Last year, a fellow Orger (who shall remain nameless) shared with me the shooting script of Batman Begins. I’ve long waited to share my review, mainly because I wanted to get a little closer to the release date. Well, its almost upon us, so here we go!

I’ll try to keep this as spoiler-free as possible (although there will be a few). Read on if you will!



First off, I will say that I absolutely LOVED the script. Overall, it’s a fantastic effort. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly superior to ALL of the previous live-action attempts. Screenwriter David Goyer has a background in comics, so it makes sense that he would actually have a grasp on what would make for a better adaptation.

Goyer uses elements from Frank Miller’s acclaimed Batman: Year One, but he doesn’t limit himself to that story. He also borrows heavily from other periods and story arcs from Batman’s half- century plus history. It delves deeper in to Bruce Wayne’s childhood than did Year One, and it also explores the years he spent training after his parent’s death that have only been hinted at in the comics. We see Wayne as a young child, falling into a boarded-up well that leads to the caves underneath Wayne Manor. In the darkness, he sees something that utterly terrifies him: a bat flying out of the darkness. This is an important element of the Batman mythos that has almost been forgotten over the years. In the comic, a large part of what motivates Wayne to adopt the bat motif is the fear he himself felt as a child at the sight of this winged nightmare. Batman, ultimately, wants to strike terror into the heart of his foes, and the best way to do that is to adopt the guise of something that once terrified him. The fact that Batman understands fear is a key to his psychological makeup.



The script takes a few key elements from the now-apochryphal Batman: Year Two, a long-winded affair designed to show why Batman doesn’t use a gun, or kill his adversaries. Goyer manages to distill the important information from that tale into one scene. Namely, he (briefly) shows a revenge-minded Wayne planning to kill Joe Chill with a gun. Ultimately, he is talked out of taking this path by childhood friend Rachel Dodson (a character at least partially based on Year Two's Rachel Caspian). While most comic readers are well aware of why The Batman doesn’t just pick up a gun and blow away the bad guys, the general public does not. This issue has been explored in the comics, but it just now gets the attention it deserves in film form.



The script takes us on a journey with Wayne, as he travels the world for years. This portion of Wayne’s life has been completely ignored in the previous films, and only touched upon in the comic. First, he spends time with the criminal element, learning their motivations and methods (he manages to avoid actually participating in any real crime. At one point he, quite cleverly, joins in a heist of Waynetech equipment. Technically, he is only stealing from himself). Eventually, Wayne is approached by the mysterious Ducard, who sees potential in him. Ducard brings Wayne into a secret sect that trains in martial arts, stealth and detective skills. Ducard appears, on the surface, to be a wise sage, but he harbors a dark secret that will later impact The Batman in a major way (I must say, this is why the casting of Liam Neeson is so brilliant. Everyone expects him to be, essentially, playing Qui-Gon Jinn again. It’s this misperception that will ultimately throw the viewer off the trail with Ducard’s true motives). I won’t say anymore about this section of the film, because to do so will just give too much away.





In a nutshell, much of the next section is Year One inspired, but with a little more detail. Wayne returns to Gotham, and his company, and is quickly relegated by the CEOs to a research and development wing where he will stay out of the big-wig’s way. Of course, Bruce uses this as an opportunity to explore the unused military prototypes Wayne Industries has developed and discarded. He forms a close bond with Lucius Fox, himself an ousted Wayne Industries board member. Lucius introduces him to many of the gadgets and what-not that will later form Batman’s arsenal. The question posed by The Joker in Burton’s version is answered here: “where does he get those wonderful toys?” Again, I don’t want to go into too much detail, because this part of the movie is sooo enjoyable. The development of The Batmobile, The Batcave, his costume, and even an incredibly plausible reason for why he wears a cape are all explored in the flick (it should be noted that Goyer only used actual, real world technologies currently being used or developed. Nothing that The Batman uses is impossible in this day and age).



Of course, no superhero movie is complete without the bad guys. Well, this flick has them in spades. One of the biggest problems the majority of the Batman films have had to date is their use of way too many villains in each film. While this film has several, it doesn’t go about it in the same way the previous flicks did. The main villain of the piece is actually not seen for the majority of the movie. He is a shadowy character, controlling elements of the plot from behind the scenes. The characters of mob-boss Carmine Falcone and Dr. Jonathan Crane are just pawns in his game. Crane is the most fascinating, since all bat-fans know he eventually becomes the villainous Scarecrow. In this film, we only see the genesis of that, however (much in the same way that we see the seeds of Harry Osbourne taking up his father’s mantle at the end of Spider-Man 2). Crane is a doctor at Arkham Asylum, experimenting with a gas he has developed to induce fear on the inmates. He is intricately woven into the scheme of the main villain, but we don’t see him taking up oodles of screen time chewing scenery as a costumed villain. It’s a smart move on Goyer’s part to not fill this movie up with dozens of origins. This is the first of the Batman films where Batman himself, not his rogues, actually takes center-stage.

That’s all I’m gonna say about the plot at this point. If I give too much away, it will destroy the fun (although, you are free to ask me questions if you want to know a detail). Here’s a brief rundown of good and bad points:



The Good: The script is filled with characters that are true to their comic roots. Bruce Wayne is shown, when in public, to be a vacuous playboy. This hides his true mission as Batman (this is the first film to EVER get this element of the character correct). Gordon is finally shown as he appears in the comics, as does trusted butler Alfred Pennyworth. Characters like Lucius Fox, Jonathan Crane, Carmine Falcone and Ra’s Al Ghul get their long-overdue cinematic debut, and they are done RIGHT! The action sequences are fantastic, the characterizations strong and the storyline dead on. This script fleshes out many elements only touched on in the past. The horrible mistakes of previous films, like having the Joker being Wayne's parent's murderer, are avoided. In fact, this film completely ignores the continuity of the other movies in the franchise. The ending is sooooo perfect, and should please longtime fans, especially those who love Miller’s Year One.



The Bad: The love interest of Rachel Dodson is ultimately done all wrong. Her character is handled just fine through most of the film, but a direction is taken with her that I alsolutely hated. Goyer’s only major blunder in this film is that he makes a HUGE mistake that most of the previous Bat-films have also made. In fact, its almost identical to an element of Batman Returns. So much so, I wondered when they were going to kiss under misletoe.



The Ugly: (Not really bad things, just unfortunate due to being limited to a two hour running time). Ra’s Al Ghul is handled well, but so much of this character’s history is not touched upon. The Lazarus Pit, Talia and Ubu are all conspicuously absent. Of course, things like The Lazarus Pit would not really fit in with this movie’s more realistic tone, so it’s understandable why it was omitted. Likewise, bringing Talia and Ubu into the mix would have bogged the story down, and added way too many characters to the script. Fortunately, there is enough about this film that is left open-ended that future movies could explore these regions of the Batman’s mythology.




[Edited 3/23/05 9:30am]

sounds good! i have high hopes for this one. it has to be better than the past couple. as long as arnold's not in this one, i'm happy!

Does he battle Mangey-Catwoman?

TheBatman said:

Okay, but what do you think about the REST of my review?

2the9s said:

No, but he is going to battle the entire cast of American Idol!

JediMaster said:

Sounds almost too good to be true.

If it's as cool as you've described, it should be better than the previous, feeble attempts to put him onscreen. Especially capturing the playboy facade.

I don't recall "Batman: Year Two" very well. I remember "Year One" and of course "Dark Knight Returns."

I'm even glad to hear they are sticking to the orignal killer: Joe Chill.

TheBatman said:

Totally, completely agree. IF they stick to the script, this movie will own all our asses, regardless of the suit or the clunky looking Batmobile.

As for Batman: Year Two, its pretty much been written out of continuity now (replaced by The Long Halloween). Overall, it was a fairly lame story about Batman facing off against a vigilante, who had prowled through Gotham years before, known as The Reaper. The only real interesting parts of the story are a romance between Bruce Wayne and Rachel Caspian (who turns out to be the daughter of The Reaper), and a subplot involving Batman having to deal with Joe Chill. The main purpose of the story is to explain Batman's complete opposition to guns, and to provide resolution to Joe Chill. The script for BB does all of this in a much better fashion, IMHO. Overall, you really haven't missed much if you haven't read Year Two.

One more note for TheBatman: my only major complaint about this script, I have a strong hunch, will bug the living shit out of you as much as it does me. Fortunately, the rest of the script makes up for this major piece of lameness. If they would just change this one bit, then it would completely seperate this flick from the rest of the pack.

Of course, the complaint I have was also done on the animated series (in the "World's Finest" episode) but there it was done as a clever twist. It won't ruin the movie for me, but it still bugs me.

And that complaint is...?




_
[Edited 3/23/05 13:11pm]

TheBatman said:

Well, I was trying to be discreet for the non-spoiler folks, but I dropped a few hints in my posts.

Okay folks, if you don't want spoilers, avoid this next bit!!!















There is a truly lame bit, almost identical to a bit from Batman Returns, where Bruce says a line to Rachel, with her replying. Later, Rachel says Bruce's line to Batman, which prompts him to respond with with her previous reply. Thus, she figure out he's friggin' Batman! Sheesh! All but one of the Bat-films now has his love interest finding out he's Batman! I mean, puh-leeeeze! Is it really necessary for every woman Bruce falls for to find out his secret? Like I said, I know the animated series did it, but it was Lois Lane who discovered it, so it was a bit of a twist there.

I didn't mind it in Spider-Man 2 when Mary Jane discovered Peter's secret, but that was at least something that happened in the comic. In the case of Batman, the only romantic interest he's revealed himself to was Selina/Catwoman (and that was only in the past couple of years). To me, its old hat and unnecessary. Like I said, its a pretty minor plot point, so I won't bitch too much, but it bugs me just the same. The good points of the script certainly outweigh this one bad bit, but it's still annoying.

Will there be gratuitous nudity and/or scenes of a sexual nature?

TheBatman said:

It pretty much only worked in Spider-Man 2. It certainly hasn't worked in ANY of the Bat-flicks. Of course, there's LOTS of stuff that hasn't worked in those!

doctormcmeekle said:

Alas, no. No naked Katie.

TheBatman said:

I remember what you wanted the costume to look like.
The film costume is incredible compared to that.

i... . . i . . . haven't enjoyed the batman movies to date. too dark, characters not evoking empathy. . . i don't know why but i just don't like the batman movies so far....

OdysseyMiles said:

How can you get more "incredible" than the real thing?

XxAxX said:

Don't box yourself out... you're not the only one who doesn't like them. They never impressed me much either.

None of them were much like Batman at all.

TheBatman said:

See, I agree and disagree with this. I think that the movie costume is okay, but they could have done much better. It's certainly better than ALL of the previous movie costumes, but that's not saying much (at least the cape looks good when unfurled, and they finally decided to use the Bob Kane/Bill Finger bat logo on his chest). The boots look good as well (hey, that is an aspect that's been missing from these flicks. My biggest problem with the new costume is that it, once again, looks like its made out of rubber (although, it may not appear that way before the costume is decorated by Batman. It starts life as a military body armour prototype, and Bruce then decks it out bat-style). Supposedly, it looks more comic appropriate on the big screen, but we'll see. I learned from the horrible Green Goblin costume to not be too hung up on that kind of thing, as the movie still rocked and DeFoe still nailed the character.


I LOVE the look of the comic costume, but when you look at the Alex Ross model, well, it just doesn't look right in three dimensions. It DOES need to look like some sort of body armour or military combat gear adapted to the bat-motif (which is what the comic describes it as being), and the live model just looks like he's wearing tights. Now, this is fine for the model, because Ross is going to be painting him in such a way that the "spandex" aspect is downplayed. With a painting, it could be any material, but live action shows too much detail.

Personally, I think the film should have gone with a grey mesh style fabric instead. Something that looks flexible, yet also could be concealing kevlar underneath.

BTW, that action figure kicks all kinds of ass!!!

JediMaster said:

I can agree with this. It's the color scheme I am struggling with. They could've done it "body armor" style... but keep in line with what he should look like.

The whole BLACK costume aspect looked crappy in the previous incarnations and they would've done best to steer away from those films.



AGREED!


YES! Can't wait to add it to my collection come this September.

Best Batman figure I've ever seen. IMO.

TheBatman said:

Yeah, that last pic. Not diggin' it.
The action figure up top is awesome, though.
I guess they figure that the gray won't translate well to film, and that it's easier for a character wearing all black to be "stealthy".

TheBatman said:

I AM glad that they at least made the cape a darker hue than the suit. It at least gives it a greyish look at a distance. The previous films made his cape, cowel and suit all look like cheap plastic.






Yup. It's going to replace my Jim Lee "Hush" Batman up on the display shelf with my Justic League figures. Really looking foward to his Black Canary figure too!

TheBatman said:

I've seen it before, but had forgotten that was the wax sculpture. Pretty amazing work.

Are you planning on picking up Ross's new Justice series? I'm really looking foward to it! He really has some great ideas for the storyline.

TheBatman said:

Sometime this summer. I'll see if I can get a more concrete date for you.