<p>anyone seen it? i did , i think it sucks, i nearly slept as did my friends.wt do u think?</p>
<p>i thought it was awesome, 100% serious. i would honestly rather watch it than any star wars movie. i dont see how you could have not liked it.</p>
<p>Yes, like I said on another thread, its ridiculously good. Go see it people.</p>
<p>However, it wasn't quite Star Wars good, but definitely the second best movie this year so far.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>i liked it but it did get a little long</p>
<p>story was pretty good, but the action sucked.</p>
<p>i agree that as an action movie it wasnt that great (u couldnt even see the action! it was all a blur), but it was an excellent background story for the character of Batman and i think it sets up the next movie pretty well.</p>
<p>I think you guys are missing the point of why the action is like that. Thats how Batman is supposed to be. He's supposed to come at you from one end and then another. He's no superman or spiderman, he doesnt have super powers, so he has to fight like that. He can't be in the same place all the time or he'll get shot. Thats where all his ninja training comes in.</p>
<p>no, thats not what i was referring to (i love the whole stealth thing and confronting ppl one on one in a dark corner and just knocking them out individually -- e.g. the drug bust scene)...</p>
<p>What I was talking about is, when he does fight, the camera just jerks around too fast...like in the very first scene when he takes on the asian men or when he's batman fighting on the ground with no place to hide/jump around. You can hear the sounds of a fight but everything else is just a blur and it made me dizzy sometimes.</p>
<p>again, you are missing the point. The director's job is to put the viewer into the movie. The disorienting shots are meant to be exactly that. You feel the disorientation and confusion of being attacked by someone as quick and stealthy as Batman.</p>
<p>Many people didnt like this movie, but those are the people who went to a super hero movie expecting just 2 hrs of **** blowing up and people being killed, Batman Begins isnt that, and I thought it was great. Not that 2 hrs of **** being blown up isnt also fun to watch, but an action movie with good dialogue and a plot is hard to find these days.</p>
<p>I agree that the director probably intended to do that (I'm sure someone like Nolan knows his way around a camera), but I'm just saying I disliked the technique -- I thought it was overused. There are other ways of communicating that disorientation besides making the audience dizzy in a Blair-Witch-esque way. </p>
<p>Also, if you're referring to someone like me in your second paragraph, brown, I just want to clarify that I am a huge fan of this movie, and that this criticism of the rapid camera-work and angling that I have is a very small critique which stems from a matter of personal taste (hehe, I get dizzy very easily and I was hoping to see well choreographed Batman fights...its a minor complaint though). I liked the exploration of his background and I thought Bale's portrayal of Batman was very good. The costume was also much better than the one in the Burton/Schumacher movies.</p>
<p>if any of you want a superhero movie about blowing things up, fantastic four looks like its going to be just that.</p>
<p>fantastic four looks like crap..</p>
<p>fantastic four looks quite mediocre. Like most action movies, the camera jerks around (to add the effect that you are in the action).</p>
<p>I was not referring to someone like you who simply did not like the camera style. I was referring to the people a few rows behind me screaming out during the scene at the end between Bale and Holmes about how the movie sucked and that it was the worst action movie ever.</p>
<p>people who hate Batman suck</p>
<p>I just saw it, with a comics-obsessed friend in tow. Personally, I thought it was very well done. My friend said it was very true to the actual Batman story (with a few notable exceptions), and I still liked it very much (I was expecting overly constrained plot details because the comic was the backbone, as opposed to the "inspiration").</p>
<p>I agree that the <em>SWISHSWISHFLAPBOOM</em> action was a bit overused. I understand that the director was trying to be true to the aura of Batman and to put the audience in the movie, but it lost some of the appeal because... well, I was too busy straining to figure out what exactly was happening to appreciate how involved I was in the movie.</p>
<p>That and the entire Katie Holmes character were my only major criticisms of the movie. (It was obvious even to me that "Rachel" was not a comic character, because of her lack of character development.)</p>
<p>simply awesome...ranked up there w/ spiderman 1</p>
<p>I just saw it today. Batman Begins is so freaking awesome like omg.</p>
<p>I liked it better than Spiderman 1.</p>
<p>My only criticism is Batman's voice. It was too corny for my taste, but everything else overshadows that minor flaw.</p>
<p>Bale's portrayal was impressive. His ability to convey Wayne's uncontrolled rage and hatred was dead-on. Also, the ending with Gordon definitely hinted at a sequel.</p>
<p>I had my doubts about the Batmobile, but it freaking rocked!</p>
<p>P.S. Fantastic Four looks like a load of garbage.</p>