneto's "make everyone a mutant" scheme? Not everything is going to make complete logical sense. The question is, do you let that affect your enjoyment of the film? In this case, I guess you do.

First of all, I think it makes more sense for Wayne to find the practical uses for things and not worry about style. At least initially. He's out there to make a statement and he wants to make sure he can get himself out a jam if he needs to. I didn't like the look at the Batmobile at first, but after seeing it in the movie, I totally get its function. Batman isn't out to look cool. He's out to do a job.

As for the care he was taking in that chase scene, it was his first chase and Bruce Wayne/Batman is, afterall, only human. He is going to make mistakes. He's not going to be a fully realized Batman fresh out of the gate. In the next film, I'm sure he'll do better.

Again, Batman isn't perfect. And Gordon made the comment at the end about how things may actually be worse because of Batman. I thought that was a masterstroke. Things don't instantly get better because Wayne decided to act. He messes up and things get messy. Either he'll learn to cope and strive for that positive change or he'll give up. He's not a superhero. He's just a guy trying to exact some justice.

Well, he's not dead. And I thought that scene was quite funny. How should he have gone out? I'm sure in the next film he'll be running that little psychotic shanty town and maybe he'll be more to your liking.

Well, if you paid attention to the first act of the movie, this statement would make sense. And again, Batman isn't a superhero. He's just out for justice. I thought his decision made perfect dramatic sense. What do you think he should have done? Bruce saved him once and look where it got him.

I don't really think that was meant to be a joke or anything. Batman recognized the bum with his coat and he made a quick comment about it. No big deal, really.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the film more, but I really liked it and I look forward to the sequel.

I hate comic books; I hate super-heroes. I despise the influx of comic book movies in Hollywood and I especially detest the pre-pubescent way they are being made and marketed. It disgusts me. I laugh at the way people get excited about going to see costumed retards with ridiculous powers fighting bad guys to hot MTV soundtracks, cracking wise and pretending to be "bad ass," painfully obvious movie manipulation at providing under-sexed teenage boys with the market-researched and fabricated testosterone that they sorely lack and desire so much.

Nolan made sure he got the actorrs that could give credibility to these incredulous roles.

That being said, David Spade? Christopher Walken? These are the worst choices for the Joker I've ever heard. Barry Pepper is an inspired choice and he certainly could look the part. My choice?

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.

It's not a waste of time to set up the themes or the characters. It is a waste of time to do so in a heavy-handed manner, or to do so in a simplistic manner. Batman Begins managed to do both. What did Bruce learn in the course of his training? That revenge is bad and justice is good? That you have to conquer your fears to be successful? These are things any 14-year-old should know, let alone a grown man.


Maybe it wasn't a half hour, but we did spend an inordinate amount of time between when he got on the plane and told Alfred of his plan and when he actually suited up. We saw him go to Lucius and see the gadgets. We saw him spray paint the suit. We saw him order 10,000 cowls. We saw him order 10,000 ears from a separate company. We saw him using a belt sander to make his batarangs. We saw Alfred explain that there had been a problem with the graphite used in the cowls -- and by the way, why did they bother with that if they weren't going to have Batman get hit in the head or narrowly avoid getting hit in the head?

I mean, suppose they hadn't shown any of the set-up after Bruce met Lucius. Would you really have said "Wait a minute!!!!! That's not the color the suit was when he got it from Lucius! And where did he get the cowl!?!" It was simply unnecessary and a waste of time.

Because watching a guy use his workshop to file metal into the shape of a bat is boring.

And my point is that when the job is being an urban superhero, the tank was the absolute worst choice for the job. It's not about style, it's about the fact that he caused millions of dollars worth of property damage and placed dozens of peoples' lives at risk.

Bah. I'm all in favor of the hero making a mistake, but the hero shouldn't exhibit a callous disregard for his surroundings. The way Batman drove, if anyone had died (and it was only through the magic of writer fiat that nobody did), Batman would have been culpable for murder under a depraved indifference theory. That's not heroic.

That's what's wrong with this movie. This Bruce wasn't a superhero, and at that point, he's just some psycho dressed like a flying rat.

And justice isn't exacted; vengeance is exacted. Justice is meted out.

The decision was emblamatic of the piss-poor morality and lack of thought that went into the whole movie. Bruce Wayne has made the dramatic journey from being a guy who will murder someone to being someone who will stand by and idly watch a guy die? What the hell is the difference? What did he learn? Nothing. What difference is there between him putting a knife through Ducart's eye and abandoning him on the train when he could have saved him? None whatsoever. It's kindergarten ethics.

One of the most telling aspects of this film's morality is the scene where Bruce is presented with a known murderer -- we, the audience, are told that he's a murderer, and there's no reason to believe that information is untrue. Bruce refuses to kill the guy, however, arguing that he should be turned over to the authorities and given a trial. So what does Bruce do instead? He burns down the whole building, killing the murderer and a whole bunch of other people in the process. The film doesn't question this, and we're apparently not supposed to either.

Cut to the final reel, and Bruce is again confronted with a murderer -- a dastardly villain who plotted to drive Gotham insane with fear. Does Bruce turn the guy over to the authorities so he can be given a trial? Of course not. He lets him die, almost exactly the same way he let the first murderer die (this time, he has Gordon burn the monastery down for him).

That wasn't a one-liner, he was just saying hello to his old buddy, the bum?

Jason - you must have a lot of free time on your hands at work.

to you too.

I was on one of those conference calls where you have to be on the phone, but you don't necessarily have to give it 100% of your attention. You know how it goes.

"So what do you think of the proposal?"

"Well, Batman clearly didn't..."

"Huh??"

"Er... nothing."

I just came back from finally watching Batman Begins. After 28 pages, there's not much for me to add or discuss but let me just say that I enjoyed this movie immensely and I give it 4 1/2 out 5 stars. It stands just below Superman II and Spider 2 in terms of my ranking for comic book movies.

BTW, I find Kirsten Dunst performances in the Spiderman franchise more annoying than the performance of Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.

I thought the first half of the movie was great but the story fell apart in the second half. The plot was ridiculous.

Other than the microwave emitter, what about the second half of the film bothered you?

Imagine if this happened if he were reading the Censorship thread in the Adult forum.

I have to agree with Richard Roeper on this one and go along with his "this film earns it's PG-13 rating" comment from the show.

I would say that if the kid is over 10 and is not prone to nightmares, it would be okay... but younger than that, I wouldn't take them.

But onto the movie...

I finally saw it last night and I must agree with the majority here, this film was GREAT!

I thought that the pacing was wonderful, the casting was excellent, the scenes, costumes and effects were top notch... and all out wonderful experience.

The part of the movie that tickled me was the confrontation between Batman and Dr. Crane after Bats gave him a taste of his own medicine and the resulting conversation from Crane's POV seeing Bats as 'quite scary'. There were a few kids in the audience (8 PM show) that screamed.

For those of you who are Batman comic fans and didn't see the Ducard/Ra's Al Gul thing from a mile away, I say shame on you. He was great and I would love to see him again, but I doubt it'll be a key plot point of the next film.

There was one thing that Batman Begins borrowed from the original Batman '89 and that was the use of a "line" to "unviel" the identities of its characters. The "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light?" gave away Bats to Joker as "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" gave away Bats to Rachel.

I know its been used before, but I'm a sucker for these kinds of things.

Nolan... you done got it right!

Let's start the Oscar® campaign right now!

I couldn't disagree with the sentiment that Batman appeared to late more.

If anything, I felt Batman should've appeared even later in the movie. The first half of the movie had a very "psychological thriller" aspect to it.

I'm not that crazy about superhero movies either, sans X2. Batman Begins, however, was one of the best movies I've seen in awhile. Amazing. Please god let Nolan and Goyer stay on board.

True, but then again the wet-t scene helps to alleviate things a bit.