Batman Begins

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Zack Dixon, Jun 10, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. avwh

    avwh New Member

    Location:
    Piedmont, CA
    All of Christopher Nolan's films have been worth seeing, IMO. Batman Begins is very good.

    Only "downside" is, it launches another "franchise of sequels". Unless they keep the same creative/producer/director team intact, I fear that we won't get the same quality.
     
  2. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I'm ten years late to the party, but I just watched this for the first time. I have to say it looks great, but I thought the direction was pretty uninspired for Nolan. I guess this was an early film. What's odd about the film is it meanders on for 40 minutes without much of a plot. I guess when they say "Begins" they took for granted we had all been hit with a neuralizer gun and needed to watch the whole Batman story from scratch. Fair enough, but I thought the first 45 minutes just meandered around without much to draw you into the story. And the last hour was an action snoozefest, which, I guess, is the payoff for some folks. Not me. If I ever seen another hero and villain battling it out on a train speeding towards a crash ... it'll be too soon. I swear there was a scene where the police chase the Batmobile for what felt like ten minutes? Why? It wasn't even an interestingly directed chase scene or the slightest bit important to the story. I thought the whole League of Shadows storyline was fairly laughable (they can't come up with anything more plausible than Lamont Cranston mystic East hokum?) and Liam Neelson may have been the new action king ten years ago, but now he just cheapens a film after becoming the new *ahem* Michael Kane willing to take any role for a paycheck. I guess this film was the rebirth of the Batman saga, but as it certainly didn't have the depth I would have expected from a Nolan film. Then again, this was probably his passport to making the films he wants to make. I just felt it was a new Batman, but the same tired old POW! BANG! BIFF!
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  3. You mean Michael Caine?

    He might have been like that a couple of decades ago but he's largely taken on more interesting and complex characters since then.

    Neeson takes on roles not for the money but to keep working. You'll notice his work pace doubled after the death of his wife. I believe work is therapeutic for him. Has he done less than stellar films? Sure. Every actor has done so at some point but, if the role interests him, he will try it on for size.

    Actors also can only take the roles offered them. He has taken the best of what was offered to him after finding himself somewhat confined to certain roles. When he has tried to break away from those, they often aren't always a success. Perhaps he has contributed to that but, again, an actor has to work.
     
  4. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Well, yeah. He has to play old men now who are probably intrinsically more interesting and complex. Neeson can keep taking the crap action movie roles at this point.
     
  5. As far as needing to tell the origin story again there were differences between Nolan's and Burton's enough so that the continuity he wanted to establish would be important.

    It was fairly imports t to establish Wayne's fall, rise because of the League, etc. All of this is important and, if you haven't seen the other two movies, you need to as they are tied into the first although I agree that Nolan needs a better editor.
     
  6. He's pointed out himself that taking roles for the money wasn't the best thing for him to do.

    He's largely taken roles that were interesting and not simply based on the money since the 1986 woth Hannah And Her Sisters. I think he's redeemed himself by now.
     
  7. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Burton's "Batman" never gave us much of an "origin story". Sure, we saw Bruce's parents killed, but that was about it - while the 1989 film presented Batman in his early days of crime-fighting, it told us next to nothing about how Bruce got there.

    "Begins", on the other hand, gets into that story in a way not attempted by a prior Batman film. I don't understand criticisms that it's an origin story because the title tells us it's an origin story.

    And I'm happy it gives us such detail. Outside of the death of Bruce's parents, "Begins" didn't take on territory already known to most viewers.

    Love or hate them, the three Nolan Batmans tell a real character arc...
     
    Stormrider77, Lonson and wayneklein like this.
  8. I agree. I also think that Nolan wanted his own, complete origin story that wasn't dependent on Burton's as well--he wanted to tell a complete story not an extension of Burton's which required him to revisit (even if it was brief) what Burton told as it is essential to U der stand how Bruce started on his path.

    Nolan tells the story up front in each of the titles of each of the three films.
     
  9. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, it seems odd that anyone would complain that the movie is an origin story since it's called "Batman Begins"! What do you expect from a movie with that title? :laugh:
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  10. Well they could have gone back further--Batman's Conception!
     
    Oatsdad likes this.
  11. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Of course, "Gotham" does go back further than "Batman Begins" - just not quite as far as you espouse! :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine