And here’s the Chicago Board of Trade building, also known as Wayne Enterprises.
Here are my two questions about the movie:
a) wouldn’t the waterworks just have had a guy at 95th street open a valve and let the pressure escape thusly?
b) Why didn’t any of the el (whoops, monorail) operators just shut down power to the track when they realized that the train was speeding and not stopping?
b1) Why didn’t Batman just detach one of the el cars and let the automatic braking slow the train to a stop?
Ugh. Beyond standard plot questions (I did like how Guhl’s threat was wacky but believable and oh so timely…kind of), why did anyone like this movie? The dialogue was terrible, Batman becoming a ninja was about as silly as it gets and there were plot threads popping up all over the place that never went anywhere.
Not to mention that Batman beats up like four guys and suddenly he’s the biggest, baddest guy in Gotham. Granted, he did capture the mob boss, but with all the in-touch-with-my-feelings speeches, I couldn’t stop laughing.
During Bruce’s birthday celebration, he is introduced to ‘Ra’s al-Ghul’, a different man than he was first introduced to on top of that mountain. Bruce turns to see Liam Neeson behind him, and their exchange very shortly thereafter does reveal that Neeson was indeed al-Ghul and the other men were tricks of misdirection.
I thought the dialogue was decent and delivered very well. But your call.
But Batman…well, he is a ninja. In a batsuit. Ninjutsu is about infiltration and assassination (which translates to taking a single target out with a minimum of muss and fuss), and those are where Batman’s strengths lie. Sure, he can whup six guys at once, but his primary method is to lurk in the shadows and take out the threats when they’re not looking. Ninjas also tend to be great users of tools. Smoke bombs, shuriken (Batarangs), grappling hooks, and on and on. I personally thought this was a great bit of characterization; Bruce takes existing martial arts and adapts them to fighting thugs in the city as the Man of Bat.
Superman just stands there and insults the crook’s cup size by letting him waste his pistol ammo, then clocks him. No finesse at all, if you ask me.
Well, somewhere along the way, he ducks when they throw the empty pistol at him.
Just saw it and I LOVED it! (I’m e-mailing one of the people in this thread about right now, actually.) I think there was a plot in there somewhere, and a good one, but who the hell cares? Batman was great, the romance was completely non-distracting, his toys were great, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!
And being female, and straight, Christian Bale shirtless is my new passion. swoon
[hijack]
Did you Houstonians know they are building a new ADH in the Atascocita/Kingwood area? It is a mile or two from my house. Such an odd place to put it, as ADHs are usually in hipster places. My area is a sleepy, boring, bedroom community. The IHOP isn’t even open 24 Hours!
[/hijack]
As to the film, I liked it, but I did not love it. It got a low B+ (if there was something between B and B+, this one would be there.)
I had two fears going into it.
- That there would be too many stars and their presence would bog down the script.
and
- The Katie Holmes love angle.
The first one was a non-issue. I have never seen such big stars work in that type of ensemble. It was incredible. ACADEMY AWARD Winner Morgan Freeman had a nice, small supporting role that he nailed (as usual). TWO TIME ACADEMY AWARD WINNING ACTOR Michael Caine nailed the second best comic character adaptation of all-time (Moment of Silence for Christopher Reeve.) He WAS Alfred. The heart of the picture. Academy Award NOMINEE Ken Watanabe had five…ten minutes of screentime. Academy Award Nominee Liam Neeson gave a delicious performance (and the twist just made it better! Talk about making fanboys eat a little crow; complaining about Watanabe’s casting!) “Should have been an” Academy Award Nominee Gary Oldman gave a nice performance as a young, frustrated Jim Gordon. And Cillian Murphy, who I have never seen in a film before, was great. (Minor nitpick, they should have saved him for the Joker!). Even ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEE Tom Wilkinson was solid in a miscast role (his accent was solid, but the guy just SCREAMS “BRIT” at me. Looks, expectation of his accent, everything.) Such a great supporting cast, which was managed nicely by Nolan and Goyer.
Ah, but the second one… First of all, it has become a cliche in Batfilms that Batman must give away his secret identity at the end of the film to get some. He should have just jumped off the roof, and left her guessing. But that aside, there were several issues I had with Holmes, who seriously hurt the quality of the film.
A. Age and Maturity. First, I have a question. How old was she supposed to be in the film? When Bruce is coming back from Princeton, Holmes is already an Asst. DA. THEN, he goes away for seven years. Is she in her thirties? She always came across as VERY young, no matter what they had her doing. I didn’t buy her as an ADA no more than I bought Denise Richards as a Nuclear Physicist.
B. Acting. She is passable, but she is not an exceptional actress. Everyone she went up against in this film acted her off the screen. Bale. The lauded cast. The kid she helped. Even the extras in the crowd scenes! (ok. that was too far).
C. The Tom Cruise thing. Not as substantial as A&B, but a minor annoyance.
Overall, Holmes seriously weakened the film.
While I am on the negative, I think the whole microwave/drug/vaporize story felt like one big mcguffin. It was basically a big task for Batman to show us that his training was complete.
That was the problem of mixing an origin story and a main story together. They both weaken the other plotline even if, independently, they would be interesting.
Normally, I like second films better (and if Nolan directs Part 2, I imagine I will have a new favorite comic movie), because they hit the ground running and they have already told the origin I have heard a bajillion times. But in this case, the origin was so interesting, I was sad when her got back to Gotham.
This is largely because of the scenery, but more so because Christian Bale rocked. He is Batman. He is Bruce Wayne (the “drunk” scene showed the best understanding of the Wayne/Batman dynamic ever captured in film or comics). I loved the screaming voice on the ledge. I loved the smirk as Bruce. I love that he played him as a human being trying to do right intead of the bland, anti-social nutjob he has become in the comics.
I’d put Bale’s performance tied at #3 all-time. (tied with Jackman).
So, I really liked most of the film, I guess. There was just enough inconsistency to keep me from loving it.
But I look forward to a Katie Holmes-less Batman Begin-Again.
[sub]Also, I renew my standing objection about today’s action films in general. NOTE TO DIRECTORS: It is ok to hold a shot for longer than three seconds! I had to move to the back of the theater and take a valium![/sub]
Saw it a few hours ago. I liked it very much. I’ve been mulling over what I liked about it. Some thoughts:
First point. This movie…satisfied. I didn’t feel at all let down, not in any regard that I can recall.
I liked Burton’s vision as stated in his go, and Schumacher also had his…style. I come away from this movie thinking that Nolan’s direction was transparent in the sense that I wasn’t distracted by the method of presentation. I was engrossed in the story itself, not being taken out of the story by the way the story was told.
Which brings me to my favorite point, the one I most appreciated. There’s a story here. I no more care that certain points of this story aren’t ‘official’ or ‘canon’ than I care that water flows downhill. This is the story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and the plentiful examples of how and why made me glad. Could the story have been told better? I won’t argue that point; it may be so. I can say I liked the story we got.
Upon reflection, I noticed a different approach re the villains from the previous movies. Someone else commented on this as well, although they took the opposite position. The movie didn’t focus a large part of its time on the villains. Scarecrow’s ‘origin’ wasn’t shown at all, and Ra’s’ past was only explained, not shown. And yet we did get a sense of who these men were, what made them tick. Just enough to inform, not enough to distract. I like this approach, and vote that more time for Batman in a Batman movie is a good thing.
And more time for Bruce Wayne in this movie was fantastic! (Can I say that about this movie, considering the other movie coming up in a few short weeks? 
) You can put any clown in a costume, but this Wayne outshone any previous silver screen Wayne in (my) memory. The script? Nolan’s direction? Bale’s acting? All three? Who cares? I don’t know from philosophy, but I liked Wayne’s development over time to becoming the man and the myth we all know about.
I say that this is the best Batman movie ever. Further, I would put this movie up as a contender in the category of Best Recount of a Superhero Origin, and I bet it would win.
I love Burton’s aesthetic style, but I found the grittiness of Gotham in Batman Begins to be far less “bubble wrap” than the overblown gothic theme park attraction of Burton’s Gotham. Nolan’s Gotham looks like a real city, horribly corrupted by poverty and crime- a far more compelling setting, if you ask me.
Just saw it tonight and I have to say that it was AWESOME. Definitely the best Batman movie made so far and possibly the best superhero movie ever made.
Bale NAILED the role of Batman and Wayne…shit, the casting was just incredible, with the exception of Katie Holmes, who was nowhere near tough enough for her role as Rachel Daw. The dialogue was excellent for a comic book movie, and the action was basically nonstop.
This movie simply blows away every one of the first four films. I still like the original Batman, but it doesn’t even compare to this one.
Saw this at the IMAX last night- by far the best of the Batman movies (well, except the Adam West 1960s camp version)
As Mr. Cranky wondered- was the cameraman being attacked by a bear? I sort of would have liked to have been able to actually see the action.
Morgan Freeman- has he ever not nailed a part?
Rachel was a bit too plain for my taste as a love interest. Either have passion or don’t have the girls at all.
There was wanton lawlessness all right- with the laws of physics. Too bad they can’t make the script at least somewhat realistic.
Great special effects with the scarecrow face, the maggots, and that horse with the flaming breath was awesome.
Awesome! I haven’t been there yet, but a good friend of mine is a chef there. In fact, we’re thinking of driving up there tonight to see her and maybe catch the late show of this movie again.
They wouldn’t care. What was important was that the city was obliterated mentally and physically. That it was rebuilt wasn’t important.
My first thought, walking out of the theater, was “This movie is everything that Revenge of the Sith wasn’t.” It had acting, writing, directing, a plot… I loved how they showed where Batman learned to fight and use ninjutsu, rather than the first Batman movie, where he had some gadgets and actually couldn’t fight very well (that black guy in the bell tower was kicking Batman’s ass before Batman threw him down a hole… but I digress).
Gary Oldman is the master chameleon of our time. This makes the third move that I’ve seen without realizing he’s in it, seen him on screen, and thought, “Wow, this guy’s great. I wonder why he hasn’t made any other movies before this one?” (the other two being Hannibal and Harry Potter).
Re: Ra’s al Ghul and not being killed by Batman. Batman got off the train, and he had the same training (if not more) as Ra’s al Ghul. Sure, Batman had the glider cape, but you can’t tell me Ra’s al Ghul didn’t have a few tricks up his sleeve. Plus, there’s the first rule of survival in a Call of Cthulhu campaign: If you don’t have the body, it’s not dead.
p.s. I have got to respect anybody who can curl Liam Neeson. Dang.
Ooooooo-kay.
- Obliterate city mentally and physically.
- ?
- Profit!
Oh, another one… as Bruce Wayne walked up to the temple on top of the mountain, I thought to myself, “My, but that looks like a firetrap…”
The idea was actually for a renewal of the city. In the “League of Shadows” opinion, when a city as a whole grows too big and seedy and corrupt for their likings, it’s their job to raze it and force people to start anew. Essentially like formatting your computer and restoring a clean backup periodically to get rid of spyware and viruses.
As well as Fifth Element. He never appears the same way twice, I swear.