posted
I liked it, though it seemed like several small short-movies combned together. Kinda like reading a trade paperback with five or six parts (that whole foray to Hong Kong would be an issue for example).
The actor that played Harvey Dent stole the movie- yeah Ledger and Bale, Oldman and Caine all gave their usual good showing, but that guy was really great in this. The actress that played rachel was a huge improvment over the last actress in that role, though nothing to look at).
One serious gripe: the cops never bother to take off the Joker's makeup?!? Seriously, that's lame as hell- they said they fingerprinted him (and got to match) but they dont bother to get a mug shot without his makeup? The first thing the cops would do is remove all that get-up and stick him in prisoner clothes.
Overall, a good flick- not the best movie ever as some would have you believe, but the best Batman movie certainly.
Iron Man and Hellboy 2 were both better in that they felt more like whole movies.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And...she was pretty good. FAR superior to the wooden Katie Holmes performance from the first movie.
Everyone in this movie was quite good.
Er....you're looking for me to critique her looks? Kinda looks like the "Maggie" character from Northern Exposure's less attractive sister.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I dunno...I'm not a huge Katie Holmes fan but I definitely felt that Gyllenhaal was the weakest link in this movie. She played the character as far too flirty and easygoing compared to Holmes' seriousness in Batman Begins.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ugly or not, I can picture her as an assistant D.A. and I really could not picture Katie Holmes as one. Maybe it was that Holmes seemed completely clueless about everything around her and not tough or experienced in any way. This new version of the character was competent in the courtroom, at least. Katie Holmes was the only thing that sucked about the first movie (and I dont buy an assistant D.A. in her early 20's either).
That silly "Bat Radar" via cell phone got old really damn quick, but it's a comic book, so I wont go into the implusability factors of that....also I doubt the bat-cycle ever moved over the speed limit: must be those big tires. Any ricer would've smoked the Bat.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: And...she was pretty good. FAR superior to the wooden Katie Holmes performance from the first movie.
Everyone in this movie was quite good.
Er....you're looking for me to critique her looks? Kinda looks like the "Maggie" character from Northern Exposure's less attractive sister.
No, I was just wondering why her looks needed to be commented on at all. It's been a pet peeve of mine before when people criticise a leading lady for not being pretty enough for their tastes. Gets on my goat. As you say, just from a realism POV, not many lawyers look even remotely attractive but you can forgive Hollywood if they can cast an actress who can actually act as well as look pretty. Not the case with Holmes.
posted
I agree- Her character's looks really dont matter to me- my comment is more a response to everyone calling her things like "ugly".....
I guess we all expect hollywood actresses to be stellar bueaties or something. Still, she's a big improvment over Holmes' "acting" (the sole gripe I had on the first film) With Katie Holmes, I think she was both waaay too young looking to be an asst. D.A. and acted that way as well (though that's possibly more of a directior thing).
In truth, I'd have preferred they just dropped her charcter, which I tough was weak, rather than replace the actress (which never works well- just ask Robin Curtis . This character that's such a pivital role in these two movies has nothing to do with the batman of the comics.
[ August 02, 2008, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well you don't need to worry about her being in the next film at least. To be far though, her character is quite unique, I don't think there's anyone in the comics they has quite the same perspective on Bruce Wayne as she had. She seamed to really see him for what he really is, somewhere between the dual identities and she's known and cared for him since childhood. Now in the last she was his light at the end of the tunnel, the one thing he could look at and say to himself "someday it will be over and I will have my normal life". Now that thread has been cut and he'll be more of the lonely figure we're used to. Which is good because they're showing the process, not the result.
Assuming they are doing a next one, I wonder if they'll defy convention and not give batman a love interest at all. From what I gather they're not interested in using Selina Kyle and I doubt they'll use Harley Quinn. It always felt false how in the other films (and I suppose a certain type of action film in general) the love interest would just drop in, get herself fallen in love with and find out his identity by the third act.
Perhaps they'll bring in Talia, one assumes the League of Assassins hasn't completely vanished.
posted
Hmmm...that whole "only she understood me" is the grim reaper of all female supporting characters in comics. No sooner do they learn the shocking secret than they croak. Seriously, whenever they do that, you can bet on a grisly end for the love-intrest of our agnst-ridden hero.
Forget the love-intrest angle.
I'd rather see them skip ahead a few years- let the time between movies match the time passed for characters- and they could just have a tough young-ish teen Robin present without all that "waste a movie on origin" nonsense. Everyone knows his background by now, so just get on with the current story (maybe a word or two in passing from Alfred about backstory for those in the know).
Hell, you could assemble a whole rogues gallery of nuts grouping to of the Bat- possibly starting with him captured- and have Batman's allies go after him.
Why follow the tired formula of the prior lame-ass batman movies wherein they introduce two or three villans per movie to be a menace, complete with sordid backstories?
I'd rather see a movie with no super-nuts and just have Batman (and Robin) do detective work to find a missing kid while beating down on street-scum.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:and they could just have a tough young-ish teen Robin present without all that "waste a movie on origin" nonsense. Everyone knows his background by now, so just get on with the current story (maybe a word or two in passing from Alfred about backstory for those in the know).
BZZZZT. No way. I'm pretty sure Bale has said he'll quit before doing a Robin movie.
posted
Another thing we must be thankful for is that Rachael and Bruce did not produce an illegitimate love child, like the Man of Steel.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Thank god for that.
I just had a silly idea that Javier Bardem would make an awesome villian, if there was a role that he could fill, anyways...
Too bad....Robin (ala Tim drake's version) could rock, but they'd need someone young with fighting skills. First, they'd have to establish that Batman was losing control and burning out- then the sidekick/ adopted son would work.
Either way, I'd still rather see Batman kicking normal psycho's asses than waiting for some nut-of-the-week to drop by.
OTOH, if all the ass-kicking led up to some nut (like Riddler) pulling everyone's strings, I'd be happy with that.
Just no Mr. Freeze.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
