Batman Begins
D | Saturday, June 18, 2005

---

Batman is back - and he's dark and brooding and mysterious again. No more Iceman, no Dr. Ross, no more Govern-ator, no more Clueless BatGirl, no more anatomically correct Batsuit (the nipples, ridiculous). The franchise is back and kicking ass.

I thought this was EXCELLENT! A CNN/EW review said this had all the elements necessary for a good comic book adaptation and I could not agree more. Everything was there - good plot, good villains, good action sequences -it was fast, fun, and was serious and dark without being too serious (it had funny lines and flowing comic book feel). I was incredibly pleased with this movie and the possibilities for where the series can go from here with Christopher Nolan at the helm (anywhere that is not near Joel-freak-of-nature-Schumacher is an improvement). This was really a fun film to watch. I thought Christian Bale nailed the Bruce Wayne/Batman dichotomy - easily the best since Keaton, Morgan Freeman got a lot of humor value, Michael Caine was a refreshingly sharp Alfred, and Gary Oldman had to be type cast as Jim Gordon. And the plot was interesting too. And they weaved in all the flashbacks well. So many things were done well here.

***SPOILER ALERT***
Stop reading if you haven't seen the film and don't want anything revealed early. You've been warned...

My only concerns (I repeat and truly mean this - only concerns) are continuity issues. This film alone is a perfect Batman movie, much like 1989 Batman. But for some reason I was assuming that, as a prequel, this movie would do what the Star Wars prequels did for the original SW series - tie everything together and fill in any open gaps. Don't get me wrong, I loved how this movie gave more about Bruce Wayne becoming Batman and how it re-examined the death of Bruce's parents, but it did not maintain continuity with the rest of the series, particularly the next movie, the 1989 Batman.

For example, in the 1989 movie Bruce's parents are killed by Jack Napier (the Joker). This of course is necessary because sets up the remainder of the plot as Batman purposely drops Jack into the vat of acid, thus turning him into Joker (see lines at the end of the film about J:"You made me when you dropped me in that vat of acid..." B:"I made you, you made me first. You killed my parents.") In the 2005 movie, Bruce's parents were killed by a random homeless guy. Not continuous.

Running with this same theme, the end of the 2005 movie would not be possible. Batman creates the Joker in 1989 movie - the Joker can't be running around in the 2005 prequel leaving playing cards everywhere without Batman having created him yet. Not continuous.

Also, the Bat-sign. Batman gives them (including Gordon) the bat signal at the end of 1989 Batman. So how can Gordon make one in 2005 Batman. There were a few other continuity issues which force this movie out of the series. Arguments could also be made that the only two Batman movies that are linked are Batman and Batman Returns, leaving the other two (craptastic movies) completely separate, which assuming that no Batman movies need be continuous, would not present a problem for this movie either. I guess I assumed it would link in perfectly and it did not.

Ash's big problem was the Chinese prison camp/mountain top retreat:
A: Why did he have to be trained on a mountain top in China?
D: He could have been trained at the 7/11? What?
A: He could have moved the training to West Chester, it didn't matter. He didn't have to become a shadow.. in China... on a mountain top... with a blue flower. Other than that, I liked it.
***SPOILERS END***

All in all, the film is excellent as a Batman movie and I feel, excellent as a stand alone film. It is a solid summer blockbuster. Go see it.

D | 6/18/2005 12:48:00 AM |   Post your comment

---

Comments:

I totally agree with you about the continuity problems. My friend raised those same concerns. I guess it's their way of starting a whole new franchise although that's difficult given the expectations from previous films. Also, since almost all the villahins have been used, what's next? Another movie with Joker? I honestly wouldn't mind, but Jack wouldn't come back, and he's the best for that role.
Ruvym | June 18, 2005 4:32 AM | permalink
 

---

I don't know a lot about the original storyline (meaning: the comics), but was the 1989 film true to the original comics? From what I remember (meaning what I remember about what I've heard) about the original storyline, Nolan's film is closer to original intent than Burtons.

But, I could also be totally wrong on that.

Craig - Brooke's boyfriend, in case you were wondering who this is.
Craig | June 19, 2005 7:04 PM | permalink
 

---

Dude, you're right - this movie totally rocked! It was awesome, except for the two guys sitting behind me who found every humorous moment to be the FUNNIEST moment in film history! What idiots. Anyway, I just wanted to say how excited I am that you used the term "craptastic" in your post. I love that word!
IrishBrooke | June 19, 2005 7:21 PM | permalink
 

---

Ruvym,
I agree, Joker should only be Jack, but he's pretty old. There is no way to bring him back for a movie where he is supposed to look younger. I've read online rumors that they are going to get Mark Hammil. Interesting? No, bad idea I think.

Craig,
Honestly, I don't know the answer to that. Both directors have taken some liberties to be sure, but I didn't really read the comic books either. BTW, if you haven't read Batman; Year One, you should because Nolan's movie is loosely based off that comic and it is really excellent. You can probably find it at your local library (in hard back).

Brooke,
Glad you liked the film. Any permeating syllogisms from this film? Bros before city? And "craptastic" huh? Well, OK.
D | June 20, 2005 3:12 AM | permalink
 

---

Mark Hammil = bad idea.
Ruvym | June 20, 2005 6:16 PM | permalink
 

---

Post your comment