Sign In
Register
Help
Add Reply
They should put Two-Face and Mr. FReeze in the next sequels because they were badly done in the Shumacher films (Is Shumacher spelled right?)
Batman Begins Review
#31
SithAvenger 
- Wow, my avatar changed.
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,898
- Joined: 06-June 05
- Location:Err... here I guess.
- Interests:The Interests of a Normal Teenager:<br />-Movies<br />-Things that are awesome<br />-Girls<br />-(Good) Tv shows<br />-Doing evil stuff the good way<br />-Videogames<br />-Hangin' with my friends
- Country:Mexico
Posted 26 June 2005 - 02:35 PM
Sorry, you won't be seeing a smartass sig here. Try with the next poster.
MultiQuote
#32
Icey
- n00b
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,889
- Joined: 06-April 04
- Location:Not-Spain
- Interests:Being infested by parasites. Fighting members of the Kennedy family, kidnapping the President's daughter. Moaning.<br />
- Country:United States
Posted 26 June 2005 - 03:27 PM
How about Shoemaker? That's accurate. It's a direct translation from German.
I still want more Scarecrow as I now have a gargantuan crush on Cillian Murphy.
I'm so sad.
I still want more Scarecrow as I now have a gargantuan crush on Cillian Murphy.
I'm so sad.
#33
Commodore
- Mini Boss
-
- Group: Junior Members
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 30-April 05
- Location:Wisconsin
- Country:United States
Posted 26 June 2005 - 05:28 PM
QUOTE (floppydisk @ Jun 26 2005, 11:02 AM)
I think they should make the Reaper for the next Batman movie...
Have you learned to...FEAR THE REAPER?!
This movie blew me away. The mood was right, the villians were perfect, and Batman was treated like the dark, complex character that he is. Katie Holms? Meh. Her character is not essential to the movie's enjoyment.
I'm glad they're wiping away the Burton/Schumacher films; it gives them the chance to do justice to Two-Face, Penguin, Freeze, etc. Hmmm...I wonder if they would do a "Hush" movie somewhere along the line?
#34
Revan-47
- The Prophet
-
- Group: Former Members
- Posts: 1,276
- Joined: 09-June 05
- Location:Indiana
- Country:United States
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:27 PM
I just saw it last night and it was awsome!!! The only movie i love is the first batman so far. The second one sucked. Although i thought the villans were cool in the other two batman was lacking. the riddler was kool as was mr. freeze.
"Life is too important to be taken seriously."
#35
Icey
- n00b
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,889
- Joined: 06-April 04
- Location:Not-Spain
- Interests:Being infested by parasites. Fighting members of the Kennedy family, kidnapping the President's daughter. Moaning.<br />
- Country:United States
Posted 26 June 2005 - 06:32 PM
Are we talking about Jim Carry and Arnold Schwarzenegger here?
#36
SithAvenger
- Wow, my avatar changed.
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,898
- Joined: 06-June 05
- Location:Err... here I guess.
- Interests:The Interests of a Normal Teenager:<br />-Movies<br />-Things that are awesome<br />-Girls<br />-(Good) Tv shows<br />-Doing evil stuff the good way<br />-Videogames<br />-Hangin' with my friends
- Country:Mexico
Posted 27 June 2005 - 12:06 AM
Sorry, you won't be seeing a smartass sig here. Try with the next poster.
#37
J m HofMarN
- Knows All The Girls Named Lola
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,234
- Joined: 24-May 04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
- Interests:Tyranny
- Country:United States
Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:04 AM
Bateman- I like the cut of your gib.
And yeah this movie does indeed look awesome. If I posessed the money to see it in theaters I would.
And yeah this movie does indeed look awesome. If I posessed the money to see it in theaters I would.
Quote
I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
#38
floppydisk
- The Amazing Bag-Man!
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5,325
- Joined: 24-August 04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Beyone the Grave!
- Interests:Movies. Books. Video Games.
- Country:United States
Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:12 PM
What? Come on, JM! Just sneak in! It's really easy, and if you don't know how I'll be glad to tell you how...
QUOTE (Theodor Herzl)
If you will it, it is no dream.
#39
civilian_number_two
- Canada's Next Top Model.
-
- Group: Head Moderator
- Posts: 3,382
- Joined: 01-November 03
- Gender:Male
- Location:In Your Dreams
- Interests:I like stuff.
- Country:Canada
Posted 27 June 2005 - 08:48 PM
Spoilers spoilers spoilers
(ie you're reading this only because you've already seen the film)
I went in knowing little other than that this was not going to be Batman: Year One. Right away however, I started to put some things together. I knew the League of Shadows was going to be the point of the film once they introduced it: Ra's al Ghul is too minor a Batman villain to be given more than one movie. So, ok, I thought, this is really not going to be Year One. Fine.
So why the Dog In the Manger approach to the screenplay? Why borrow elements of Year One and then not use them? The only purpose seems to be to piggyback your story on something already popular, for street cred. However the actual effect of it is that nobody else can ever follow up and do that story (ok: fine, Year One was already so cinematic that it might have been trivial to adapt it to the big screen, you say? Tell that to Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez. That's exactly what they did with SIN CITY).
Specific criticisms coming: I liked the look and feel of Gotham, of the trains and Wayne Tower. Hated the fact that setting up these elements meant they would play a pivotal role in the final action sequence. Gotham is as much a character as any of the people in the film, and needn't be developed only for the sake of plot. I did NOT like how the one exit from the opera opened right onto Crime Alley. Frank Miller's idea that the crime took place near a movie theatre makes more sense; who places an opera house in the middle of a slum?
I liked the focus on Batman being born out of guilt and fear as well as rage. This hasn't been touched on very much. This in its way made the Scarecrow a perfect villain for the first installment. In fact, the whole city being under a spell of fear could have made the Scarecrow an ideal villain to counterpoint the Roman, and that could have been enough meat to fill up the thin plot of Year One, which again, grr, they didn't do. I did NOT like that Batman's guilt and fear needed to be used to serve the plot directly. Like the train and Wayne Tower, we learned about these elements of Batman's personality only because they served the final action sequence. Add to that, there is supposed to be something elemental about Bruce Wayne, something he learned on his self-directed tour of Buddhism and Eastern martial arts. What makes him able to face Scarecrow in the comics is the fact that he has learned to live with his fear. In the film, Batman faces Scarecrow because he has a convenient chemical antidote. Yawn; how very STAR TREK, or worse, 60s Bat-shark repellent.
So too Batman's development with the League of Shadows. I've already hinted at my problem with this stuff: Batman's drive to fight crime had always been self-directed. Now in the film, Bruce Wayne was a self-destructive rogue until Ra's came along and shaped him; Falcone knew he was gunning for him; his childhood sweetheart tried to build him up to be the good man she knew he could be. Wayne enterprises apparently wasted a lot of money annually developing the products Batman needs. Cool. But rather than this being a secret branch of the organization that Bruce sets up early on when he begins his development, this is something he discovers by accident. The Batsuit is already sitting in a locker somewhere; so too the Batmobile. Jeepers; these things have been field-tested and rejected by the US Army; don't you figure someone is going to be able to connect the dots? Especially recently-unemployed and embittered Rutger Hauer? ... All of these complaints add up to a general concern with the film: Batman is developed from the outside by people and forces other than himself. This downplays his obsession. He didn't spend all those years learning how to fight crime so he could come back and channel his rage; he did that because he was lost and alone until daddy Ra's came along and found him. Likewise he didn't waste loads of money developing secret miltary props so he could use them in his crusade; that stuff was already there. Lucky Batman.
I found the screenplay to be fairly paint-by number in ways I've already gotten into and a few other ways as well. Nothing happened for character; everything was there to service the plot. Even the strange blue flower and the fight-your-fear training sequence had to play out in the final act. The effect is actually quiet hokey, and it's a hell of a thing to favour that over the nice slow development of the real heart and soul of Year One, Jim Gordon. I thought Gary Oldman was well cast, and he has the stuff to have done that part. But damn did they ever not do it. I also really didn't like the way Harvey Dent was removed in exchange for Katie Holmes, the most pointless superhero love interest since Nicole Kidman. And yes, did they do it? Did they have Batman reveal his secret identity to her? You bet, and what is worse is why: he did it just in case they didn't survive the night, in case they all died and Gotham was destroyed. When did Batman become so hopeless? A couple of minor villains like the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul are terrorizing the city with some panic gas, and he despairs? Never mind all that of course: add Rachel Dawes to the long list of folks in this film who know or who ought to know Batman's identity, a list that includes Morgan Freeman, Falcone, and the entire League of Shadows. No wonder they were able to burn down Wayne Manor; the same Bruce who was too stupid to put in sprinklers and/or chemical fire retardent also didn't think its pretty good insurance to keep people out of the "who is Batman?" loop.
Lots of the film I did like. Christian Bale is great. No better actor could have played Alfred than Michael Caine. And the filmakers got the tone right, more or less. It's not a comic-book adaptation by any stretch, but it happens to be as close as anyone has yet come to doing Batman any kind of justice. Too bad they didn't have the balls to come just a little closer.
(ie you're reading this only because you've already seen the film)
I went in knowing little other than that this was not going to be Batman: Year One. Right away however, I started to put some things together. I knew the League of Shadows was going to be the point of the film once they introduced it: Ra's al Ghul is too minor a Batman villain to be given more than one movie. So, ok, I thought, this is really not going to be Year One. Fine.
So why the Dog In the Manger approach to the screenplay? Why borrow elements of Year One and then not use them? The only purpose seems to be to piggyback your story on something already popular, for street cred. However the actual effect of it is that nobody else can ever follow up and do that story (ok: fine, Year One was already so cinematic that it might have been trivial to adapt it to the big screen, you say? Tell that to Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez. That's exactly what they did with SIN CITY).
Specific criticisms coming: I liked the look and feel of Gotham, of the trains and Wayne Tower. Hated the fact that setting up these elements meant they would play a pivotal role in the final action sequence. Gotham is as much a character as any of the people in the film, and needn't be developed only for the sake of plot. I did NOT like how the one exit from the opera opened right onto Crime Alley. Frank Miller's idea that the crime took place near a movie theatre makes more sense; who places an opera house in the middle of a slum?
I liked the focus on Batman being born out of guilt and fear as well as rage. This hasn't been touched on very much. This in its way made the Scarecrow a perfect villain for the first installment. In fact, the whole city being under a spell of fear could have made the Scarecrow an ideal villain to counterpoint the Roman, and that could have been enough meat to fill up the thin plot of Year One, which again, grr, they didn't do. I did NOT like that Batman's guilt and fear needed to be used to serve the plot directly. Like the train and Wayne Tower, we learned about these elements of Batman's personality only because they served the final action sequence. Add to that, there is supposed to be something elemental about Bruce Wayne, something he learned on his self-directed tour of Buddhism and Eastern martial arts. What makes him able to face Scarecrow in the comics is the fact that he has learned to live with his fear. In the film, Batman faces Scarecrow because he has a convenient chemical antidote. Yawn; how very STAR TREK, or worse, 60s Bat-shark repellent.
So too Batman's development with the League of Shadows. I've already hinted at my problem with this stuff: Batman's drive to fight crime had always been self-directed. Now in the film, Bruce Wayne was a self-destructive rogue until Ra's came along and shaped him; Falcone knew he was gunning for him; his childhood sweetheart tried to build him up to be the good man she knew he could be. Wayne enterprises apparently wasted a lot of money annually developing the products Batman needs. Cool. But rather than this being a secret branch of the organization that Bruce sets up early on when he begins his development, this is something he discovers by accident. The Batsuit is already sitting in a locker somewhere; so too the Batmobile. Jeepers; these things have been field-tested and rejected by the US Army; don't you figure someone is going to be able to connect the dots? Especially recently-unemployed and embittered Rutger Hauer? ... All of these complaints add up to a general concern with the film: Batman is developed from the outside by people and forces other than himself. This downplays his obsession. He didn't spend all those years learning how to fight crime so he could come back and channel his rage; he did that because he was lost and alone until daddy Ra's came along and found him. Likewise he didn't waste loads of money developing secret miltary props so he could use them in his crusade; that stuff was already there. Lucky Batman.
I found the screenplay to be fairly paint-by number in ways I've already gotten into and a few other ways as well. Nothing happened for character; everything was there to service the plot. Even the strange blue flower and the fight-your-fear training sequence had to play out in the final act. The effect is actually quiet hokey, and it's a hell of a thing to favour that over the nice slow development of the real heart and soul of Year One, Jim Gordon. I thought Gary Oldman was well cast, and he has the stuff to have done that part. But damn did they ever not do it. I also really didn't like the way Harvey Dent was removed in exchange for Katie Holmes, the most pointless superhero love interest since Nicole Kidman. And yes, did they do it? Did they have Batman reveal his secret identity to her? You bet, and what is worse is why: he did it just in case they didn't survive the night, in case they all died and Gotham was destroyed. When did Batman become so hopeless? A couple of minor villains like the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul are terrorizing the city with some panic gas, and he despairs? Never mind all that of course: add Rachel Dawes to the long list of folks in this film who know or who ought to know Batman's identity, a list that includes Morgan Freeman, Falcone, and the entire League of Shadows. No wonder they were able to burn down Wayne Manor; the same Bruce who was too stupid to put in sprinklers and/or chemical fire retardent also didn't think its pretty good insurance to keep people out of the "who is Batman?" loop.
Lots of the film I did like. Christian Bale is great. No better actor could have played Alfred than Michael Caine. And the filmakers got the tone right, more or less. It's not a comic-book adaptation by any stretch, but it happens to be as close as anyone has yet come to doing Batman any kind of justice. Too bad they didn't have the balls to come just a little closer.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
#40
barend
- Anchor Head Anchor Man
-
- Group: Crappy News Team
- Posts: 11,839
- Joined: 12-November 03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nieuw Holland
- Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
- Country:Australia
Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:19 PM
i cannot argue the points you bring up, except to say with that cast and appearance, there was enough to keep me happy...
and why for the love of fuck have people been so reluctant to put rutger hauer in big films over the last few years... he totally rocks.
i had a heart attack when i saw gary oldman in there though...
he was the only person i didn't know was going to be in it...
and it utterly blew me away..
and why for the love of fuck have people been so reluctant to put rutger hauer in big films over the last few years... he totally rocks.
i had a heart attack when i saw gary oldman in there though...
he was the only person i didn't know was going to be in it...
and it utterly blew me away..
>>The Adventures of Heinrich Von Bastard<< (A Web Comic)
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#41
Whirlpool
- New Cop
- Group: Junior Members
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 30-May 05
- Country:Canada
Posted 28 June 2005 - 03:04 AM
I really enjoyed this film. I thought that the acting and casting was well done, with the exception of Katie Holmes- I had trouble seeing her as an ADA. I enjoyed the scenes where Christian Bale was talking with Morgan Freeman. Oh, and I also enjoyed every second that Cillian Murphy was onscreen (not wearing the scarecrow mask, mind you).
One thing I thought that was a bit strange was the part where Alfred smashes a mask and the advises Bruce not to fall on his face. I thought this was going to reimmerge at the end of the movie when Batman appeared to fall on his head, but it didn't.
Overall, though, it was well worth the money to get in, based on entertainment value alone.
(Sorry if this is a bit disjointed; I saw the movie last week and can't remember the details exactly.)
One thing I thought that was a bit strange was the part where Alfred smashes a mask and the advises Bruce not to fall on his face. I thought this was going to reimmerge at the end of the movie when Batman appeared to fall on his head, but it didn't.
Overall, though, it was well worth the money to get in, based on entertainment value alone.
(Sorry if this is a bit disjointed; I saw the movie last week and can't remember the details exactly.)
#42
SithAvenger
- Wow, my avatar changed.
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,898
- Joined: 06-June 05
- Location:Err... here I guess.
- Interests:The Interests of a Normal Teenager:<br />-Movies<br />-Things that are awesome<br />-Girls<br />-(Good) Tv shows<br />-Doing evil stuff the good way<br />-Videogames<br />-Hangin' with my friends
- Country:Mexico
Posted 28 June 2005 - 03:08 AM
Everyone has to admit that The Thumbler rocks. Just admit it.
Sorry, you won't be seeing a smartass sig here. Try with the next poster.
#43
Jane Sherwood
- Hello Master
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5,605
- Joined: 05-March 04
- Gender:Female
- Location:Lake Charles, Louisiana
- Interests:Far too many to list in this tiny space...
- Country:United States
Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:33 AM
Check out my crappy drawings!
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
QUOTE
"I don't have to conform to the vagaries of time and space; I'm a loony, for God's sake!"
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
XD
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
#44
J m HofMarN
- Knows All The Girls Named Lola
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7,234
- Joined: 24-May 04
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
- Interests:Tyranny
- Country:United States
Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:00 AM
Dude Rutger Hauer is a B movie actor I'm sorry. He starred in Dutch pornography at teh begining of his career and worse yet he was in movies like Blood of Heroes and other crapfests, though they are funny. He's even starred in an MST3K film.
Quote
I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
