The One and Only Batman Begins thread

[Guest JMA]

Definitely. A low level thug like Chill killing Batman's parents is integral to the story. It makes Batman's plight and character more sympathetic and tragic, and Chill epitomizes Gotham's uglyness. Not to mention that without Chill, Batman's own "one bad day" twist of fate parallel to his enemies is lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed. The fact that they both had "one bad day" that forever altered their lives connects them in a much more believable way.

[Downhome 0]

After seeing Batman Begins, I wouldn't give a damn if all known traces of the past Batman flicks was banned (even the Burton films, and I love those).

 

This is how Batman movies should be. To me, we're starting over from the begining, and doing things totally right this go-round.

[Guest SP-1]

Ra's himself pointed out why Chill being the murderer works. The Wayne's, despite being arguably the best advocates for eliminating poverty in the city, were killed by a random, down on his luck mugger.

 

Batman didn't start doing what he does to take on supervillains. He started doing this to stop muggers and petty thieves on up to drug lords and mob bosses. He's out to strike fear into CRIME. If Supervillains come along he'll stop them, too, but his drive is to stop crime. Period.

 

Here's the review from my blog:

 

Movie Review: Batman Begins

Are There Spoilers in This Review? Yes

My Rating: 5 Stars (Out of 5)

 

This, is Batman. Michael Keaton and Tim Burton produced a highly stylized combination of the 60's camp show with something akin to the darker tone of the character from the comics. But it was too polished. It was fantasy, through and through. It made for a decent movie, but it wasn't really a great Batman movie.

 

Thank you, Christopher Nolan, for reminding me of that in some big ways. Nolan and writer David Goyer hammered out a gritty script just left of reality about a man tortured by his past and his fears, haunted by the battle between vengeance and justice, and then Nolan made an incredible movie from that script. This isn't cute, this isn't, camp, this isn't over the top. This is Batman, a costumed warrior operating with the singular intent of striking absolute fear into the souls of anyone who would bring crime to Gotham City. And I'm not talking fear lite. I'm talking crap your pants because there's a dark, near-demonic entity that you can't quite see lurking around you, breathing down your neck, and about to take you down. And there's nothing you can do to stop him.

 

I've seen it twice now (and will see it again tomorrow), and I noticed some nice little things the second time around. The first has to do with Ra's Al Ghul. Those familiar with the comics and The Animated Series (which I have no problem referencing since it interpreted the characters and world with intelligence, strength, and integrity) will remember that the seemingly throwaway line from Liam Neeson, "Is Ra's Al Ghul immortal?" is rooted in the fact that, in the comics and TAS, Ra's is immortal. He has access to "Lazarus Pits" around the world, which are pits of a natural chemical compound that rejuvinates and restores the body, effectively resurrecting it from the dead. In Batman Begins, this seems to just be a cute little bone to the hardcore fans, but nothing more.

 

But notice something: Ra's never denies his immortality. Bruce assumes that everything is a facade, which insofar as he knows it was. Ra's did conceal his identity while training Bruce. But that doesn't answer Neeson's question. "Is Ra's Al Ghul immortal?" Notice that when Neeson delivers his monologue about the League of Shadows destroying Rome, burning London the ground and infesting ships with plague rats, he speaks with a familiarity of having been there for all those events, though he never says it outright. And when Batman leaves him on the train, Ra's seems awfully at peace with his swiftly coming death.

 

I think Nolan and Goyer have left themselves an opportunity to bring Ra's back if they want to. They've left themselves a neat back door open that the hardcore fans would recognize, but would be something of a surprise for casual moviegoers, without it being completely out of left field for them. Very smart, if that's the plan.

 

Cilian Murphy stole most, if not all of the scenes that he was in as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow. The guy just screams "creepy, demented psycho" just underneath that cool and calm exterior. Not only that, but he enjoys doing what he does to people. Notice also that he's still on the loose at the end, and I would imagine he has something of a grudge against Rachel. Which moves me to my next point:

 

Finally, a Batman movie that understands that Bruce doesn't need a girl at the end of the movie. That isn't to say he wouldn't want a romantic relationship, and deep down I think he really does. But his life is his vow now. And his vow is a life of bruises, bleeding, darkness, and fear. As Rachel so wonderfully knows at the end, Bruce Wayne is the mask, not Batman. I look forward to hopefully seeing her act as a deeply non-romantic intimate friend and support for Bruce. I don't mind romantic tension, but I also don't think it needs to be the largest factor in their relationship. I also sincerely hope that someday, in this movie universe, there will come a time when Gotham no longer needs Batman, and Bruce Wayne can indeed return for both of them. I don't want to see a movie about it, but I like to think it'll happen. Then again . . . I think Nolan and Goyer could write an incredible movie at the end of Bruce's career.

 

Gary Oldman shines as Sargeant Jim Gordon. I love that there was no big promotion to commissioner by the end. It's not neccessary at this point. I love the kind of vague idea that Bruce might be drawn to Gordon since Gordon was probably kind of the first person to try and comfort him, who sounded like his father, after the murder of his parents. That isn't stated, but that younger Gordon does sound alot like Bruce's dad. Slightly older when Bruce returns with the cape and cowl, Gordon is one of the last few good cops in Gotham. When Batman needs a working partner, he trusts Gordon. I like their relationship being established here. It really reminded me of the chemistry between the characters in Batman: The Animated Series, especially when Bats just disappears on Gordon at the end of their conversations. I am reminded of a line in some particular episode of TAS when Gordon realizes that Batman is gone after an exchange and mutters, "I hate it when he does that." The Gordon/Batman dynamic was almost completely ignored in the 89-90's Batman films, which demonstrates a lack of commitment to the source material. Again, Nolan and Goyer win my geek heart.

 

Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. What can I say? It's Morgan Freeman. He steals his scenes but yet doesn't draw attention to himself when Christian Bale is alongside him. Again, the comics source material is respected. I don't think we ever saw Fox in the other Batman films, nor did we ever really see Bruce's relationship with the company his father built (I don't count the scenes with Edward Nigma from Batman Forever because that was all plot device for a villain). Another excellent reference to the source is the idea that Fox probably knows that Bruce is Batman, but never explores it. He has simply stood by Bruce and supported him, while keeping Wayne Enterprises going.

 

Michael Caine was great as Alfred. Friend, father figure, and butler. In that order. He also has the vague sarcasm of Alfred from the comics and TAS, which is a nice touch. Alfred also inadvertently ends up divulging information that isn't essential to the story, but which I think may effect Bruce subconsciously. He talks about the elevator that leads to the cave as having been perhaps part of the underground railroad setup that Bruce's grandfather was a part of. We know Bruce's father was a good man and a social activist in his own way, and we know through Alfred that this holds true for another of Bruce's ancestors. This idea that Wayne men were historically active against social injustice is kind of interesting.

 

Katie Holmes defies the Dawson's Creek stigma and delivers a performance that allows her to keep her footing alongside some extraordinary actors. One scene that at first seemed like just acting inexperience to me has, the secodn time, betrayed with might be more depth than I gave her credit for. Sitting in her car with Bruce, outside of Falconi's bar, Bruce says something about himself at the hearing and she replies, "What do you mean?" almost playfully. At first I thought it kind of took away from the serious nature of the moment, but the second time I realized how much it actually works. At that point, she has a kind of naive hope for Bruce. At least until about three seconds later when he tells her about the gun. Very good, Ms. Holmes. I look forward to Rachel returning and being the anchor and friend that Bruce needs.

 

Liam Neeson rules. Isn't it interesting that he keeps showing up as the aged mentor to young heroes in movies recently? Qui-Gon Jinn, Henri Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul, I believe he was also in Kingdom of Heaven. Excellent job here, displaying some fierceness and sincere misguidedness that was fun to watch. Ra's works so well as a nemesis for Bruce because they're the same person, but with two different views on how to get to the end result of justice. Ra's abandoned his morals, perhaps when his wife was "taken from him", and sees eradication as the only means to end crime and suffering. Ra's will kill, but Bruce won't willingly kill if at all possible. Leave someone to finish what they started maybe (as he did with Ra's), but he won't strike a killing blow. Bruce still wants to see the system work, but Ra's abandoned hope in the system long ago. Ra's in the comics, and probably here too, was looking for an heir in Bruce. So close, but yet so far. I hope Nolan was dropping hints and we see Ra's again.

 

To close, I want to say how enjoyable this movie was right down to the ending. Gordon's ideas on "escalation" were very nice. Police start carrying semi-automatics to criminals get automatics. Police wear kevlar so crooks get armor piercing bullets. Some guy dresses like a bat and starts jumping off of rooftops, what's next? Take this new guy for instance . . . When Gordon hands Batman the joker playing card, I'm pretty sure a gasp made tis way through the audience I was with the first time. Nice, nice touch. I loved it. And I hope we get a great Joker movie sometime. Nolan and Goyer can do it right, I believe. The very last line of the movie cements the Batman/Gordon dynamic and that made me happy. Gordon says, "I never got to thank you," and Batman replies, "And you'll never have to." It's not about being thanked, or thrill-seeking, or vengenace. Batman and this one good cop will partner together to restore justice to Gotham. And neither Gordon or the city will ever have to repay Batman for it. He does it because the pursuit of justice in a corrupt city is the right thing to do.

 

I eagerly await the next installment.

Edited June 19, 2005 by SP-1

[Guest SP-1]

Sidenote: This movie inspired me to try and write a decent Green Lantern origin movie. (Hal Jordan, not Alan Scott - maybe with the Corps)

[Guest Askewniverse]

I watched the Burton Batman movies recently, and they didn't hold up well at all. They don't feel like true Batman movies. My biggest complaint is that Burton didn't do a good job in developing Batman as a character. In my opinion, Mask of the Phantasm is a lot better than Burton's (and Schumacher's) movies. I think a lot of the love for Batman '89 stems from sentiment. They loved it growing up, so they still hold it in high regard. It makes me wonder how many people have watched the Burton ones recently. I can't imagine anybody preferring Batman over Batman Begins after rewatching Batman.

[AmericanDragon 0]

It makes me wonder how many people have watched the Burton ones recently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's exactly how I felt and it wasn't even because of Batman Begins. A couple years ago, I realized that I hadn't seen Burton's films in a long time so I decided to watch the first two again. They've aged horribly.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Marty McFly is exactly what I'm afriad of. Endless bitching consisting of "omg how can marty mcfly be joker, that's so gay".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm guessing you meant George McFly, otherwise the Joker would be played by Michael J. Fox.

[Angle-plex 0]

I have to chuckle at the fact that 90% of the negativity boils down to this not being a standard formulaic superhero movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the last thirty minutes (the only bad part of the movie) was a standard formulaic superhero movie.

[Guest El Satanico]

In alot of ways Burton's films are just as tacky and cheesy as Shumacher's.

 

I'm not sure if such a statement will get much disagreement now, but after watching it again last year I found Keaton's performance to be extremely lacking. He never once acts like Bruce Wayne. Just watch the scenes where he's hosting a party. He's acting like a blue collar worker in a room full of rich people, not like Bruce Wayne the billionaire playboy.

[AndrewTS 0]

In alot of ways Burton's films are just as tacky and cheesy as Shumacher's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but I feel the first Batman movie had the best script out of all of the 4.

 

Returns though--well, Pfeiffer + leather and Walken were the most memorable parts of it. The last half hour or so is just as stupid as anything in Joel's versions.

 

Was the "nine lives" thing really any worse than some of the stuff in Catwoman? I think not.

 

It was a total mess of a movie.

[Anakin Flair 0]

My biggest complaint, out of all of the movies, is this- there is always some girl, who usually ends up being a love interest, that finds out that Bruce Wayne is Batman.

Batman- Vicky Vale, a photographer for various newspapers, finds out.

Batman Returns- Selina Kyle finds out, though I actually liked this one as it added some tension to the story.

Batman Forever- Chase Meridian, Shrink.

Batman and Robin- for the first time, the love interes didn't find out (though I believe she got attacked), and instead his secret is found out by Barbara Pennyworth (?), Alfreds neice, who goes on to become Batgirl. Ugh.

Batman Begins- Rachel finds out near the end.

 

You know, for a guy who's supposed to have a secret identity, he sure does spill it to a lot of people.

[CBright7831 0]

Batman and Robin- for the first time, the love interes didn't find out (though I believe she got attacked)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a deleted scene, Posion Ivy kills her.

[Ravenbomb 0]

true, but you never see any of these women again. I think he kills them and tosses the bodies into the batcave somewhere...

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm just saying the Joker doing it is cooler for a one movie perspective. It just provided irony in that one film and made it better, and the memory of his parents' deaths can still drive him after that.

 

Burton's films aren't that hot from a thematic perspective, focusing way too much on the heels and not enough on Batman...but his films have a great LOOK to them that this movie didn't have. This one had a bland look to it, I didn't find it nearly as visually compelling as any of the other 4 (good or bad).

 

I wonder though, why not just set the film in the late 30s or early 40s? The whole depression thing makes sense then and it'd give a nice period atmosphere.

[Guest SP-1]

I have to chuckle at the fact that 90% of the negativity boils down to this not being a standard formulaic superhero movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the last thirty minutes (the only bad part of the movie) was a standard formulaic superhero movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More action movie than "superhero". Plus, the drmatic setup gives it a better tone than any of the other movies had.

[cabbageboy 0]

The odd thing about this is that I think Batman Returns has actually gotten slightly BETTER with time. I watched a marathon on Friday before seeing the new one and it was interesting to see how I reacted now with perspective in mind. At the time I truly hated Returns, much more than I ever hated either Schumacher film. Not only did I find it a really bad film, but it's not even campy or amusing...it was no fun. Watching it again made my opinion increase a bit (maybe from *1/2 to **1/2 or so), but there are still some truly retarded ideas here. Stuff like the army of penguins attacking Gotham at the end...what in the fuck was that? How is this in any way believable? Catwoman's origin made zero sense in the film as well, how did she keep living through shit and how did she learn to bust out kung fu and what not?

 

The first film stayed about the same in my mind but I do agree that Keaton isn't that good. With his "I don't think I've ever been in this room" addle brained silliness he reminded me of Ty Webb as Batman. Keaton was more of a comedic actor which is why his casting always sorta puzzled me. In fact I think the reliance on the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc. in these films is because I don't think Burton thought Keaton could carry it.

 

What people tend to forget is that at the time of Batman Forever Joel Schumacher's approach was actually quite well liked. It wasn't until Batman and Robin that this camp approach was taken way too far as to be embarrassing. But Batman Forever seriously does not hold up with 10 years, in fact I was cringing at Jones and Carrey overacting all over the place in hideous fashion. I think I liked it a bit too much at the time, and now I hate it too much due to the Schumacher thing. Some of this is due to now thinking more about the thinly veiled gay subtexts, stuff like the Bat nipples on the costumes, the closeups of crotches and asses as they get dressed. All very disturbing, haha.

 

Batman Forever DOES have some good stuff though. I liked Val Kilmer, though as a character Bruce Wayne still isn't given a huge amount to do. But at least this one seems centered more on the Batman-Robin dynamic and there is some attempt at characterization with Wayne discussing his nightmares. Besides, Nicole Kidman was smoking in this one....top 5 in the world at that point.

 

This new film is perhaps being praised a bit too heavily for the simple reason that it finally gives Batman's origin and isn't as childish as the last couple. The whole idea of erasing the previous 4 films is foolish though because it isn't possible. My mom for instance kept trying to refer to things that happened in an earlier film, but in this case those films literally do not matter.

 

By the way am I the only one who prefers Michael Gough to Caine as Alfred? When I saw Michael Caine in the role I thought "Hey it's Michael Caine as Alfred" whereas when I watch the old ones and see Gough I think "Hey, it's Alfred."

 

Begins is an interesting film, a nice *** sort of film, but not an all time classic. It's just lacking....something. As I said the film visually isn't that interesting to look at and it's almost too bland. Or maybe it's because it seems like they filmed one of about 100 graphic novels dealing with Batman's origin. Let's face it, Batman going to the Orient and training with Ra's Al Ghul is something out of a geek graphic novel that about 10 people would buy. In fact the use of Ra's and Scarecrow here show that Nolan is slightly full of shit in saying it's a total restart of the series. If I was going to restart it I certainly wouldn't use lesser known B grade (or in Scarecrow's case C grade) villains.

 

I personally think that the Batman series has nowhere highly interesting to go. Seeing Ra's Al Ghul again with his lava pits isn't exactly something I'm going to rush out to see (hell those cartoon episodes bored the shit out of me). Seeing The Joker again will only invite comparisons to the 1989 film...it's been done, guys.

 

That said, if they wanted to do a full blown version of Knightfall with a much more legit Bane I'd be all for it. Bane was horribly misused to the point of offending the audience in Batman and Robin. Hell, they set it up nicely here anyway with all the nuts escaping from Arkham. I'm not sure how they'd introduce Azrael into the storyline, maybe just ignore him completely. Anyone think this is a good idea?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

i like the 89 Batman... but what really strikes me is the lack of real emotion. I realize there was a deliberate decision to sort of cloud Bruce in a shadow of mystery early on (we dont even see the parents murder until late in the movie), while its a nice change of pace from the 'standard formula', its impossible to really empathize the way one would for Peter Parker in Spidey 2 (man I really felt bad for him) or clark in the donner superman, etc.

This one solved that problem quite nicely by focusing completely on Batman/Bruce. Superhero stories, the standard fare at least, aren't known for their emotinoal depth, so when one really busts out the emotions, it feels like something greater, hence the mad love for Donner Superman, Spidey2 and now batman begins. i'm jsut stating the obvious, but whatever.

[Angle-plex 0]

My biggest complaint, out of all of the movies, is this- there is always some girl, who usually ends up being a love interest, that finds out that Bruce Wayne is

 

Batman Begins- Rachel finds out near the end.

 

You know, for a guy who's supposed to have a secret identity, he sure does spill it to a lot of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Spider-Man movies have the same problem, but at least Rachel as a love interest is actually important to the film before she becomes a "Damsel in Distress" at the end.

 

Seeing The Joker again will only invite comparisons to the 1989 film...it's been done, guys.

 

That said, if they wanted to do a full blown version of Knightfall with a much more legit Bane I'd be all for it. Bane was horribly misused to the point of offending the audience in Batman and Robin. Hell, they set it up nicely here anyway with all the nuts escaping from Arkham. I'm not sure how they'd introduce Azrael into the storyline, maybe just ignore him completely. Anyone think this is a good idea?

 

Joker could work if the didn't make him over-the-top silly like Nicholson's character was and actually make him a sociopath that enjoys disfiguring/killing people.

 

Knightfall wouldn't really work, because you'd need all the actors who previously played villians to come back. Plus Azrael is pretty important to the story, although it would be impossible to pull off in this new Batman "universe" because we have learned that Batman can, in fact, let people die - one of the main reasons that Bruce Wayne and Robin were appalled at Azrael in Knightfall.

 

The Burton movies have aged horribly. I tried watching the first one a couple of months ago and couldn't even get though it.

[CBright7831 0]

The numbers for Batman Begins really upsets me. This was a great movie, and the sequel looked promising, but now with those numbers, I don't think we will get a sequel.

 

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

There'll be a sequel. $70 million in 5 days is plenty. This is also the kind of movie that's going to sell millions upon millions of DVDs. You don't have to worry.

[Damaramu 0]

Couple of things:

 

-With the Joker scene in this one.......Batman created the Joker. But he acts like he doesn't know anything about the guy when he sees the card. Did they ditch that part of the story?

 

-Wasn't Ras arab in the comic?

 

-I have a friend that refuses to see this b/c he's all like: Tim Burton is the best ever! Nobody can be better than Michael Keaton as Batman! And then he said something that just kind of annoyed me: "You know what they should do! The last scene of this movie should be Batman dropping in on the criminals like in the 1st one! That way they tie together!"

And then I said "This is a new story"

"Yeah but it's Batman Begins! It's the beginning. It's a prequel!"

"No it's not. It's a new series."

This argument went on for a while.

 

Then there was this girl I know that told me she liked Batman Begins and thought it was a prequel. When I explained to her that it was not connected to the other films she said "oh well that sucks. I hate it now."

 

Seriously people need to get the Burton movies and what not out of their heads and just watch this as a whole new Batman series.

[Guest El Satanico]

Wasn't Ras arab in the comic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

His name is Arabic, but it's unknown if he is.

[iliketurtles 0]

I went to see this movie last night with a few friends and I really haven't been into Batman that much, but I figured I'd give it a whirl. I saw a couple of clips from the old TV show, never saw any of the other Batman movies, never read the comics.

 

I fucking loved it. The ending was done perfect. Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine...terrific. Katie Holmes sucked, but whatever. My friend who's into Batman said this definately was the best one yet.

 

So I ask, should I even bother going and seeing the other shitty ones with George Clooney and ARNOLDODLD!@~, or should I just wait for the next one to come out.

 

Definately go see it, even if you don't know or givea flying shit about Batman. You'll be hooked after the fastest 2 and half hours you'll ever spend in a theatre go by.

[cabbageboy 0]

Ha, my dad was also puzzled about Ra's here. He was like "Ra's Al Ghul is now a big Irishman?" Anyone remember the rumor that Viggo Mortensen was going to play Ra's? I think he might have been better in the role oddly enough. He has that boring monotone voice and the look of Ra's from the comics/cartoons. Neeson was cool however.

 

Dama, you kinda answered your own question regarding the Joker. This is a new start of the series, thus you're supposed to forget the previous films. Which was my point earlier: you can't. I myself had the initial idea that this was an origin prequel, yet at the same time they introduced new villains in Ra's and Scarecrow.

 

When I envision Knightfall I'm talking about a massive scale film series where Batman rounds up the Joker one movie, then Penguin in another, Two Face, etc. Some of it would have to be jettisoned at this point however, Azrael for instance. In fact the way it's been done now Ra's would be better in the Bane role, though he is hardly as physical or intimidating.

 

It's a bind really. It'll be hard to do these same villains again because, well, they've been done. Most filmgoers think Jack Nicholson = Joker and nearly anyone else won't be as well liked. Having another Joker movie will seem repetitious even if in the storyline it isn't. I think this approach frankly shows contempt for the previous films and the people who went to see those, bought the tapes and DVDs, etc. It's like "Oh you're supposed to say fuck the previous 4 films and just accept our film....but we're giving you Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow because they're some villains who haven't been done." It's contradictory.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

^ no, don't bother watching any of the schumamcher films.

 

If you MUST have a Batman jones fix, maybe try out the 89 Burton film, but leave the rest behind!

 

Oh, also if you're in the mood for animation, try renting "Mask of the Phantasm", an animated Batman movie, which is closer in tone to batman begins.

[Damaramu 0]

No Cabbage. I know it's a new start. But in the comic books Batman created the Joker. So I mean......how is the Joker in the movie without Batman creating him?

[AmericanDragon 0]

I think this approach frankly shows contempt for the previous films and the people who went to see those, bought the tapes and DVDs, etc.  It's like "Oh you're supposed to say fuck the previous 4 films and just accept our film....but we're giving you Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow because they're some villains who haven't been done."  It's contradictory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then Burton's films show contempt for the 1966 film by using the Joker and the Penguin all over again.

[AmericanDragon 0]

No Cabbage. I know it's a new start. But in the comic books Batman created the Joker. So I mean......how is the Joker in the movie without Batman creating him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they follow the origin of the Joker from The Killing Joke then Batman doesn't create him. He was there but he didn't push him into the chemicals or anything. I know The Killing Joke can't be 100% exactly translated into a film in this series because of Barbara Gordon but it would have been amusing to see a naked Gary Oldman locked in a cage.

[CBright7831 0]

Most filmgoers think Jack Nicholson = Joker and nearly anyone else won't be as well liked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true.

 

I was talking to a friend saying the sequel will contain Batman, James Gordon, and Harvey Dent going after The Joker. He asked if they had got someone to play The Joker, and I said "Not yet." He then said "I don't know if I could accept anyone other than Jack playing The Joker."

[chirs3 0]

Just got back.

 

My only problem is the way they wrote off Scarecrow - he was brilliantly done, and I think he deserved a better sendoff.

 

Other than that, I thought it was wonderful. I hope Nolan stays on for the next one(s).

Edited June 19, 2005 by chirs3