Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Batman Begins

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

*Spoilers Follow*

I just saw it. I must say that I was heartbroken that the movie didn't fully pursue the idea of cold, hardcore, absolute justice as presented by Liam Neeson in the first part of the film. I was nearly cheering in the theater for Liam when he spoke to Bruce of Compassion for criminals will only weaken justice and harm the good. The movie exhibited excellent, deep philosophical roots when Bruce Wayne was in his training by the League of Shadows...I was disappointed that the ideas' originator -- and strongest advocate thereof -- was twisted into the villain.

Still, by far the best Batman movie yet. And Michael Caine as Alfred just kicks so much ass :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

************* SPOILER WARNING **************

I didn't agree with the League of Shadows' idea of justice, so I was rooting for Batman all the way through! The idea of decimating an entire population may have some plausibility when you are dealing with dictatorship nations, but it hardly applies when it comes to an american city crippled by corruption - the answer is not to kill all the innocent people, but to bring the criminals to justice. The idea of Bruce Wayne choosing not to be an executioner may be flawed in its reasoning - I agree that criminals don't deserve compassion - but there is something to restraining yourself from the use of lethal force and letting the law take its course. It is the whole reason why we choose to delegate our right of retaliatory force to the government.

But, anyway, phew! gasp! WOW!!! This is one of the best movies I've seen in recent times! The movie was about a clear cut fight between good and evil. The good characters were principled and stood for something, as opposed to the gray protoganists and anti-heroes you usually see. Bruce Wayne was portrayed as a thinking, intellectual man, using his intellect to achieve his values. And they did a fantastic job explaining the origins of Batman. All in all, a good ride - I enjoyed it thoroughly, and I thought it was an excellently done movie, from the plot, the excellent production values, the fine acting performances (especially Christian Bale), through to the thrilling musical score. I found myself sitting at the edge of my seat during the climax! And I loved it when Rachel Dawes sums up the essence of morality in one line - what you are inside doesn't matter, it is what you DO that defines you! When the titles started rolling in the end, I found myself doing something I rarely do at a movie - applauding! I may not completely agree with the movie's explicit philosophy, but I loved its portrayal of a man using his mind to reach his goals, and doing it with a smile on his face!

Edited by manavmehta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the movie was very well done, but I felt as if some scenes in the movie may actually be a little disturbing for younger kids. All the hallucinogen parts in the movie would have scared the hell out of me if I was a 9 year-old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Spoilers Follow*

I just saw it.  I must say that I was heartbroken that the movie didn't fully pursue the idea of cold, hardcore, absolute justice as presented by Liam Neeson in the first part of the film.  I was nearly cheering in the theater for Liam when he spoke to Bruce of Compassion for criminals will only weaken justice and harm the good

I agree, I really liked that line. It was interesting to see how both Batman and Rha Al Guul had a very strict sense of justice, but how their philosophies parted. Guul seems to feed off of some traditionalist, mystic revelation about "harmony", whereas Batman is more concerned about actually protecting innocent, individual people.

One theme I found interesting was how he couldn't be a man and do what he does, he has to be something mystical or symbolic. A person whose life is no longer his to pursue his values, but who is willing to sacrifice his values for Gotham. And that was Batman.

Movies like Batman really make you think about justice in society. Is it okay for Batman to go all vigilante in order to stop criminals? Especially with the city's police so corrupt, is it really a civilized society where retaliatory force belongs to the proper authorities? While this isn't 1960's Batman, who stops by Commisioner Gordon's house and discusses plans of action with the police, Batman still finds some sanction from the legitimate, uncorrupted law enforcement. And he isn't interested in taking justice completely into his own hands, merely to facilitate the capture of criminals the police are incapable of seizing and allowing the objective laws courts to punish them.

I recently wrote this up in a discussion on the ethics of the actions of Superman, and is somewhat applicable here:

The interesting thing about trying to apply our code of ethics to Superman is that he does not exist in our reality. In the fictional universe he inhabits, where alien threats that humanity are not prepared to handle, Superman's actions (which may not bedefendablee in our world) may become acceptable.

To take an example. In a civilized society, justice, in my view, cannot be left to individual whims. A person is allowed to act in self-defense, or to act against criminals in the case of an emergency. But once an emergency situation ends, it is the task of law enforcement to pursue and punish a criminal based off of objective laws. This is necessary in order to protect the lives and rights of innocent people because law enforcement's activities are strictly regulated and controlled. If individuals decide to take retaliation into their own hands, based on their own whims, they take on the role of the police without any of the control and objective laws. You create lynch mobs and gang wars, where it no longer is safe for people to live freely.

Superman is one of thosevigilantess whenever his actions to stop criminals continues beyond the emergency of a situation. As a result, you can see how Superman's regularfeudss with villains takes the characteristics of what I described above: they're like uber-violent gang wars, or Superman is like a single-man lynch mob. Now, Superman is very controlled in his actions and he acts to his best ability not to violate the law. In many cases, he works in conjunction with the law enforcement, but still not as law enforcement. If you compare Metropolis with Gotham, where Batman who acts even FURTHER removed from the law, you can see the relationship between such behavior and the state of society. Gotham is a near unlivable city where the rule of law is meaningless [question raised by Batman Begins: was it already meaningless before Batman showed up? Does Batman's presence further, or stop, the deterioration of order, which is what Gordon's little speech at the end about the Joker suggested]

Now, we have to address the fact that Superman lives in a different reality than we do and the code of ethics for that reality has to be adjusted. In his world, there are threats which humanity cannot possibly handle. The question is: does that then make Superman's actions morally justified? Maybe.

I'd say that it might be acceptable at first, but there has to come a point where the government restores control. Perhaps by legally enlisting superheroes to handle the arising supervillain threats (some stories do deal with this scenario, but it isn't often expanded on what their role is. They often get special "vigilante" authority themselves!)

But this is a fictional universe, and fantasy doesn't need to address such concerns. It's okay to root for good to triumph over evil, even if good breaks certain rules we wouldn't tolerate in our reality. :thumbsup:

--------------------------------------------

Considering that, how justifiable were some of Batman's actions? While most of them seemed acceptable, the wanton damage he caused in the police pursuit made me grimace a bit. Was it necessary to send several cop cars flying through the air, potentially killing their occupants?

One thing I thought was odd: If the microwave emitter caused water to boil, why doesn't it affect human beings who are mostly liquid? Ah, well, I'm no scientist.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came from seeing "Batman Begins", and I have to say, although I wasn't suprised by what I say, I was disappointed (oddly enough). I disagree with the reviews put forth so far. I thought that Liam Nielson's part in the begininning got me excited for the movie, but later when he ends up being the villian, it negated anything good he might have said (in the eyes of the viewer, that is). The fact of the matter is that we are given a false alternative, a package deal in the movie - either we stand for moral absolutes (and become Puritanical zealots) or we show compassion for villany (thereby upholding a selfless idea of "innate good"). The movie, although stylistically done well, was philosophically very convoluted. The original Batman (the version that appeared in the "Detective Comics" series) was what I was hoping for, but instead we are given Wayne Enterprises - selfless philantropist and "tireless helper of the unfortuante". (Remember, the railway they bought?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are ignoring all the context in the movie. A movie is not to be judged by concrete word formulas you learn to pick up in message boards; a movie is not to be trashed if the script contains the words "selfless" or "altruism." A movie is to be judged by considering its entirety. Let us take your review apart step by step.

1. You claim that because Nielson's character ended up being the villain, anything positive he might have initially said is negated. Does the truth of particular statements about principles and reality depend on the actions of the character who made those statements? Of course not. Nielson says one particularly good thing, essentially that "pity for the guilty is treason for the innocent." Does the fact that he acts in an evil manner later in the movie negate the truth of this statement? No.

2. You claim that the movie essentially offers us a package-deal as the moral choices, one where there are moral absolutes and the other where we show compassion for villainy. Were you even paying attention? The actual moral alternatives we are offered in the film are between vengeance and justice.

Notice that Wayne is faced with this alternative early on in the movie, when he's about to kill his parents' killer. This act would not have been justice, it would have been vengeance. Perhaps you need to understand the crucial difference between these two in order to understand the movie.

Wayne is again faced with this alternative when Nielson and his clan ask him to execute a supposed farmer-murderer. Is this what you call justice? Then the clan reveals to Bruce that they are going to destroy Gotham City. You call that justice? Thankfully, he decides to torch those fools and bounce. Why does he save Nielson though? Because he learned to value the good things about him, before learning about his evil. Get it?

3. You claim the movie was philosophically convoluted. Again, did you actually watch the movie? This movie is one of the most philosophically sound movies to come out in a while. For one there is the justice vs. vengeance theme throughout, which you clearly don't have a grasp for. Second, there is an emphasis on judging people, judging people based on their actions and not on what they profess to be. The third excellent philosophically sound point in the movie was that Bruce actually flaunted his selfishness! Near the end, when Gordon (the honest cop) tells Bruce "I never thanked you for saving my life," and Bruce replies "And you'll never have to," of course implying that he's not saving people's lives for their sake, he's doing it out of his own self-interest.

4. You lament the fact that Bruce's dad built a public railroad for the city, as if this at all reflected the motives of the main character in the movie or was even a major aspect of the story! Dude, train your mind to not freak out if you hear "selfless" or "altruist," pay attention to the entire movie and especially to context.

As I said, I don't think you watched the movie. This movie is about a man's internal struggle between vengeance and justice and how he eventually picks justice and acts to fight for his ideal, his values. Bruce Wayne is a proud value achiever, while Nielson is a value destroyer, a pure malevolent universe premise holding SOB with the most convoluted ideas about "justice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's telling that most of the posts so far have started with "I just came from seeing Batman ..." :thumbsup:

Well, so did I, and I've got to say it was a very well-done superhero film. It was well-written, flawlessly directed, wonderfully acted, and refreshingly philosophical.

Bruce Wayne comes away from the League of Shadows understanding justice can be served wthout vengeance, that the eye-for-an-eye approach brings you to the level of evildoers. This reinforces Wayne's friend Rachel's admonition before he vanishes into the criminal underworld.

Wayne even manages a little Francisco d'Anconia facade - to protect his identity as a hero, he plays the rich, spoiled playboy-who-can-have-everything quite well. Unlike d"Anconia - who destroyed his fortunes to keep them out of the hands of looters - Wayne cleverly regains control of his inherited billions from Wayne Enterprises' caretakers.

Aesthetically, I thoroughly enjoyed how Gotham was presented in Wayne's youth. The skyscrapers were tall and proud, glinting in the sunlight. His father - a proud capitalist - used his fortunes to construct an elevated train throughout the city (somewhat reminiscent of Roark building a housing project in Fountainhead). Railway cars sped along thin steel girders with the grace of a figure skater.

Even in the "present" depiction of Gotham, the city's corruption was manifest as garbage and run-down buildings, rather than the confusing retro-Soviet sculptures and designs that dominated Joel Schumacher's travesties. It presented Gotham as corrupt and dirty, but a few street sweepers, window washers, and caped crusaders could resore Gotham's once-proud glory again.

Batman Begins is also good use of romantic realism in film. Superhero films tend to go too far with the digital effects, and suddenly a character becomes little more than a Hollywood centerpiece for fancy graphics. Too soon, the special effects upstage actors who have won ultiple Academy awards ...

Nothing appeared sound-staged, fake, or unbelievable in Batman Begins. Suspension of disbelief is easy to attain in Act 1, and by the time Act 2 hits, the viewer is treated to credible (but still amazing) action. While the stunts, chase scenes, and other collateral damage that comes with superheros was quite spectacular, it was plausible. One scene has the batmobile (more of a tank than a car) is racing along rooftops, ripping the roofing material away, as if this three-ton Humvee-on-PCP held its tread barely by grace of its speed.

(For Marvel comics readers, not a single No-Prize can be awarded to this film. Everything had a reason, and at no moment did I think, "wait a minute ...")

The film was clever, witty, exciting, paced, and manages to bring the best aspects of Bruce Wayne / Batman into focus.

Oh, and none of the standard superhero pap about "sacrificing one's wants and desires to serve the greater good." Wayne is the picture of pride in this film, never apologizing, and pursuing his values like no one ever has before. Way to go, Chris Nolan and company - you done good!

This Objectivist - and rabid Batman fan for a long time - gives it $$$$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, before I address you responses, I have two things to say. One, do not talk down to me - as if I read AR yesterday and jump at the sight of selfless. Two, my comments in the previous posts were only my first impression of the movie - like I said I had just returned from it.

I think you are ignoring all the context in the movie.  A movie is not to be judged by concrete word formulas you learn to pick up in message boards; a movie is not to be trashed if the script contains the words "selfless" or "altruism."  A movie is to be judged by considering its entirety.  Let us take your review apart step by step
.

I recognized a major flaw in the movie - the fact that Bruce's father, throughout the entire movie, was admired, not for is ingenuity or genius, but on how selfless and giving his was. To cite some examples - the scene at the party "the apple has fallen far from the tree", Nielson's dialouge with Bruce, describing how "a man who was giving in many respects was mugged by the very people he was trying to help" (paraphrased), the train, and many others. As an Objectivist (I presume), it is very reckless of you simply to overlook that theme. It wasn't subtle, it wasn't simply a passing remark, it was a critical aspect of the movie!!

1. You claim that because Nielson's character ended up being the villain, anything positive he might have initially said is negated. Does the truth of particular statements about principles and reality depend on the actions of the character who made those statements? Of course not. Nielson says one particularly good thing, essentially that "pity for the guilty is treason for the innocent." Does the fact that he acts in an evil manner later in the movie negate the truth of this statement? No.

Yes, it does! The point of art is to display morality in action. If a character believes something, and later becomes a villian, the writers of the script are obviously trying to say something about his idea. I believe that, altough evil men can speak truth, the way the movie was made downcast and protrayed Nielson's ideas as Puritanical.

2. You claim that the movie essentially offers us a package-deal as the moral choices, one where there are moral absolutes and the other where we show compassion for villainy.  Were you even paying attention?  The actual moral alternatives we are offered in the film are between vengeance and justice. 

Notice that Wayne is faced with this alternative early on in the movie, when he's about to kill his parents' killer.  This act would not have been justice, it would have been vengeance.  Perhaps you need to understand the crucial difference between these two in order to understand the movie. 

Wayne is again faced with this alternative when Nielson and his clan ask him to execute a supposed farmer-murderer.  Is this what you call justice?  Then the clan reveals to Bruce that they are going to destroy Gotham City.  You call that justice?  Thankfully, he decides to torch those fools and bounce.  Why does he save Nielson though?  Because he learned to value the good things about him, before learning about his evil.  Get it?

Firstly, I concede to your analysis. I didn't understand that theme, but you shed some light onto it. Secondly, I am not a child. Do not treat me like one. ("Get it?")

3. You claim the movie was philosophically convoluted.  Again, did you actually watch the movie?  This movie is one of the most philosophically sound movies to come out in a while.  For one there is the justice vs. vengeance theme throughout, which you clearly don't have a grasp for.  Second, there is an emphasis on judging people, judging people based on their actions and not on what they profess to be.  The third excellent philosophically sound point in the movie was that Bruce actually flaunted his selfishness!  Near the end, when Gordon (the honest cop) tells Bruce "I never thanked you for saving my life," and Bruce replies "And you'll never have to," of course implying that he's not saving people's lives for their sake, he's doing it out of his own self-interest. 

I concede on that point.

4. You lament the fact that Bruce's dad built a public railroad for the city, as if this at all reflected the motives of the main character in the movie or was even a major aspect of the story!  Dude, train your mind to not freak out if you hear "selfless" or "altruist," pay attention to the entire movie and especially to context.
Do not patronize me.

As I said, I don't think you watched the movie.  This movie is about a man's internal struggle between vengeance and justice and how he eventually picks justice and acts to fight for his ideal, his values.  Bruce Wayne is a proud value achiever, while Nielson is a value destroyer, a pure malevolent universe premise holding SOB with the most convoluted ideas about "justice."

I agree. Although you have been very demeaning and insulting through your post, you are right in a lot of what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just returned from the movie as well. And, if you think that perhaps you should first spend some time introspecting about a movie before posting fallacious claims about it, then do so. I'm not going to excuse you simply because you had just seen the movie.

Anyway, my comments were directed at what is accurately implied in your review, namely that you didn't grasp the essence of the movie because you had admittedly not thought it through thoroughly enough, yet still decided to express your il-conceived opinion (on a board dedicated to using reason to find truth no less). My motive was not to attack you personally, but to state the facts for the record, that your review was fallacious and that the movie was excellent.

I think you're right that there's an underlying admiration running through the movie for Bruce's dad's acts of altruism, but does Bruce, the main character, the hero, share this admiration? I think he loved his dad, but he never once explicitly or implicitly expressed admiration for his dad's altruistic actions (notice that the fondest memory Bruce has of his dad is his teaching that "we fall in order to learn to pick ourselves up"--which is a very rational teaching). In fact, he's the opposite of his dad in many ways. So I agree that while this aspect runs through the film, the fact is that the main character of the movie doesn't share the other movie's characters' sentiments on the issue.

One last thing, about Nielson's redeeming ideas. You say that the writers intended to paint Nielson's ideas as wrong since he eventually becomes the villain, yet notice that Bruce acts on Nielson's idea that "pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent" by leaving him to his death on the train at the end rather than saving him like he did in the beginning of the movie (when he was struggling with himself). Leaving him to his death is not an act of pity, it is not an act of compassion for evil, it is justice--Bruce uses Nielson's lesson against him.

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had just returned from the movie as well.  And, if you think that perhaps you should first spend some time introspecting about a movie before posting fallacious claims about it, then do so.  I'm not going to excuse you simply because you had just seen the movie.   
I will keep that in mind. I think, however, that you should remember that this is a forum, where debate and intellectual banter is supposed to take place.

Anyway, my comments were directed at what is accurately implied in your review, namely that you didn't grasp the essence of the movie because you had admittedly not thought it through thoroughly enough, yet still decided to express your il-conceived opinion (on a board dedicated to using reason to find truth no less).  My motive was not to attack you personally, but to state the facts for the record, that your review was fallacious and that the movie was excellent. 

I took a lot of what you said personally, because the way you worded your post made your points sound like very ad hominem.

I think you're right that there's an underlying admiration running through the movie for Bruce's dad's acts of altruism, but does Bruce, the main character, the hero, share this admiration?  I think he loved his dad, but he never once explicitly or implicitly expressed admiration for his dad's actions.  In fact, he's the opposite of his dad in every way possible.  So I agree that while this aspect runs through the film, the fact is that the main character of the movie doesn't share the other movie's character's sentiments on the issue.
I agree.

One last thing, about Nielson's redeeming ideas.  You say that the writers intended to paint Nielson's ideas as wrong since he eventually becomes the villain, yet notice that Bruce acts on Nielson's idea  that "pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent" by leaving him to his death rather than saving him like he did in the beginning of the movie (when he was struggling with himself).  Leaving him to his death is not an act of pity, it is not an act of compassion for evil, it is justice--Bruce uses Nielson's lesson against him.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One final note, could you provide evidence for the following statement you made in your review -

"The second idea, the one that was most shocking to me, was the idea of taking pride in selfishness. The hero of the movie actually conveys pride in selfishness."

Where does he take pride in selfishness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned it in my post above, but I'll add to that here and remind you. Have you ever seen the back of a hero in any other movie held so straight and be so taut as was Batman's? Deciding to save Gotham and protecting it against Nielson and his goons was the most profoundly selfish decision he took in the movie--the decision that led him to pose as a playboy and become Batman. Notice also when the Butler suspects that his antics (in the car chase prior to his birthday party) are not rational he says with a very serious face that they are--they were necessary for saving Katie Holmes' character, whom he valued. He was unapologetic in every action he took as Batman. The final thing that did it to me and made my heart sing for this movie was the scene with Gordon, the honest cop, near the end. Here Gordon tries to thank him for saving his life before, and Batman says he'll never have to thank him for having saved his life. Why? Because he's not doing it for them, he's not doing it for altruistic selfless reasons, he's doing it for his ideal of Gotham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Filipe's points.

I don't know why, because this quote doesn't make any great philosophical point, but I really liked it at the end when Liam Neeson says "Are you still not ready to do what is necessary" and Batman replies "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

All in all, best Batman movie out there. This one actually tells you who Batman is, instead of just being a mindless action flick.

Plot question: Is this supposed to be a part of the same storyline as the others? In the others, I thought the Joker killed his parents? Even so, I don't think the way the ending leads into the Joker was consistent with them. Not only that, but Gordon is the Commissioner during his battle with the Joker, and here he's only a lieutenant. Maybe I'm wrong...haven't seen the others since I was a little kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plot question: Is this supposed to be a part of the same storyline as the others?  In the others, I thought the Joker killed his parents?  Even so, I don't think the way the ending leads into the Joker was consistent with them.  Not only that, but Gordon is the Commissioner during his battle with the Joker, and here he's only a lieutenant.  Maybe I'm wrong...haven't seen the others since I was a little kid.

Aha, a question perfect for me. This story is completely seperate from the other movies. A totally new continuity. It's much closer to the comic books. In the comics, Joker has nothing to do with killing Wayne's parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was I correct that he does in the other movies though?  It seems a bit too soon to start a whole new series of movies...the other ones aren't old enough yet.

The other ones are awful. It's never too soon to make a clean break.

The opposite is happening with Superman; the new movie spins out of the first 2 of the original series.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Felipe's interpretation of Batman telling Gordon that he'll never have to thank him. I was hoping he'd say something like in Atlas Shrugged, along the lines of "if you knew I did it for myself, you wouldn't thank me," which is the way that Felipe interpreted it...the way I interpreted it was more of a "doing good is its own reward" type of statement. There's nothing wrong with this kind of statement, provided that "the good" is clearly defined, which I think it was in this movie, but I don't believe that statement was meant to be a claim of selfishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the context surrounding the entire movie, that Bruce acts for his values throughout, is what makes my interpretation more plausible. Granted if you looked only at that scene (out of context) and considered what that exchange would most likely mean in today's culture, I agree with you. But the fact that Batman never mouths off or acts in a way that implies all that altruism and selflessness hogwash in the movie, I think I'm right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touche.

Another thing I'd like to point out to everyone who thinks that Batman was acting as though he were "above the law" or acting as a vigilante. In this movie, the justice system of Gotham is broken. It is corrupted at all levels, and he did not acknowledge its authority. Vigilantes acknowledge legal authority, but seek to bring about justice themselves, when they believe the law has failed. In this movie, Batman doesn't believe the system has failed...he believes it is corrupt and cannot do the job for which it was originally designed. I think that, in this context, refusing to acknowledge its authority and acting on his own is wholly appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***SPOILERS (of course so are most of the other posts)***

Bruce did not separated from Ras Al Goul (some of you have misspelled the name, and comic trivia note, it means "The Demon's Head") until he was ordered to execute a killer. He did not refuse to do so out of compassion or understanding of the criminal, or because he thought the killer had a right to live. He did so because he knew that no single man or group of men had the right to make an arbitrary decision on who lived and who died. That is what court's are for, as Bruce kind of explained in the scene. As for Ras’s views on “societies understanding of criminals,” and Thomas Wayne’s role in his and his wife’s death, Bruce agreed when he did not argue the point. At the end when he learns Ras’s is planning on eliminating Gotham he doesn’t say, but “They all deserve to live,” he says something like, “Give me more time to eliminate the criminals my way because the innocent deserve to live.”

As far as the police chase goes, the police knew they were chasing Batman for taking down Gotham’s most powerful mob boss. No sympathy from me.

One of the arguments bouncing around is the "philosophy of emergencies" essay. The catch is, Gotham is in a perpetual state of emergency during the movie because of corruption all the way up the ladder. If, once the government returned to honoring the constitution and rule of law over the thugs of the city and Bruce continued to dress as a bat when regular police could do the same job just as well (or better) then it would not be a rational act of justice. However, so long as he is working to rescue people from the sinking ship, or works to patch the ship if it can be saved, then he is working within the confines of the emergency situation. As was briefly hit on in the movie, Gotham was not always as it now is (in the movie). Once it was a prosperous and safe city. The current violence was not a normal part of its existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katie Holmes' character sucked! Batman deserves better than a lousy Spiderman-esque getting-dumped-at-the-end relationship!

Christian Bale is hot!

I liked the movie, generally, and mostly for the reasons listed above, however I found the extreme close-up fight scenes to be mostly blurs of motion that my eyes couldn't track. From an esthetic point of view that was a downer, but other than that I really enjoyed the screen effects.

I would just like to point out that the elder Wayne's much-vaunted altruistic achievement, the public train, is destroyed by his son at the end of the movie in the pursuit of actual ideals, not a quick-fix "patch" on a screwed-up society. Go Bruce! :)

Oh, and CHRISTIAN BALE IS HOT!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...