Comments on: Batman Begins

By: Ogrebear

Ogrebear — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:14:38 +0000

I saw Batman Begins a cuple of times and I agree it mixes Burtons Batman 1/2 with Year One and the 70′s/80′s Bats stories- no camp in here! It is definatly a strong, mature Batman story.

The weakest part for me was the burning of the Manor- while it made sence in the plot it was sad to see all that Wayne history buring.

As for Batman letting Ducard/Gas die- did you see a body? Nope! Remember in comics unless you see a body then the villian is not dead! I am gald they are not following the same route as the eariler movies by having the villian(s) die at the end.

Last thing – was it me or was Gotham not ‘Gothic’ engough?

By: Alejandro

Alejandro — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:24:40 +0000

Remember the end of a Death in the Family. Batman left the Joker to die in that helicopter and after asked sueprman to look for the body of the dead Joker.

The movie was great, but Holmes was annoying.

By: REVTDR

REVTDR — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:47:05 +0000

I didn’t agree with the comment about BATMAN BEGINS being a prelude to the other films.
Chris Nolan has been very clear that this is a total reboot of the the franchise. BB was
the first film in an entirely new series and as such was a fitting way to open the new
saga.

Bale IS Bruce Wayne/Batman. Don’t get me wrong, I love Kevin Conroy’s portrayal
in the various DCAU series but Bale finally gives us a movie version worth following.

I do agree with the previous comments about Ducard/Ras’ death but it didn’t detract from
my enjoyment of the film. One last thing, thanks to Mr. Goyer, Mr. Nolan and the incomparable
Gary Oldman for giving us the real Jim Gordon.

By: Questfan

Questfan — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:43:13 +0000

I agree with jay66. Batman at his beginning was not above offing a few of the worst of the bad guys, besides, to project the values of a matured, heroic Batman on the one just starting out is to overlook character development, as important in life as in fiction. In essence, Wayne was confronted with the same decision as Ducard gave Wayne, but this time the victim is no nameless peasant who killed a single man, but a madman who has likely killed dozens, likely been responsible for the deaths of many more people, and was killed in the act of attempting to kill millions. How would we regard someone who killed Hitler in 1944, as a villain or hero? Many ethicists would argue that Wayne made an ethical, if not necessarily a moral decision.

Besides, why is everyone convinced that Ducard was Ras, because the character says so in the movie? It could be just as likely that Ras/Wattanabe is still alive and sent Ducard to do his bidding, that is the likely scenario I see.

By: Jason Kirk

Jason Kirk — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:06:28 +0000

Jay makes an interesting comment about the early stories and it’s one that comes up from time-to-time, but I’m convinced that if those stories are still in continuity then the gun aspect will almost certainly been retconned out. I’ve just reread the Englehart Detective issues (with Silver St Cloud) and it’s very interesting to see close how the tone of Batman Begins is to those issues. There are badguy deaths in those issues that approximate the death of Ducard in the film, but it’s still that line that bothers me. I agree that Batman won’t shed any tears for them, but in my mind he would never pass up the chance to save the badguy.

I agree with Michael about the “choppy” editing of the fight scenes – a flaw that was also present in Revenge of the Sith.

And now a big prediction for the third or fouth sequal: A pit for Ra’s and the appearance of Talia. (Well I can at least hope.)

By: Jay66

Jay66 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:57:44 +0000

Just a comment about batman not saving Ras at the end.This is a beginning
for batman and a maturing process.If you will recall ,batman killed a few
guys in the first couple years of detective comics.He learns from this and moves on.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:36:57 +0000

in response to Mark Costa’s comment, i feel that the second half of the movie, including the
machine that was stolen was explained just fine. if you didn’t get that then i would see it
again. And as far as the mask not lookign cool enough, you have to remember that this
Batman movie is really the prelude to the first Batman, so the better looking masks come as Batman
continues in the other movies that we have already seen.
the part of the movie that i didn’t appreciate was the fight scenes. they were a little “choppy”, you couldn’t
really see clearly who was doing what in the fight scenes, especially when Batman was fighting more
that one person at a time.
i also agree with Aayush’s comment about Batman letting the villain die.

By: Aayush

Aayush — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:27:59 +0000

No way would Batman let anybody, no matter how big a villain, die.
That essentially spoils the veryy core of the character of Batman.
The movie was perfect except for Batman letting Ducard die.

By: Mark Costa

Mark Costa — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:29:22 +0000

I thought the first half of the film was alot better then the second half. Infact I thought the first half was perfect and wouldnt change a thing, however I found the second half of the film slightly confusing, particularly the machine that was stolen from wayne enterprises and the liquid that was spilt into Gothams water supply; I just felt that it wasnt explained well enough. Also, this is just nit picking but it bothers me a little, I thought the bat mask didnt look cool enough.

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:41:05 +0000

I agree with George. It was an appropiate line and disassociated execution. Batman is a vigilante and although he came close to killing once in this movie, he allowed the “fates” to carry it out for him on the train. Definitely appropiate. Don’t confuse yourself with the word “hero”. We have millions of vets who I apply that same word to.