|
Batman Begins |  | Director: Chris Nolan
Actors: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman
Studio: Warner Bros.
Category: Movie
This item is no longer available
Rating:  1343 reviews
Sales Rank: 16946
Genre: Action
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: Video On Demand
Running Time: 141 Minutes
ASIN: B0014D6PCO
Theatrical Release Date: June 15, 2005
Release Date: August 1, 2009
| |
| Synopsis:
Academy Award and Golden Globe-nominated director Chris Nolan ("Memento," "Insomnia"), explores the origins of the Batman legend and the Dark Knight's emergence as a force for good in Gotham City. Christian Bale ("Reign of Fire," "American Psycho"), stars as the masked crusader who uses strength, intellect and high tech weaponry to fight sinister forces that threaten the city. The A-list cast includes Academy Award and Golden Globe-nominees Liam Neeson ("Kingdom of Heaven"), Tom Wilkinson ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") and Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai"). Also stars Emmy-nominated Gary Oldman ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"), Golden Globe-winner Rutger Hauer ("Sin City"), Golden Globe-nominee Cillian Murphy ("Cold Mountain," "28 Days Later"), Katie Holmes (TV's "Dawson's Creek"), Academy Award-winner Morgan Freeman ("Million Dollar Baby") and Academy Award and Golden Globe-winner Michael Caine ("Bewitched"). |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Customer Reviews:
 Too Narrow September 8, 2010
Mr. Jr Knott
The aspect ratio of 2.40:1 is too narrow for acceptable viewing on standard televisions,particularly if you have below average eyesight
 Brooding and Pretension September 4, 2010
Ricardo C.
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Batman Begins is exactly what it sounds like, the early years of Bruce Wayne/Batman and his motivations. The film tries desperately to be more than what it really is, an okay action film.
Christian Bale is the perfect choice for Christopher Nolan's Batman and I am not saying that like a good thing. Bale is a totally un-charasmatic and bland actor who does little more than brood. His Bruce Wayne is not much of a human being, he is a machine operating on vengance. The real tragedy of Batman is that he is destined not to have a normal life in his persuit of his rather un-obtainable goal. Not once during this film do you feel that he is split, he simply has a one-track mind goes down one path. Not much genuine character development ever occurs, it's really just Bruce Wayne learning how to fight and then later acquiring his gadgetry.
When Bruce finally dons the mask, it's an introduction of an action film character and not so much a myth or a legend. True Batman uses fear and confusion to defeat the crowd of thugs by lurking and picking them off one by one; I wish I can only say the thugs were confused because the poorly shot fighting bewildered me as well and it's sadly evident through out the film. This again a case of trying to be "realistic" in a film that certainly needn't bother itself with such concerns. Batman is suppose to appear in full view of his victims so they, and the viewer, could absorb that he is the creature of the night come to attack his prey. Of course this could not work with this particularly banal costume Batman wears, it's really meant to conceal one instead of appearing as a theatrical figure; Totally wrong for film or comic books.
As for supporting cast, a lot of talent here is wasted. Liam Neeson is cast as the main anatognist as a very banal Ra's Al Ghul. Al Ghul, in the comics, was depicted as larger than life figure who is looked up to by his minions as a god and speaks like a biblical figure; He posses fantastic wealth and power beyound the common man due has lived longer than any human being in history. He wants to rid the world of man entirely so he can restore to it's natural beauty. This underwhelming counterpart in Nolan's film is little more than an angry man who lost his wife. Like Wayne, simply a machine for vengance but simply takes it one step further. Neeson does well with a banal role and the same can be said for Cillian Murphy. Murphy is not as boring as Al Ghul but he certainly is wasted. He plays a creep with burlap sack over his head, dubbed Scacrecrow, fascinated by fear and uses a gas to induce fear among people but he really is used as a tool in this film for Al Ghul's plot to destroy Gotham. I would like to have seen Scarecrow as a genuine threat but he fails to be as much when he only successfully has one victim that no one has sympathy with. Finally we come to the allies and there isn't much to go on here. Everyone here is just "meh". Alfred and Rachel Dawes spout prentension about Bruce's obligations every five secounds and Gary Oldman does a good job as a young Jim Gordon not having much else to say because everyone else pointed out the obvious but he does do so at the end. Oh and Lucius Fox played by a Morgan Freeman on auto-pilot was a nice touch for some decent humor.
Now does this film hold up ? Not very well. The action is badly shot and editied, when people fight or get shot it's all in a blur. This seems to be the popular thing in film, bad presentation, but I don't see the appeal. The plot is incredibly stupid and worthy of a lame James Bond feature. Ras Al Ghul wants to use the Scarecrow's fear gas by dumping into the water supply and evaporating it into a gas using some giant Microwave Emitter. When you care about nobody in the film, it dosen't help too much to try and cobble together some silly ticking time bomb plot. They should have taken the time to make Batman an actual flesh and blood character and gave people credible dialogue which dosen't constantly hammer themes in. I love Nolan's formula of close ups, the banal Hans Zimmer score blaring, and then tossing in some fortune cookie sayings to make the film intelligent. Sorry Nolan, it didn't work on me. Let actions speak for themselves and let the audience decide.
Overall, this is an okay action film but if you want great Batman films, look no further than Tim Burton and Bruce Timm's freshman Bat outings.
 This movie should have been called The Dark Knight September 1, 2010
Joker (Michigan)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
In my opinion, Batman Begins (2005) should have been called The Dark Knight because Batman takes centerstage in this movie, unlike in The Dark Knight (2008) where Batman seems to take a back seat to The Joker and Two-Face. That's the irony - in the movie that's called The Dark Knight, Batman actually takes a back seat to the villains, who steal the show. I personally think The Dark Knight should have been called The Joker Emerges, or something like that.
Now I want to make some observations about this movie.
First of all, it's inevitable that the new Christopher Nolan movies will always be compared to the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher movies, so that's one thing I myself will do. In contrast to Burton and Schumacher, Christopher Nolan went for darkness, realism, and seriousness in his Batman movies in an effort to make them far different than the semi-campy (though dark) Burton films and all-out campy and bright Schumacher films. I feel that Batman Begins is TOO real. It's TOO serious. To me, Batman movies should have an element of fun to them. An example is Batman (1989) - The Joker was evil, but he had dark humor to go along with his evilness. He used gadgets, like a hand buzzer and squirting lapel flower. Sometimes he went a little too far, like dancing, etc., but he showed he was funny as well as dark and evil. It was a good balance. It seems that in the Nolan movies, all the fun has been sucked out of them and they're way too serious and realistic. Their overall atmosphere and look seem a lot like crime dramas that you see on primetime weeknight TV. I found Batman Begins quite boring for the first hour or so, and this is a big reason why.
I thought the acting was fair to pretty good. The best acting came from Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard. Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox was also pretty good. Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow was OK. I thought Scarecrow was somewhat of a boring villain who didn't do much, and borderline cheesy. Gary Oldman was pretty good as Commissioner Gordon. I thought Katie Holmes was pretty good as Rachel Dawes. I like her portrayal of Rachel Dawes a little better than Maggie Gyllenhaal's in The Dark Knight.
Christian Bale? I thought he was a mediocre Bruce Wayne and a mediocre Batman. Not bad, but not good. His voice while he's Batman sounds as if he's been smoking for 40 years. Bruce Wayne comes off as too much of a playboy in this movie as well as in The Dark Knight. He seems to have an attitude and is arrogant. I think Michael Keaton owns the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the 1989 and 1992 movies.
I dislike the Batmobile in this movie. Now, the Batmobile has been through many incarnations in previous movies. First, there was the Batmobile from the '60s TV series and 1966 movie called Batman: The Movie. Then, the Batmobile from the '89 and '92 movies. Then a different one in the '95 and '97 movies. They all were CARS. Like they should be. Right? Well, Christopher Nolan decided that the Batmobile appeared as a car too often, so he changed it to what is called a "Tumbler" that looks like a cross between a tank and a Hummer, so now the Batmobile isn't even a car. Bad. This goes too far, in my opinion.
The Batcave? It was cool. It's slightly better than the Batcave from the Tim Burton films.
Batman's costume? It was on par with the costumes used in the '89 and '92 Tim Burton films, maybe slightly better.
Some of the conditions in this movie were unique and different, such as the pouring rain in a few scenes.
I found the musical score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard to be flat and unmoving in not only this movie, but The Dark Knight as well. They in no way compare to Danny Elfman's masterpiece scores from the 1989 and 1992 movies.
I found the movie hard to follow at times, so I needed to watch it again to understand it.
This is a two-DVD set that comes with many extras.
I think this movie is just as good as The Dark Knight.
Overall, this is a pretty good movie, but I still prefer the movies from 1989, 1992, 1995, and 1997, especially the 1989 and 1992 movies.
If you've never seen a Batman movie before, I think you should watch this as well as The Dark Knight and then watch the 1989 and 1992 movies for starters so you can do the inevitable comparison just like I have. You might like the older movies better, or you might like the new Nolan movies better. Everyone has their own opinions.
Great movie! Decent gift set. August 29, 2010
foolsgold
Batman Begins is an amazing movie and the two-disc deluxe edition is an amazing combination. Tons of great special features that give you a unique insight into Christopher Nolan and David Goyer's thoughts about Batman's story.
The two-disc set alone would easily worth five stars, but as this is a limited edition gift set I gave it four because I feel that the extra "gifts" that come with the two-disc set aren't really anything too cool or exciting.
Awesome movie, if the gift set costs more than the two-disc set alone then buy only the two-disc set.
 Maybe it's me August 21, 2010
Jon/Sarah (Ventura, CA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I don't really get the rave reviews here, and from some critics. (Maybe it's a demographic thing? I am a 40-year-old male college grad, with no Batman product experience in the last 15 years, although I have seen a lot of other TV/movies.) So I am adding this review for any potential viewers that are like me to consider.
This was a decent action movie, not as good as Spiderman 2. I did love their basic idea of explaining how Batman and all his props and methods came to be. Some of the acting was subpar, although Christian Bale was OK. The fight scenes could have been easier to follow. The main problem as often happens for me, is the story. It seemed like a bunch of scenes from other movies strung together, and I kept having this feeling that things were just too convenient and/or weren't making logical sense. There were occasional good effects, or surprising twists in scenes, but too often they were just ho-hum.
By the way, the widescreen version Amazon is selling for $5.95 at this time comes with literally one minute of bonus features (for those who care about such things!)
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. Thalasar Ventures | |
