$71 million since Wednesday, and while I can't find a link to back it up, I heard on the radio this morning that WB has announced they are going ahead with a sequel with Bale, Caine, and Freeman returning. No Katie this round, though.
I paid to see it again Saturday night, and my showing was sold out. Word of mouth might just cause it to beat Bewitched next weekend.
This was a pretty kickass Batman movie. It's finally nice to see a Batman movie that focuses on Batman (though, I'd argue the focus was more on Bruce Wayne) and not "Over-The-Top Name Actor Villain!"
The only way this movie was really going to work was by setting up a new continuity different from the 90s movies. That said, aside from Joe Chill, this movie actually could fit well in the existing continuity due to the fact that the Gordon/Batman relationship was just about zilch in the Burton movies. For instance, that "Joker" bit at the end fits perfectly with the existing continuity as Jack Napier always left that as his calling card before taking on his new persona.
I liked Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne, and he added both a new dimension to the character but also a lot of credibility as a kickass fighter. I liked how they had a couple of the old Keatonesque "quirky" moments in the movie (like when he "goes for a swim").
I didn't really buy into his "Batman persona", though. There are shots of him where he looks silly in the costume, and his voice was a little distracting at times. I appreciate the effort to distinguish Batman from Bruce Wayne, but it seemed like too much at times. I still think Keaton was a better Batman.
I liked the villains and how they all worked into the plot. Scarecrow and Ra's were pretty well done, and they did just enough of Ra's to make him this crazy supernatural guy without going into the Lazarus Pit or anything.
It wasn't without its flaws, either. The darker, ambient, oppressive music worked really well, and I can't see Elfman's score with this movie. There is no "Theme from Batman", which is unfortunate, but at times, it was almost too serious for its own good.
They brought back the Wayne parents murder only to have Bruce catch up with the killer again, and furthermore actually NAMED him "Joe Chill" in court which was kinda wierd. I'm not one of those purists, and I didn't mind it in the '89 version either, but when I heard they were going to re-do the Wayne family murders, I had hoped that they would keep it random and feed into Bruce's obsession.
EDIT: I guess the Wayne parents being murdered has been ret-conned a million times over, though, so there isn't much that can be done. Still, it's best that it's left random.
In fact, it seemed that they had started out the movie doing everything very serious and dramatic, but by the end of the movie we were back to the Batman of the 90s. I had the feeling that what the movie really accomplished was the transition from Nolan's Batman into Burton's Batman. When Batman is talking to Gordon at the end, we're sitting there anticipating the next movie centered on a new villain, a new girl for Bruce, and a new Seal song.
Batman Begins weekend actual #'s were actually higher than estimated. Word of mouth seems to be strong, so the potential is definitely there to make some more respectable #'s at US domestic BO. Its also one of the best selling I-MAX features ever and is selling out at I-MAX all around the country. This is good news for Batman and if the movie can stay strong over the weekdays and NEXT WEEKEND especially it can continue to do well.
It will definitely make more than Batman and Robin at the very least.
"Don't compare my arm...to your cheap arm!" -Edward Elric
Originally posted by SkolazoidI didn't really buy into his "Batman persona", though. There are shots of him where he looks silly in the costume, and his voice was a little distracting at times. I appreciate the effort to distinguish Batman from Bruce Wayne, but it seemed like too much at times. I still think Keaton was a better Batman.
There was nothing wrong with Michael Keaton's playing of Batman and right now I probably would say it's a close 1-2*, except that Bale was given more of a character to play with than Keaton was.
Although I'd have to see it again to really see if The Voice thing was an overdone distraction or not...although I'll defer to Frank Miller's interperation that this is a guy who dresses up as a demon on a vigilante crusade, so he might have wanted to sound as unsettling and scary to anyone he's trying to rattle information out of. So I'll say it probably isn't out of bounds for the character.
*There was, however, one 5-second snippet where Val Kilmer absolutely nailed it better than anyone. The "I can stop you" line in BF was perfect; it's just that everything else in that movie was bright neon, camera-mugging and rubber nipples.
(edited by Blanket Jackson on 20.6.05 1854) "Did you get your Journalism degree from a box of Cocoa Puffs?"
Originally posted by Blanket Jackson Although I'd have to see it again to really see if The Voice thing was an overdone distraction or not...although I'll defer to Frank Miller's interperation that this is a guy who dresses up as a demon on a vigilante crusade, so he might have wanted to sound as unsettling and scary to anyone he's trying to rattle information out of. So I'll say it probably isn't out of bounds for the character.
The voice thing never bothered me. One could go with the Frank Miller explanation but I've always chocked it up to sinking into "character". I do some acting and even putting on a mask or some prop can change how you act, and it's quite possible that Bruce's cowl does that for him.
I saw it today, excellent excellent film. Everythng worked on every level. Even though I wish I had saw it BEFORE taking my four year old who got the bejeezus scared out of him by the scarecrow.Other than that it was perfect.
the only thing that bugged me and this is easily remedied in future films, is that he dropped out of college. They concentrated on his fighting skills, but they left out his detective skills. I mean isnt Batman's greatest skill is that he can figure shit out.
"I could be wrong, but I doubt it"---Charles Barkley
I don't think you learn a knack for deductive reasoning in college. Bruce Wayne wouldn't need a college education to unravel the Riddler's... riddles. It's a natural gift, and it may be something we see more of when he faces other villains. Already he was upset that he didn't figure out Ra's Al Ghul's decoy. He should slowly learn to look deeper into the minds of the criminally insane. An escaped Scarecrow and The Joker are already in his sights, so we know he'll have his hands full from the beginning. I like the idea of watching him develop instead of being unstoppable right from the start.
(Love the film, by the way. Definitely not for little kids, though.)
I saw it last night and thought it kicked ass. Very few movies have kept me entertained all the way through and the last one that did was ironically the Incredibles. Looking back I can't honestly say that any of the Tim Burton movies were actually good. Making the Joker the person who killed the Waynes was pretty stupid. Also in the previous movies I never felt Batman's fear of becoming a killer. On the other hand Keaton to me at least play Bruce Wayne better. I will say nothing about the other two.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Originally posted by Hogan's My DadAnd I really, really like the rumours that Mark Hamill himself will be playing the Joker in the sequel. I just hope he gets more than fifteen minutes of screentime.
I love Mark Hamill as the Joker. I truly think he was the best Joker to come along and has spoiled me for any future Jokers. (The Bruce Timm-verse spoiled me for a lot of things, but that's a different story.)
Having said that, however, just because something comes off well animated doesn't necessarily mean it'll translate well live. In fact, hearing the trademark Mark Hamill Joker laugh during a live movie sounds kind of awkward.