I'd have the same movies as Lecter, but in a different order:
1. Batman Begins
2. Spider-Man II
3. Spider-Man
4. X2: X-Men United
5. X-Men

It's actually a close one between Spider-Man II and Batman Begins. I'll have to watch both a few more times.

Ok don't hate me but I still dont understand the big deal about Spiderman 2. I think X2: X-Men United is a billion times better, by far the most entertaining. And I'm not even sure Spiderman 2 is better than Spiderman. I mean both movies are very similar , just a change of villian, cheesiest dialogue and worse Kirsten Dunst for the second one.

Star Wars...

What did you like on your first viewing? I mean, you gave it a perfect grade (hell, you gave it a 15/10!), and now, you can find 10 things to hate about the film and give it a D.

lol well that's nothing. I gave Citizen Kane a B+ but now after the 2nd viewing I give it an F.

Okay, but what did you like about the first viewing of Batman Begins?

Best Comic Movie remains Spider-Man II.

I say Spider-Man, the first one.

Okay I lied.

I realize that we are in the midst of a Batman jizfest... I know, I know, completely inappropriate word. I could say "circle jerk" as a substitute. So I've remained rather more silent than usual. I also realize that my early exposure to the script gave me a very advanced negative opinion that I was unable to shed AND that I have critisized members recently for embracing this film (in my opinion) pretty blindly. I sent some of this to loyal, and he said I should post it. So I'm going to expand and post it here now. So with all that in mind, here are some... "talking points" about Batman Begins. If you are looking for a letter grade, then sorry.

For the sake of this discussion, we are really going to discuss a comparison between what Batman was created as (1930s Batman) what Batman was throughout the 1950s and 1960s, what Batman was for the Tim Burton films and what Batman is in Batman Begins and Frank Miller's outings. Nobody here is going to defend Batman Forever and Batman and Robin as being the pinnacle of what a Batman film can achieve, although I would argue that Joel Schumacher created a style for Batman and comic book movies which was REALLY close to that of the comics which spanned the 1960s. They were gaudy and poorly acted and poorly plotted AND poorly scripted. But without the rose colored vision of the comic book aficionado, it's not hard to see that the comics also contained those same virtues.

Quite true. Obviously though, poor acting and poor plotting should never be a cause of inspiration : ). Though no. There are aspects of batman forever that i will hold in high regards when compared to the 1st 2 and the 4th.

The reason for this (in my opinion) is that Bruce Wayne is not immortal or super-fueled like any other character. His "prime years" span a 20 year period between the age of 25 and 45 (roughly). Also, Bruce tends to be more emotionally dynamic than pretty much any other character, and the current prevailing theory and emotional health is also worked into the fabric of the story from time to time.

We're really talking about styles here. Unlike the more pure Superman and the pretty consistent Spider-Man, Batman is the ONE character in comics who has changed the most.

Quite true and the thing that makes this most obvious is the fact that there is no concensus or consistency in his bat costume or batmobile over the years; whether in comics, cartoons, tv, movies, or games.

The origion story has been done over and over and over. For example Joe Chill origionally randomly killed Batman's parents. This random bit of crime set Batman against the criminal underworld in a very general way. The same thing happens in Batman Begins, with a twist that the crime was not unfocused. It created Batman, but there was an element of vengence and revenge that was achived when Ra's was apparently killed. In 1989, this was very specific and set up the dynamic of very focused revenge. All of these approaches are valid. This changes everything to come. 1989 and Begins both have the problem of elongating Bruce Wayne's angst and making what he feels valid and potent. This is essentially the problem of Batman Forever, and the new series will have it as well. People don't like George Clooney because he played the Batman without the baggage (although most will acknowledge that he was the best thing about that "film").

In 1989 Keaton, a strange choice for Batman, played Batman as an eccentric recluse. The entire film, told from the perspective of those around him, told the tale of a sad but incredibly kooky man who was impossible to know. The armory scene with Vicki Vale and Knox perfectly set up everything we need to know about the mystery of Wayne. Batman's later uncovering of the antidote of Smilex and his instincts about the movements of the crime bosses showed his primary asset, his intelligence. And it worked... we can have an anti-hero here because the opposite is Joker, who IS more accessible and understandable than Batman but does such much damage that you have no choice but to root for Batman. This is the essence of Batman's character as a vigilante and a last resort.

Begins gives us a Batman who could be seen as less intelligent (thrown out of Princeton!) and, instead of brainy, is more of a physical Batman. The prime emphasis of Batman in Begins is to develop Bruce's physical skills, how he got his gear, how he deals with his company. It is a very nuts and bolts approach that leaves little mystery. In the end, it's a preferance.

This is where i sort of start disagreeing with you. Indeed, like i mentioned earlier in the thread, they do not focus much on his detective skills. But this is where i think begins and 1989 can be considered different. 1989 focussed on a bat that is already out at large. hes grown and is no longer amatuer. Begin's batman is definetely less intelligent and even nolan openly points that out. He asks Fox to explain in general terms something you would expect the bat to know. i think the entire origin focus was on believability. The batman we know in comics is prety much inhuman if you think about it. from the first moments, the man was a martial art expert in just about all the different styles that exist, a scientest, a detective, could drive flawlessly, knew every longitude and latitude of gotham, was always prepared. he is a man in comics that can do anything. nolan went for realism and a man who is learning. batman is not someone who is just physical. he is also someone who is learning to think the way the criminal mind works. we end up with a batman who is everything he is suppose to be outside of someone who can still put 2 and 2 together. and in an origin story, i can sort of forgive that.

i espically loved when he goes out and acts like a playboy for the first time. he can't seem to pull it off properly because hes just not .. there yet. i like the fact that he panics, makes mistakes yet at the same time, you can almost tell that hes trying to do everything that we will one day expect him to do but there is a slight hesitation to it. All through the movie, his learning is being emphasized. the only thing that they didn't do though, was show his lack of trust which i could live with as well. even from reading the comics and reading about him on the net, i can tell that its something that came over time, and not right away.

1989 works so much better for me because it is the tale of sick/insane people doing kooky, kooky things. There is a weird mystery to it. Even Alfred comes off as really off center. We see the film through Vale's perspective (for the most part), WHY is there this guy who runs around in a laytex suit and how can he jump from building to building. Begins takes that away from us. We are supposed to respect the "mystery" of Batman but instead are handed all the examples on a plate. I believe that the Keaton Batman could go running around in a suit because he was so weird, but I can't make that same excuse with Bale's portrayal, who is more grounded and grim. It doesn't seem like the logical conclusion that someone in his position would come to.

Keaton benefitted once again because he had no reason to tell you why he did what he did. it was once again, not an origin but a story that started off from the middle. people know him. he no longer goes through a learning curve. he just does what he does. 1989 wasn't even focussed on the batman but everyone around him. Begins cannot have that luxury. if he just dressed up and went out, it would come off all wrong. he isn't spiderman where a current tragedy throws him into a mix.

also, i never understood the mystery thing. i mean even if we throw away Year 1, there is so much material on bruce wayne and batman in the comics that explains the character in great depth. there is little mystery to him (from a reader's point of view). His real mystery has always been for those in the comics themselves. his city doesn't know him and aren't meant to know him.

of course, one thing will be a matter of opinion ofcourse. for you, what he did wasn't a logical choice. i feel they perfectly explained why he became what he became and why he chose it to be that way. took away the mystery yes but it was never a mystery to me to begin with.

There is also the issue of the origion, and this gets into how villians are portrayed. Begins goes down this road a little way, but having the assassin be a Napier/Joker, the story gains a focus and a nemesis which REALLY drive both the antagonist and the protagonist. There is a focus in 1989 that Begins can't achieve. There are *four* villians in Begins, Chill, Falcone, Krane and Ra's. On top of that, Wayne is fighting himself and the corrupt decay of the city. There is FAR too much going on for Bruce to feel as passionate about one of them (until the end, when the ur-villian is revealed and we've realized that we've spent half of the film spread between plot points which are there to set up sequels rather than to create a coohesive single film).

Aaah. I loved this one and i think it was a fitting way to show batman's real motivations. I enjoyed the fact that there was no primary focus as a villain in this film as that would make batman's entire fight against criminals, more focussed. The 4 villains is a good way to symbolize that he is not fighting one man but is fighting an entire city that ironically, he is out to protect. the villain is the city itself. When he dons the costume, he is already in a fight with every aspect of his society, a meta villain, a crime boss, a loony, and the average joe criminal, and the corrupt. its all there. there is no focus and he is forced to battle them all. of course, over time, his real nemesis become the crazy folks and i think the ending scene handled that beautifully as well.

There's also a weird morality at play in the film. Batman will not cut the head off a crook but later will roll his car over police cars, explode them, and put the general populace in danger. There is also the issue that the plot point with Lucius Fox is never resolved and we never learn if the little boy, the Narrows, and all the people between the Narrows and Wayne tower ever recover from being driven insane.

Caine points that out as soon as he comes home and his excuse for it was that rachel was in danger. we're once again being shown elements that there is still a lot left for him to learn. when he feels no emotional involvement, he is able to make the decision he thinks is right. faced with his emotions, he still can't. once again, the bruce wayne of begins has a lot of flaws left in him. he is not where keaton's batman was. hes no where close to it right now. he will need more time to evolve which is why i think the 2nd film in the franchise will have a batman that is more mature. the last 2 end scenes of the film (the one where he is rebuilding and the one with gordon) sort of symbolize this. his fight with Ras was a learning experience for him.

More Begins nuts and bolts:

Michael Caine's Alfred was a welcome surprise for me. The script had maginalized Alfred by taking away part of his (and Bruce Wayne's) character and giving it to Lucius Fox. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox was just like most of the characters Morgan Freeman has played throughout his entire career. And I like Freeman so I'll let him be. The problem with the character is that some of Alfred's knowledge about the inner-workings of Batman's organization and Bruce Wayne's ability to solve problems (in this one it's chemistry and equipment) are eliminated by Lucius Fox giving Bruce immediate access to all he needs. He subtracts from both characters.

Tom Wilkinson's Falcone was a WASTE of time and a waste of talent. His one-note performance isn't believable or threatening. His dialog is some of the worst in the entire piece.

Gotham City's "reality" is underscored by bad CG and bad models. They got away with this in the early Batman movies because the city was so interesting architecturally, here there is no sense of geography. By creating Begins in a "real" environment and then putting very 1989 features of the bridges and ESPECIALLY the train rail Nolan seems to be trying to have his cake and eating it too. His theme throught the movie is "understand your surroundings" he doesn't give the entire movie any sense of geography... which is important when laying out his action sequences. Some are clever, some (like the final fight with Ra's Al Ghul) are so manically edited that it becomes a blur, and pointless.

Cillian Murphy would have been a tremendous Joker, but is a too young and too naive Scarecrow. What they should have done was this... made Scarecrow the primary villian and made Ra's Al Ghul more of a facilitator. Made it so that Ra's was helping Scarecrow for some reason and make Scarecrow the central villian of the piece. And not kill off Ra's. There is absolutely no satisfactory resolution to the Scarecrow story. This smacks of a sequel set up, which is not a good enough excuse to sacrifice story points for.

I don't have a problem with Katie Holmes or Gary Oldman. They both do okay, but there is nothing in their performances which couldn't have been done by another actor. The best scene in the movie is where Katie Holmes slaps Christian Bale, because, god damn, I wanted to do that as well. All of these films... Superman, X-Men, Spider-Man, end up with the chick and the superhero having to separate at the end... for once I wish Bruce Wayne would have just banged the chick and at least kept that illusion going until Batman Begins Part 2.

I'll finish this up later.