I for one am glad there's not a lot of pointless "I can't wait to see this posts."

I hate opening a thread hoping to see a review from a member that caught a film early just to see "can't wait" type posts.

I agree, i can't wait to see this!!! ;)

Not the actual review, but you can find the audio review from the show here...

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/eber...per/today.html

Withat all of the other critics gushing, why does Variety bash it?

That's the nature of the critic game. Not everyone is going to like it.

I saw it TWICE tonight and have to say, I LOVED IT. Nolan really takes a realistic and dark approach to the material and it works wonders for the character. Batman has never been so complex or menacing and Christian Bale is really inspired as the character. Not only does Batman shine, but the supporting cast is fantastic. Morgan Freeman as Fox is great, but Gary Oldman really steals some scenes as Gordon.

Katie Holmes was OK and thankfully doesn't have much to do in the film...she's nice to look at but her range leaves something to be desired. As for the scarecrow, he's a bit underused, but I think it works to the films advantage, especially given how events play out. The new batmobile is incredible and gets a really great sequence to shine.

The ending is perfect and leaves you drooling for the sequel. I really can't express how happy I am with this film...they got Batman right and this is easily the best Batman film ever.

MATT

More like that's the nature of Variety. They pretty much bash everything

Ebert's Review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/50525003

Thanks for posting the link to Ebert's review. He seems to really love the movie for all the right reasons, and I can't wait to see this. I hope it does well enough that they can bring back most of the core cast for any sequels.

Jeffrey Wells' slightly-spoilerized Hollywood Elsewhere column:

Best Batman

"Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (Warner Bros., 6.15) is the smartest and most adult-minded superhero film Hollywood has ever made." ~ Jeffrey Wells

Mike Clark from USA Today didn't care for it aside from Bale's performance. He also didn't bother to think that it was a do-over instead of Batman Five and didn't even go into much plot detail as much as use the review as a soapbox for Hollywood not having any more originality and doing so many comic movies.

Same reason Variety loved Episode III along with a lot of other critics, while others bashed it. Opinions vary. Scott is right. Critical reception is a mirror of society. Their opinions differ, and for different reasons. No film has ever been universally loved by everyone. By the same token, no film has ever been universally hated by everyone.

Do people still care what Jeffrey Wells has to say? I thought we finally learned to ignore the windbag.

Well, yes and no. I think he's goofy enough to be entertaining, but his opinions don't mean much to me personally.

Once he gave his idiot son a soapbox on his site though...he lost me there.

Wow, that Ebert review is fantastic. I'm am so stoked to see this. I don't want to wait until Saturday now. :(

Looking forward to this one but strange thing is on rottentomatoes.com it is getting 86% positive but only 50% from the cream of the crop reviewers. Interesting.

I've been reading him for years (since he was on reel.com), so I find him quite humorous at times. Other times - not so much. But everyone now and then he sees a film he truly enjoys and writes a great column about it.

And sometimes he will just write about the most random shit possible - which I also enjoy. His recent comments about a War of the Worlds still were friggin' hilarious. And I like his writing style.

I went out today to get my hands on the score but nowhere I went had it in stock. Anyone else have any luck?

So does that bode well or bad for it with the general public? Seems like this will be a case where the geeks will have to talk it up pretty hard to other geeks and buy repeat tickets themselves to keep the movie alive.

anyone going to the midnight shows tonite? I'm thinking about it....

I'm considering it as well. I wonder how early people will start getting there. It obviously wont be anything like Star Wars, but I'm not sure I want to go stand around for 2 hours if people are going to start getting there that early.

Saw it, liked it a lot.

The acting was top notch from everyone involved, and Bale really nailed the role. My only quibbles come from the third act: One thing about this movie they got right that all the other movies blatantly ignored was the friendship between Batman and Gordon. Kudos to Nolan and Goyer for emphasizing that theme. More later, but too tired now.

I saw it tonight. Here are some quick notes:

- Awesome casting. No one seemed out of place and everyone's roles fit like a glove. Gary Oldman was Gordon. The character of Alfred was full of dry wit and made for many memorable scenes. And of course, Bale does an admirable job as Bruce Wayne and Batman.

- The Batmobile. It works. Never mind it's a tank. That allows the scenes involving it to happen. Were it a car, it wouldn't at all be realistic. Things are done with this bad boy that couldn't be done otherwise. Gripes about it need to end.

- Bale's Batman. I love the different voices for Wayne and Batman. Any actor that's tackled the dual role in the past has made slight modifications to the voice, but here, they're two distinct entities.

- The villains. There have been complaints about the lack of a big villain. The two (perhaps three) selected here are marvelous and great choices to whet the appetites of the audience for what will hopefully become a long-lasting franchise.

- The look is, as Ebert noted, lacking of gloss. Gotham remains a visual treat, but the gloom that we're always told that resides over the city is present. A gritty look is present and most elements have an unrefined look to them.

But believe the hype. This one's for Batman purists and it doesn't disappoint. The large crowd at the theater gave me some hope that this thing can turn a few bucks. Oh, and the final scene had me instantly wanting the sequel. I won't spoil it, but what we see had me going, "Oh shit! Bring on the next one!"

Let me say, that I love both x-men, both spider-man, and Hulk. I also really enjoyed Daredevil. But all of these are steaming piles of you know what compared Batman Begins. There is a new king. I just hope this makes big money and they were smart enough to sign the cast and Nolon for at least a few sequels.

There's not really much of a score to this film other than the same repeating strings over and over. If anyone thought Spider-man had a minimalist score, this is even worse.

I really didn't care for the film that much, but that might change since I didn't care for the original 1989 movie much until Returns (still my favorite superhero movie) came out 3 years later. I didn't like the Katie Holmes character at all and though she was a glaring sore of bad acting in an otherwise great cast. Is is just me or could her character easily have been Harvey Dent if you removed the kiss and changed sexes? Seems like she was written as something else. Bale and Caine both nailed down the leads, and Gary Oldman outshined everyone, almost making me wish the movie was from Gordon's perspective.

Oh well, more thoughts after I see it again when I'm not quite so tired.

No major spoilers:

"Batman Begins" is "Batman Done Right". The opening 1st act covers of Bruce Wayne's training, and the backstory of his relationship with his father, and search for his identity after witnessing the traumatic childhood murders of his parents in that fateful, dark, alley. The tone of the film once Bruce returns to Gotham is just right, and the flow of the film is steady and exciting, and then it gives the viewer a chance to breathe, and embrace the world of Bruce and Batman, one that is rooted in a realism that belies its comic book origins.

The film is very good at providing the logistics of being Batman with the resources of billionaire Bruce Wayne at his disposal, and the production values are top-notch, and just plain fun to see on the big screen as proper respect was paid to them.

The inner character study of what drives Bruce Wayne towards the Batman persona is handled well, and the natural progression makes for a believable character arc, and his somewhat strained relationship with the world, and even his closest childhood friend, Rachel.

The villains are good, and provide more than enough of a challenge for Batman's initial foray into super-heroics. The dark humor present in the film is just right, never getting so dark and somber as to suck the life out of why a man would be driven to save people from the criminals who rely on society's indulgences. There are out and out laughs at key points that belie the turn of events to good effect.

The cast was uniformily good, even Katie Holmes' Rachel had enough of a moral compass and guts to be courageous in the face of heavy odds. Gary Oldman really "got" Gordon and he and Bale had a good give-n-take going on. Michael Caine as Alfred was a nice casting choice, not only good chemistry with Bale, but their relationship was based on family, not just of the servant-master dynamic. Morgan Freeman turn as Lucius Fox provided some depth and charm to man who provides Batman with his wonderful toys. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy are also good in their roles, and drove the plot along very well. Besides some ancilliary characters, I couldn't complain about the cast at all.

So far, Batman Begins was the best movie viewing experience of 2005 for me. The audience was into the film, they laughed at the right moments, and were awed by some of the really nutty second unit footage that was pretty entertaining to watch. And to top it off, they applauded at the end as well.

I give it 4 stars, or a grade of A.