+Good action
+The story involving batman's character was excellent
+Good acting (except for second minus below)

- some scenes that were so fake (as in over the top impossible action) that it made me think...wow, this is just another action movie when it could have been so much more.
- batman's "batman voice" was distractingly annoying to me, as if he was being choked by his batman costume
- villians weren't that impressive, and the story of what the villians were trying to do wasn't too good.

Worth seeing? Yes. As good as the first batman? Could have been, but no.

Just saw this movie last night and overall I really liked it.

The the story involving Batman's character was nicely done. It was sweet to see how they made everything come together, from the batmobile to the batcave.

I also hated the "batman" voice that lordslumber mentioned above. It seemed very fake and over the top.

I really like the idea and the character of Scarecrow...but they should have done just a little more development with him. He was almost an afterthought.

One question for those who saw it: in the first batman movie, wasn't the Joker character the one who killed batman's parents? Why then was it someone else completely different in this movie? Is this movie supposed to be different from the earlier ones as far as the storyline is concerned?

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Gauntlet]

Yes, Joker killed batmans parents in original movie. And yes, this one was redone and with a different person. Not sure why they did that.

I just saw this movie last night and agree with what's been said so far. The "voice" for Batman is a little pushed and I did think that the Joker was the one who killed his parents, but oh well right. I think it was beyond the other Batmans.

I've always enjoyed the first two Batmans because of the darkness and that was the reason I hated the other ones made because of the colors involved. To me, Batman is about the darkness of both himself and Gotham City, but with Arnold Scwhawhatever being a colorful blue Iceman and Jim Carrey because another colorful character known as the Riddler, I think it just lost that darkness.

I think it was a great background story for how he came to be though. To me, I was a little put off when they pulled out the Joker card at the end. I was hoping for one or more movies of this style before they went into the rest of the series. Heck, my thoughts are that they should redo those other movies more like this one.

Although, Scarecrow could have been fleshed out or used more but I believe because his mentor came back, that's why they kind of shadowed him away. But, maybe they were trying to show more realism with the bad guys.

well there is definatley room for more scarecrow action since he got away at the end. maybe they were waiting for the next movie to develop him more, know?

I will give you that the villians were realistic. That's a good point.

I've since watched the movie a couple more times. The batman voice doesn't drive me as crazy as it did the first time, though its still very bad in a couple parts. "Do I look like a cop!?" I dunno, but you sure don't sound like one.

The first time i watched it, I was dissappointed that batman so easily beat scarecrows toxin, because it meant that scarecrow was already defeated just like 5 minutes after batman even met him. But he was cool other than that point.

A sequel has been announced btw.

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by lordslumber]

what do you mean he so easily beat scarecrows toxin? as i recall he fell out of a window and barely managed to call alfred, then he passed out for like 2 days. if anyone easily beat it, it was morgan freemans character, and yes, it was ridic how fast he could "analyze" all the proteins in his blood than magically make an antidote in a day or however fast he did. it sounds to me like that would take tons of time or we would already have a cure to the avian flu going around...