1,151

(84 replies, posted in Episodes)

My little sister is ecstatic. Yep, I'm officially commencing banging my head against the wall.

Sorry for forgetting to post a spoiler tag, everyone. *blushes in embarrassment at noob mistake* Thanks for the fix, Teague.

Note: This review is pretty much spontaneous keyboard-mashing with no preplanned structure, and is honestly the first full length film review I've written, so all apologies if it rambles a bit.

http://www.traileraddict.com/content/warner-bros-pictures/batmanbegins-5.jpg

I, like much of the world, cheated and watched The Dark Knight by itself without having seen Batman Begins first. I was by no means a huge fan of the Caped Crusader—I went for the Joker. The topic of how amazing TDK is has already been covered by four much better men than me, so let me just say I was blown away by the film—I hate superhero films, and loved this one, which I still maintain is a crime drama with a couple fantastical elements.

However, in preparation for The Dark Knight Rises, I figured it was time I saw how Batman became, well, Batman. So I went out to Target, bought the DVD, and popped it in.

Mixed feelings, I have to say.

Storyline, Script and Such:
I can't help wishing now that I'd seen Begins before I'd seen TDK so that I wouldn't be comparing the two in my head throughout the viewing of the former. As it is, I kinda agree with Brian's opinion of the film on the TDK commentary—it's like the Phantom Menace of the franchise. Not in its quality, by any means, but in that none of it was really necessary for the rest of the series. As Trey noted, this is Nolan's only film that remotely resembles a Hero's Journey, but even then, Bruce Wayne is already three quarters-Batman in the beginning of the film. It would have been more interesting if Bruce's arc were more pronounced, but as it is, we spend the entire first half of the film waiting for him to become Batman already, dammit. I will give the film a large amount of credit for actually being a Batman film that is about Batman, something that is sadly very rarely seen; Ebert was so happy about this factor that he gave the film 4 stars of 4.

I felt that the underlying theme of fear was rather heavyhanded in its execution. Not that TDK was by any means subtle in its exploration of chaos and such, but it felt more natural in that film, maybe because of Ledger's phenomenal performance. Maybe this one is just me, but I felt the film could've explored the idea better.

The film's conclusion came far too easily for me. For starters, Rachel's disposal of Scarecrow really irritates me. Crane has been a total badass for most of his time in the film so far. However, when he actually becomes Scarecrow, he gets wiped out by a tazer shot and rides off wailing like a ninny. It felt as if Nolan couldn't figure out a way to work the character into the film's conclusion and had to come up with an easy way of getting rid of him. Batman's disposal of Ra's al Ghul irks me to no end. Bruce knows damn well that not saving Ra's is the same is killing him, and yet his moral code differentiates between the two. I guess Batman can kill—when it's convenient for him. Oh, and then there's the matter of the fear toxin. Even though the train didn't make it to Wayne Tower, it still managed to unleash the toxin on thousands of Gotham's inhabitants. Yet we never are told what the result of that mass hysteria was, whether an antidote has been provided to the public, or what.

I felt that the dialogue stood up perfectly well, and enjoyed that the film's sense of humor was more pronounced than that of TDK. However, I would have rewritten much of Thomas Wayne's dialogue; in the train ride scene especially, he's spouting blatant as-you-know dialogue that really took me out of the scene.

Performances:
Most of the acting in this film ranges from perfectly competent to excellent. I felt that Bale did a much better job as Batman in this first installment than he did in TDK—probably because Batman was actually the main character of this film. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman were all excellent in their roles as Bruce's friends and confidants. Liam Neeson is by no means amazing as Ra's al Ghul, but still plays the role just fine, and Cillian Murphy is great for as long as Dr. Crane is not Scarecrow. The only flies in the proverbial ointment are Rachel Dawes and Thomas Wayne. I have never been a Katie Holmes fan, and she felt incredibly flat in her performance here. The fact that she looks twelve doesn't help matters any. Maggie Gyllenhal did a much better job in TDK—pity she didn't get the chance to reprise the role. I don't know who played Thomas Wayne, but his delivery felt very stiff and awkward to me.

Effects, Battles and Whatnot:
The movie's special effects stand up for the most part; there are a couple shots during the final train battle that are clearly CGI, but most of the rest of the animation works well. The Tumbler scenes are amazing. Fight choreography...meh. Nolan has a problem with using really quick cuts that make it very hard to see what's going on, a problem that was bettered but not solved in TDK.

Cinematography
Very brown, which is a bit jarring after TDK's blueness. I like the look, though, for the most part; it feels dirty and noir-y.

Overall, Begins is a perfectly competent film that has inevitably been overshadowed by its fantastic sequel. As I said, I wish I could have watched the film and seen it on its own merit, with nothing to compare it to; as is, I couldn't help but hold it up to TDK and find it wanting. Is it a film I will rewatch? Probably not, unless I splurge and go see the whole trilogy in Imax with my girlfriend later this month. It can be fun, there are parts that are intriguing, and it has the novelty of being an actual Batman story; nevertheless, my overall response can be summed up as: "Meh."

1,154

(52 replies, posted in Episodes)

Jen wrote:

I think the subsidence, of musicals also probably has more than a bit to do with casting.  You can't just pick people who are known stars and put them in theatrical roles I think in some cases, like Chicago, it succeeds while in others, like Phantom of the Opera, it doesn't.    I think Gerard Butler did an ok job, but his more rock/pop style of singing paired horribly with Emmy Rossum's operatic style.  I think the casting of Nine was another case where a musical could have worked but didn't, for a multitude of reasons.  I think it can be done, and I think Les Miserables has done a good job in that respect with its casting, but I guess we'll see in December.

Totally agreed. I think that Sweeney Todd is the best recent musical I've seen in terms of celebrity casting; apart from Helena Bonham Carter's second-rate performance as Mrs. Lovett (I'm sorry, the woman cannot sing), everyone did a tremendous job at both acting and singing—even Borat and Hans Gruber, for crying out loud.

avatar wrote:
Matt Vayda wrote:

I've been meaning to post this for a while now, but I keep forgetting.

For a genuine, but humorous take on Star Wars in a courtroom scenario, check out Star Wars on Trial.

Basically a bunch of authors and essayists (many of whom have authored Star Wars related material) got together, chose topics to debate, and presented an argument for and against each, including opening and closing statements.

Thanks for the tip. Bought the book and am reading David Brin's accusation now - that Star Wars is more backward-looking medieval fantasy, rather than science fiction. He doesn't go for all this Princess, Queen, chosen one, destiny, prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the force, stuff. He likes meritocratic storylines where common people collaborate and solve their own problems without the legitimacy of birthright, aristocracies, predestination messiahs, etc.

I have mixed feelings toward this book. Many insightful arguments are made, and there are some genuinely humorous moments, but Brin and co. spew such vitriol against the films. Not just "The Prequels Suck" vitriol—that's the good kind tongue—but hatred toward any kind of heroic fantasy archetypes whatsoever (Brin hates Luke Skywalker and The Lord of the Rings in particular). Brin and some of his witnesses come off as foaming-at-the-mouth rage beasts much of the time. As the defendant, Matthew Stover, notes at the end, all of the witnesses for the defense seem to be just enjoying themselves and having fun, whereas the prosecution seems genuinely enraged that Star Wars is successful. It's rather baffling, and rather pathetic.

1,156

(8 replies, posted in Episodes)

I remember going to see this movie in theaters. I was expecting it to be either horrendously, spectacularly bad, or come together and be as awesome as its title suggests. And it was...neither. It was the same thing as Pirates 4—not spectacularly bad but pathetically bad. And that depressed me. If I'm going to watch a bad movie, I want it to be something like Plan 9 or Pirates 3: utterly, mind-blowingly, zanily bad. Not just depressingly, pathetically subpar. Which is what this was. *sigh* Re-watching it as a Redbox film did nothing to improve the experience.

Great commentary, guys. I laughed harder at this one than I have for a while. On the downside—I'm going to go see Brave with my girlfriend on Thursday, and my already-dim hopes that it could be better than it looks have vanished entirely with your comparing it to this turd.  hmm

1,157

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I've said it before—PLEASE, guys, you HAVE to do Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street before my life will be complete.

1,158

(89 replies, posted in Episodes)

I've said it before—PLEASE, guys, you HAVE to do Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street before my life will be complete.

1,159

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

We NEED a Sweeney Todd commentary. A Misery one wouldn't hurt, either.

1,160

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

You guys NEED to do Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. It's the best Trek film ever, and I'm hungry for more of your commentaries set in the Federation after listening to the episodes on Star Trek: 2009 and Star Trek VI.

1,161

(68 replies, posted in Episodes)

If he's good, yes. Otherwise, just a regular episode.

1,162

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Plan 9 From Outer Space?

1,163

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dr. Horrible can wait. Do every single episode of Firefly.

1,164

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Another awesome one: Plan 9 from Outer Space.

1,165

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Invid wrote:

I avoided Sweeney Todd as I'm a fan of the musical. If you're going to cut the songs anyways, why not just do an original take on Sweeney instead of an adaptation? You guys tackling it would force a viewing out of me, though smile

Actually, the movie's a musical, too. It sounds like you think they cut all the songs. They didn't, just "The BAllad of Sweeney Todd" and "Kiss Me".

1,166

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

Sweeney Todd would be another awesome one.

1,167

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I'd love for you to do Serenity. Or Indiana Jones. Or Hunt for Red October. Or Lord of the Rings.