TMPletz said:

They're doing the right thing. Sometimes what looks good in the comic would look goofy on screen(like Wolverine's bright yellow & blue spandex). That bathing suit is rather silly-looking. From what I read in the interview, they'll keep certain elements of the old costume, but add things to it(like battle armor).

VinnyM27 said:

I'll bet the idiot who wrote that review never read any of Frank Miller's Batman masterpieces. Batman's not supposed to be fun. He's not Spder-man. No more of that Joel Schumacher sh!t. Chris Nolan gets it.
[Edited 6/16/05 22:25pm]

uPtoWnNY said:

No, I don't want the Schumacher mess but I thought the Burton movies where great. If people thought they sucked because they didn't follow a certain Batman series, then fine! The more I see on the movie, the more it looks like a drag as a movie, let alone a "Batman" movie. Most critics that are praising also praise a whole lot of pretensious crap.

uPtoWnNY said:

I agree with that statement.

I went to see the movie last night and felt vindicated by my trust in Nolan's handling of the origin of Batman. He wipes the slate clean and it's like Tim Burton never happened.

So why do I feel slightly let down?

The performances are terrific. Christan Bale in particular plays him well enough to keep one intrigued before the plot eventually opens up. Liam Neeson excels with another one of his trademark melancholy performances. Neeson is quickly turning into my favourite actor. So why doesn't it all work for me?

Well, the atmosphere that was so carefully orchestrated and nurtured for the best part of two thirds of the picture quickly evaporates in the final act. A final act that asks to be judged on thrills and explosions that quickly induce a sense of deja vu. We have seen denouments of this kind far too many times before, and we are a little jaded as a result.

Crucially, Nolan is NO action helmer either. Witness the OJ-style Batmobile chase through the streets of Gotham, which felt slow.

What galls the most is that the elusive balance between psychological realism and superheroism remains frustratingly out of the reach of superior talents like Chris Nolan. In the end, all the cliches that traditionally afflict superhero capers on celluloid ultimately let down any of its sophisticated sheen.

A noble effort nonetheless. I am already looking forward to the sequel

.

giotto said:

Wow G you sound like a real movie critic Move over Ropert Siskell has a new side kick



Just JOKING with you ~ No pun intended

interpret said:

Um, Siskell is the one that died, so I guess you don't think much of the review....

i saw it on saturday and thought it was excellent.

that's all i have to say on the matter.

I saw it yesterday, I liked it

VinnyM27 said:

I simply typed the wrong name. What's so bad is that I live in the Chicago area and I'm well aware of which one died. I was thinking about not making that mistake when I typed it and made it anyway and didn't even realize it I can be so duh at times

i saw it this afternoon. i think it was the best one! so much fun and very exciting. i'm even going to risk being bashed by purists and say that i thought bale gives the best "bat."

SassyBritches said:

No big risk there! As far as I heard, everyone says so!

Well I did see it yesterday and I was not dissapointed. I thought it was going to be way too serious and boring but I was wrong! It did many things right, like giving a very full explaination of how Batman became Batman. However, what it did wrong (and it did a few things very wrong) are the things that past "Batman" movies did very right.


Possible spoilers:









Katie Holmes: I didn't like this casting idea when I first heard about it and critics agreed. I realize that Batman is younger but as stated before, Katie Holmes did not make a very convincing love interest/ballsy lawyer/heroine in distress. Although toward the end, she redemeded herself as the movie went on. I highly suggest killing her off in the sequel. It would be great. Then cast Angeline Jolie or someone super hot as Trixie, or whoever the girlfriend of Joker was.


The Villian: Scarecrow was not advertised as the main villian because he really wasn't the main villian. HIs appearance is far too breif. The past "Batman" films did a great job of making the villian on par with Batman, as far as casting and appearance in the movie. I realize this was a different movie, but come on! He wasn't used often enough and if they were just going to use him a few times like that, they should not have used him at all. And I realize this is junior Batman but Cillian Murphy is in his 20s and looks even younger (and I mentioned Jolie before..it looks like they cast her lips but not her!). And he is supposed to be a doctor, a mad one at that..when did this happen, in junior high? They really messsed that casting up. Hpward Stern was rumoured to be the next Scarecrow when Shuemacher was in charge, although the director was dead set against it, which tells us now that it would have been great casting. At the very least someone older.

Batmobile: I just don't like it. Sorry, but I realize Batman doesn't want to blend in but that tank was causing way too much damage on the streets! I like the fact that they seem to be hyping and overdefending it way too much. Bring back the Batmobile we all know and love.

"Spiderman" similarities: I noticed that this movie ripped off Spiderman in many ways. I think the casting of young and innocent Holmes was one place we see it (although keep in mind, "Mary Jane" was just out of high school for the first film...not well into her twenties!). And the endings was where it all came home...Katie saying she can't love him because of "the mask" and that way too tacky hint of who will be in the sequel (although when Spiderman hinted at it in the first, it took the hint of the next movie to finally make it happen).


There were also plot holes that I noticed but with all that said, it is 900 times better that the Suckmacher movies and while I don't like it as much as the Burton movies (and don't like Bale as much as Keaton in the title role), it's up there. Now the thing that this movie did really well....Excellent supporting cast of older established actors. Nesson, Caine, Freeman, Oldman, Wilkinson....all excellent, all worthy of supporting actor oscars (maybe Nesson more than others just because of screen time) and I hope they all (see, all!) return.
[Edited 6/20/05 5:46am]

interpret said:

Just razzing you. I was only aware of it because I really like the show, although some of their reviews are way off.

Best Batman movie EVERRR!!!!

Katie Holmes didn't even ruin it...

My thoughts on the matter:

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/149881

I give this movie a very generous 8 out of 10.

.

giotto said:

I agree, although I wouldn't say it was generous. It earned 8 out of 10.

"Batman Begins" 8/10
"Batman" 9/10
"Batman Returns" 9/10
"Batman Forever" 5/10
"Batman and Robin" 1/10 (it was colorful....that's about all it had going for it)

My ratings:

Batman Begins- 9/10
Batman- 7/10
Batman Returns- 6/10
Batman Forever- 3/10
Batman & Robin- -5/10

They just showed Batman again here on TV and guess what, I was kinda surprised for a second to hear Prince songs in it.... Stupid me.

JediMaster said:

Jedi...

I guess we can only agree to disagree.

I would give Batman Begins a 7/10 (would've been 9, but I hate the costume)

Batman Forever – 6/10

Batman – 0/0

Batman Returns – 0/0

Batman And Robin – (wait for it...) -10/-10

TheBatman said:

I have to give the first one a bit more of a break because of the Prince soundtrack (even though I think its Prince's worst of the 80s). The second one gets a break as well, just due to the fact that it has a real cool Siouxsie and the Banshees track!

Batman Forever just annoys the fuck outta me.

Batman & Robin is a piece of shit that I truly cannot rate how bad it was (which is why I gave it a negative 5 outta ten, but a negative ten is probably more fitting.

The costume and the revelation of his identity to Katie Holmes are the only things that prevented me from giving BB a perfect score.

THANK YOU!

calldapplwondery83 said:

Sorry, thought you'd already left to see it!

Oh, I might as well tell you that there is a big musical number in the middle of it, and Alfred teaches young Bruce how to tap-dance. Sorry if that spoils it further.

...and nevermind, no problem. Guess I just shouldn't read the threads before! But how many girls are out there now, knowing his identity? One for every movie? Or was this only in Burton's?
[Edited 6/21/05 10:08am]

JediMaster said:

SPOILERS!!!

Read these threads at your won risk!

calldapplwondery83 said:

Oh, its in ALL of them. Of course, this movie is set in its own continuity, so all the stuff that happened in the Burton films is ignored.

TheBatman said:

Heh...actually, I think there WAS a big musical dance number in one of the Schumacher flicks! Hell, I KNOW there was an ice-skating sequence!

TheBatman said:

You knocked off two points for the costume???

Dude, you really crack me up!

Although, I might do the same thing for a Wonder Woman movie if she sports battle armor.

TheBatman said:

I have to say that my scores would be pretty close to JediMaster's...
(though out of the Burton movies, I prefered the second one)

Batman - 5/10
Batman Returns - 6/10
Batman Forever - 3/10
Batman & Robin - 0/10
Batman Begins - 9/10

and I think they got the costume pretty close to perfect in the new one.
The blacker the better! (the grey & black outfit would be a disaster on the
big screen. It would be like putting the X-Men in yellow spandex )