posted
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?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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
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!
Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
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.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Garbled, confusing and quite frankly duller than an inflight magazine produced by Air Belgium.
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It?s us. Only us." Rorschach
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Garbled, confusing and quite frankly duller than an inflight magazine produced by Air Belgium.
Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
