Well, we went to see Batman Begins yesterday. The only 2 complaints that I have are this:
1) Earsplitting volume levels (for no reason!). Not just at the exciting parts, but through the entire movie. My brain hurt.
2) The idjit family who sat next to us. They brought 2 young kids (7 or 8, tops, by my guess) to this scary, dark, violent, loud, PG-13 movie. The daughter bailed with Mom partway through, but the son sat on Dad's lap, fidgeting and asking questions through the entire frickin' movie. "Are those the bad guys?" I wanted to smack the father. Hard.
All right, enough with the complaints, and on to the good stuff.
The movie itself did not disappoint. It dragged in a few parts, but I really enjoyed it. I've seen Tim Burton's Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992). I saw Val Kilmer and Val Kilmer's pouty lips in Batman Forever (1995), but I don't remember much about it. I purposely avoided Batman & Robin (1997) and the egregious Catwoman (2004).
I liked Batman Begins better than any of the previous offerings. It's much more angsty (think Dark Knight Returns), and much less brightly-colored and campy. As you watch the once-shining, moderne Gotham City deteriorate into a cess pit of corruption and predatory self-interest, you know why the Batman is so damned angry all the time.
The bat-suit does not have nipples. The Batmobile looks like it could shoot through schools. I particularly liked the Arkham Asylum scenes and the introduction of the Scarecrow. (I'd devoured Grant Morrison and Dave McKean's Arkham Asylum when it first came out in 1997, and I'm now eager to re-read it.) In short, it was worth seeing, even for $9.25 (choke, cough), in a non-stadium-seating theatre, while sitting in a busted seat. But next time I'm bringing dueling gloves to smack the idjit.
Posted by rv at June 19, 2005 11:43 AM to movieI agree that this is by far the best Batman movie. The thing I liked most about it is that it's actually *about Batman*, not about the villain like the other non-sucky Batman movies (where sucky equates to "directed by Joel Schumacher").
I assume you've read it, but a lot of details (if not the story itself) come from Frank Miller's Batman: Year One. (Commisioner Loeb, Detective Flass, the device in the heel to summon the bat swarm, and the final scene w/ Batman and Gordon all come to mind).
Like I've said: It's not perfect, but it's very satisfying.
I agree it dragged in some points, but what a great setup for more. And I loved, loved the way batman moved, even though you don't see much of him.
I don't remember reading Batman: Year One, so I'm reading chris's version in the next week or so...
Mark Y. loved it, FYI....
Posted by: cf at June 20, 2005 10:45 AMOh, and the second time we saw it (Yesterday with chris's bro and girlfriend), there was a kids birthday party of like 8 year olds (definitely not 13+) sitting off to a section to the right of us. And they gave them _crinkly_ candy bags. 8 year olds. Why the f* do parents complain about violence in movies when they take the kids to violent movies?? Grr.
Posted by: cf at June 20, 2005 10:48 AMI can't remember if I've read Year One, but I ordered it yesterday through inter-library loan. Yay, Minuteman Library Network! Thanks for the tip, nbh.
CF: you're absolutely right; it is satisfying, and an excellent set-up for what's to come. The destruction of stately Wayne manor nicely answered a question that's always bugged Chris— how do you build a Batcave without anyone noticing?
I liked Michael Caine as Alfred, and particularly enjoyed Morgan Freeman as Fox (aka "Q"). Again, more plausible explanations for where Batman gets all his cool "toys". Nice to see Rutger Hauer get some screen time, and positively shocking to see Gary Oldman playing a good guy. Inconceivable!
Posted by: rv at June 20, 2005 11:15 AM