Er, so unless I'm mistaken, that kind of ruled. Except not "kind of."
Wow. Batman using neato gadgets to kick a lot of badguy ass. Terrific performances by Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe and even Rutger Hauer without excessive grandstanding. IN YUOR FACE, JOEL SHUMACHER. Even Katie Holmes was good. All those fine actors and I think I'm in love with the new batmobile. Fucking-A, there's Tibetan ninjas and shit. Liam Neeson lays more smack down than Qui-Gonn could ever dream. There were even some decidedly Patrick Bateman moments. (I'm certain that joke has been done to death. I apologize.)
If you haven't seen it, do. If you have, what did you think?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I can't friggin' wait to see this thing. I heard a bunch of comic book dorks talking about this yesterday and they were drooling all over their weekly stacks.
I may have to bust out of work a touch early today.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm also looking forward to this one, although I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much. The trailers do look good, but then they usually do these days, regardless of how good the film is (or isn't). I'll be going to see it next saturday with some friends, so hopefully I shan't be disappointed. But then it could hardly be worse than the last two (or three, depending on your taste) can it?
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
I haven't seen it yet, but if it recaptures some of the dark menace of the first two film, then it will be a winner. Although, I am not sure about the Batmobile. I liked the gothic style of the original film Batmobile, this one seems more like a souped-up 'Hummer'. That said, it actually is a real vehicle and was built as such from the chassis up - oh, and it is British built! Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It was pretty great.
Some of the fight scenes were a bit. . . murky.
And, like, when Batman is fighting the, uh, League of Shadows army, shouldn't all those guys have basically been his equal? Like, a whole army of Batmans! But he doesn't have too much trouble with them.
(Also the trailer for Serenity was attached, and oh man.)
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I agree with Sol. The fights were at time murky, though what really annoys me is this new convention in action films that says, "Because the characters see their own fight in a chaotic and unfocused/shaking manner, so should the audience."
VAST improvement in the franchise. I'm not sure where they will go with this (since they're running out of villains never filmed), but this was worth the wait, even if this is what we deserved 15 years ago.
On a side note, I also like DC's rebranding. I dare say it is as good as the Marvel branding we see at the start of their comics' movies.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
The point about the rebooting of the franchise is that the villains can now be re-used, the Joker, Penguin, the Riddler, Two Face, Poison Ivy and the Governor of California, don't count as having been used up in the American Psycho version of the timeline, it's not like they ever had continuity between the cartoon shows and comics is it?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
As long as they make the villains look cooler, I'm all for seeing them again.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I...quite liked it. A lot. But I didn't "love" it. I dunno. I don't think it was that it did anything bad, it was more that it never really had a "wow" moment.
Batman's first appearence was quite good, but a bit...sudden. Personally, my favourite "first look" at Batman was in the Mask of the Phantasm movie. You only see him from the back. He looks down at the cowl while Alfred watched. He puts it on, and Alfted steps back in shock. That was the best version of that. The whole "there's a fight where we don't see him and then he appears and says 'I"m Batman'" has been done before.
Also, Holmes was plainly not very good. And looks wise she really doesn't convince me as a touch cookie. Ra's and Lucius were good though, although you'd expect that from the actors.
(Did that bit seem quick to anyone else? "Hi, I'm Morgan Freeman. I understand you're that guy who used to own the company who was dead but no isn't. Here, let me show you these fancy gadgets and suit and stuff and you can borrow them for whatever it is that you do.")
(And, music was better than Forever and & Robin, but not as good as Danny Elfman's stuff. Pity, as I like Hans Zimmer.)
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: IN YUOR FACE, JOEL SHUMACHER.
Are you saying that there was something wrong with Joel "I'm going to improve the franchise by putting sexy nipples on Batman's uniform" Shumacher's handling of the movies?
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: On a side note, I also like DC's rebranding. I dare say it is as good as the Marvel branding we see at the start of their comics' movies.
It was something that was completely lacking previously. I don't think any DC superhero movies ever even showed the logo. Maybe I am oversensitive to such lost opportunities because I work in publications, but it always bugged me. On a related note, I always thought that the Marvel movies should mention more of the other heroes in the universe. I mean, up until Spidey 2, the only time that a Marvel flick had a throwaway comment about another superhero not featured in that movie was the Superman reference in Spidey 1. Let's plug the competition!
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: The point about the rebooting of the franchise is that the villains can now be re-used, the Joker, Penguin, the Riddler, Two Face, Poison Ivy and the Governor of California, don't count as having been used up in the American Psycho version of the timeline, it's not like they ever had continuity between the cartoon shows and comics is it?
I am not sure that I agree with you. The other movies are recent enough that the villains may seem a little tired. Plus there are at least two villains that should be left alone because there is no possible way that they could be done better than the first time around: the Joker and the Penguin. The Joker because Nicholson was brilliant and made for the part, and the Penguin because DeVito was made for the part�a crappy part that could hope for mediocrity at best.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: (Did that bit seem quick to anyone else? "Hi, I'm Morgan Freeman. I understand you're that guy who used to own the company who was dead but no isn't. Here, let me show you these fancy gadgets and suit and stuff and you can borrow them for whatever it is that you do.")
Lucius was disgruntled and he respected Bruce's dad. It was his way of sticking it to the boss but still feeling that he had not compromised his morals.
Posted by Home Decor and Gardening (Member # 239) on :
"The Joker because Nicholson was brilliant and made for the part,"
I am sort of certain this is wrong.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The Penguin comment too. As the character in the film really didn't bare much of a resemblence to the Penguin of any other format.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Some of the subsequent cartoons have gone with the film version rather than the original comic version, I rather enjoyed the flippered freak version from BR, the original wasn't really a freak, he was just fat and short, kinda like Danny De Vito in real life.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm in the minority but I think Nicholson was poorly cast as The Joker. He played the role he was given well, but the Joker was never a mobster, so NIcholson playing an insane mobster was still far from the character.
I liked this batman movie a lot- mainly due to the Liam Neeson as Raas Al Goul. The only seriously lacking part of the movie was Katie Holmes. Man, she has ZERO acting ability- I could not possibly buy her as an assistant DA. Not in any way. She was just there (as one person put it) "for the nipple effect".
I think the mask needs some refinement- Christian Bale's face seems too round in the mask.
The guy from 28 Days Later was excellent as Scarecrow! I was concerned that they would blow the story by trying to cram too many bad-guys into it (as they had done previously) but everything went together nicely.
Gary Oldman as Gordon was a great bit of casting- they even got the glasses down perfectly. I thought GOrdon's crooked partner looked a lot like harvey Bullock but (thankfully) that was not the case.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
The title of this thread is appropriate, I think. Until seeing Batman Begins, I had thought that Tim Burton's two Batman movies were pretty good and that the subsequent two ruined the franchise. However, Batman Begins showed me exactly how flawed even Burton's Batman movies were.
Not only did Batman Begins explain so many things that really should have been explained before (e.g. where he gets his "wonderful toys", where his training and stealth techniques came from, why the bat, etc.) but we finally get to see a Bruce Wayne who shows sufficient emotional and psychological damage to make you start to believe that someone that screwed up and with the means at his disposal would dress up in a costume and go about the city foiling criminals. It also helped to finally see what kind of people Bruce Wayne's parents were and what a tragedy their murder was. Finally, Bale's Batman is infinitely more menacing than Keaton's Batman, who spoke in a near whisper and intimidated criminals mostly by getting up after having been shot. Bale's Batman clearly shows the anger that Wayne has been consumed with a sharp growl and truly intimidating techniques, i.e. his little game of repeatedly dropping a crooked detective in order to get information out of him. I seem to remember the Animated Series Batman resorting to similar techniques on occasion.
Did anyone else get the impression that it was Batman himself who gave rise to Gotham's costumed villains? At the end, it was stated that several of Arkham's inmates had never been captured. I assume that several of them may have personally seen Batman as he ran through the halls trying to escape the police. Perhaps the image of a costumed freak may have put some ideas into their criminally insane minds.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I still haven't seen Batman Begins yet. Hell, I still haven't seen Star Wars: Episode III - The Revenge of the Sith yet, either (tomorrow is the big day for that movie). In case anyone's interested, IMDb News is saying that Katie Holmes is definitely out for the sequel. It was said that "... the next romantic interest will be a much stronger actress."
The sequel will definitely include the Joker, according to the same site. Interestingly enough, there seems to be support for Mark Hamill taking on the role of the Joker. He's the voice actor for the Joker in Bruce Trimm animated DC Universe, and I think he does a great job voicing the Joker. I just don't know if I see him actually playing the Joker, though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I liked Katie Holmes just fine, really. I mean, I didn't feel like much of the movie was really resting on her, for one thing.
Christian Bale's Batman voice was maybe a little too four-packs-a-day.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I wondered why he used his "batman voice" when confronting Raas....after all, he speaks in a normal tone in the mansion when they talk to each other.
Mabye the costume uses a voice filter i the mask (like Iron Man's helmet).
Posted by God of your Universe (Member # 1600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'm in the minority but I think Nicholson was poorly cast as The Joker.
I'm pretty sure Nicholson was Two-Face. And Jim Carrey played Joker in the movie.
*I'll shut-up now*
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Buh? Jack Nicholson played the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman. Jim Carrey played the Riddler in Batman Forever, which also featured Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jim carrey was an EXTREMELY poor choice for the intelectual Riddler.
Tommy Lee Jones looked right as Two face (though if hey'd played him tragically it woud have been soo much better.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Problem is he so wouldn't have fit in, in Forever if he'd played the tragic character, the whole tone of that movie was comedy, in that respect I think the deranged psychopath portrayal Tommy Lee Jones did was the best that could be done with an abominable script, not to mention TeH NiplpeS!!!11 on the Batsuit. Carrey was doing okay until he actually became the Riddler, then it all turned into a bad Joker impersonation.
P.S. On Nicholson, his Joker was basically a rip-off of the Two-Face creation story - horrible chemical burns leave him disfigured and psycopathic with a burning hatred for a guy who has a chiropteran fetish.
P.P.S. Val Kilmer: Second. Worst. Batman. Ever.
P.P.P.S. George Clooney: Worst. Batman. Ever.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:I liked Katie Holmes just fine, really. I mean, I didn't feel like much of the movie was really resting on her, for one thing.
That was one of the great things about Batman Begins: the damsel in distress was not the primary driving force of the movie, nor did it ever seem that Batman's feelings for her ever overwhelmed his major personality trait. Batman should be bent mostly on revenge and the punishment of evil, not on saving his love interest. That he never really got the girl in the end, and that he was okay with it, was an excellent touch and true to the character. Either way, I think Holmes' character redeemed herself when she tazered the Scarecrow in the face.
quote:I wondered why he used his "batman voice" when confronting Raas....after all, he speaks in a normal tone in the mansion when they talk to each other.
I think the voice is simply part of the whole Batman persona. It likely that he's so fully immersed himself into the part that, even when speaking with those he knows, he still uses the voice he invented for the character. By using the line Holmes' character said to Wayne earlier, he clearly meant for her recognize him, but he still didn't use Wayne's voice.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Just saw it today and loved it. Mostly because it wasn't actually a Batman movie, it was a Bruce Wayne movie, which makes it all the more interesting for me. Some great action pieces that didn't overwhelm the plot and...The Car...gotta love it! I dare anyone to truthfully say they don't want one. ;-)
Other random things of note; I like how they paid more attention to Bruce's motivation than in previous outings, especially his aversion to guns. The villans were well handled, mostly because their interactions actually made some sense, unlike the previous movies. I'm especially impressed with Scarecrow, since he's not an easy character to pull off. Indeed if I recall the Bruce Timm animated series went through several design revisions and one major character change (finally being voiced by Jeffrey Combs.)
It's a small detail but I noticed that Gordon still has a wife at this point and I'm sure I noticed a certain (very young) future Batgirl at his house, red hair and all.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah the Gordon "family scene" was a nice touch. With this cast and director, I'd love to see them faithfully introduce Robin.
Hell, if they wanted a gritty realistic Robin, they could skip Dick Grayson completely and use Tim Drake instead.
Posted by God of your Universe (Member # 1600) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Buh? Jack Nicholson played the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman. Jim Carrey played the Riddler in Batman Forever, which also featured Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face.
Ahhh yeah ur right, got confused, please forgive my noobness Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The Penguin comment too. As the character in the film really didn't bare much of a resemblence to the Penguin of any other format.
I thought that the character in the film was a vast improvement over the comic book character. Nervertheless, he still sucked.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I thought GOrdon's crooked partner looked a lot like harvey Bullock but (thankfully) that was not the case.
Flass was Gordon's cooked partner from Batman: Year One. However, he was more of buff ex-marine than a Bullock-like slob in the books.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
I have to say, that all your comments make sense.
But I rememeber, as a small 7 or 8 yo boy. watching the original serials in the ABC movie chain in London. Batman had a terrible costume and an even worse 'batmobile'. It was an old dust-kicked Packard, just like every other car, except it was faster. But, he inspired me because he wasn't a 'super hero'.
No powers, even though I didn't understand, psychology and science, I understood what he was trying to do.
Batman will never die, even if the character does.
Albertus
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Early Batmobiles in the comics were just a popular car of the day with an extra fin or two, I believe.
The early comics, and the Saturday Morning films just showed a plain, old car.
I think it was in the 60's, with the advent of the TV Batman,that the Batmoible came into existence.
Albertus
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Actually according to the batmobile site Sol linked to 1941 had the first 'unique' batmobile almost from the inception of the comics, it was some old yank late 30s/early 40s car with a bat mask on the front and a massive fin on the roof.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Early Batmobiles in the comics were just a popular car of the day with an extra fin or two, I believe.
I still the the "Batman Beyond" car was the best looking design ever. I'd love to see that thing realised in a live action movie, moving the way it did in the "laser chase" scene from "Return of the Joker". The new one of course is a whole different animal. Very much reminisent of the Frank Miller tank, but ligher and with a lot more speed.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
There was a Batman Beyond movie touted as being "in development" couple years ago. I guess it's on indefinite hold now, but after this remoured trilogy is told, I'd love to revisit the BB world. Make up Christian Bale as an 80 year-old and go nuts.
That Batmobile page is awesome. The car has had so many incarnations... Say, is there a page somewhere that details the various Batsuits through the ages?
Mark
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: I think the voice is simply part of the whole Batman persona. It likely that he's so fully immersed himself into the part that, even when speaking with those he knows, he still uses the voice he invented for the character.
I thought the cartoon did it best. In that, Bruce always used his "Batman" voice except when he was being "Billionaire playboy". If he was at home talking to Alfred in his own clothes, it would be in deep, scary voice mode. Possibly because of the fact that...
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Just saw it today and loved it. Mostly because it wasn't actually a Batman movie, it was a Bruce Wayne movie, which makes it all the more interesting for me.
Of course, the point about Batman in general (and which the film gets) is that there is no Bruce Wayne, there is only Batman. Superman is really Clarke Kent (at least, since the mid-80s reboot), and Spider-Man is really Peter Parker, but Batman is Batman. His normal face is his diguise. The man has no life beyond wandering around dressed as a giant bat stopping bad guys.
(And on your other point, apparently the small girl is actually listed in the credits as "Barbara Gordon", although I haven't checked.)
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Hell, if they wanted a gritty realistic Robin, they could skip Dick Grayson completely and use Tim Drake instead.
Buh? How is the kid who goes to a private school and who has a dad more "gritty" than the kid who's parents were both killed by mobsters and who was left as an orphan?
(And if they want "gritty", they'd surely go with Jason.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)