Am going to see this at a midnight showing tonight ... just saw it's nearly three freaking hours long ... I remember going to movies as a kid and they had intermissions.
Am going to see this at a midnight showing tonight ... just saw it's nearly three freaking hours long ... I remember going to movies as a kid and they had intermissions.
Well, we decided to go see HellBoy2 first before Batman ... the first one is 110 mins then Batty 150mins ... both ok as movies go.
Spoiler:
This Batman movie is way too serious in my opinion ... maybe three jokes that I giggled at. It's like they are steering the franchise toward reality instead of fantasy, which is more in line with the original stories than the fantastic first 3 Batman movies. Will not be saying more about this until more people here have seen it ... don't want to give away spoilers.
Intermissions should be mandatory in my opinion ... A healthy bladder means a happier movie-goer.
I still don't think I've seen the last 2 Batman Movies, was there another one after Batman Forever there was wasn't there? Batman and Robin? Can't remember if I saw it? That was the one with George Clowney in it?
If I remember that one was pants, even worse than the one with Val Kilmer.
Haven't seen that prequel one with the Bat......tank, where Michael Cane is Alfred. Probably get it in the $1 section at family video now :D
Oh but the Dark Knight does look pretty good, but that's another one I can wait for a DooVD of. Superhero movies are too shite usually to waste the cinema money.
Major, yet mild "location" spoiler ... READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!
Rant.
Spoiler:
It's pure and utter excrement that Batty goes to Hong Kong. WTF! Not cool side-plot, or rather that he goes to an actual country ... The Gotham of this movie has plenty of buildings/backdrops from Chicago, which is excusable but the fact that this crazy, lone nut, who is known to "work" solely in Gotham, which presumably is located in the US, goes to another country, without any political repercussion I might add, is so completely illogical that it's annoying me to no end ... there ... I said it.
I still don't think I've seen the last 2 Batman Movies, was there another one after Batman Forever there was wasn't there? Batman and Robin? Can't remember if I saw it? That was the one with George Clowney in it?
If I remember that one was pants, even worse than the one with Val Kilmer.
"Batman and Robin" was the second Schumacher Batman which came out in 1997. I tried to watch it once and, like "Batman Forver" I just found it too terrible to persist with (and, if the critics are to be believed, BF looks pretty good in comparison). Joel Schumacher completely killed the franchise that Tim Burton had so carefully nurtured by removing the dark, more adult feel and turning it back into the camp 1960s TV series only with a much bigger budget. Weirdly, "Batman Forever" was quite well recieved by critics at the time and did well at the box office, it was only his second film that got the critical mauling and financial flop he deserved. I don't know if this is true but supposedly the audience reaction to "Batman and Robin" was so bad at one screening Schumacher attended that he came out of it in tears.
Haven't seen that prequel one with the Bat......tank, where Michael Cane is Alfred. Probably get it in the $1 section at family video now :D
Oh but the Dark Knight does look pretty good, but that's another one I can wait for a DooVD of. Superhero movies are too shite usually to waste the cinema money.
Get "Batman Begins" on DVD and watch it first; it's a reboot of the franchise that uses a similar interpretation of the source material to Burton although is arguably even more adult in tone. It's well-worth watching.
I forgot to mention that the evening I went to see the movie they had only advertised two showings at 00:01 and 00:02 ... there was a deluge of people so they ended up filling six theatre rooms ... probably between 2500 ~ 3000 people in all saw it. The AC conked out mid-way through the movie and everybody left hot, sweaty and sticky ... and this was just Batman and not some XXX movie. Bring too many bodies into one room and you are bound to have temperature issues.
Oh, and by the by ... just stumbled over this on IMDB. Apparently a certain Christian Bale is going to be the saviour of the Terminator series in a new addition next year.
Bah, Dark Knight is just making it big cause its got that guy who topped himself..Heathy something.
Agree with you somewhat ... the hype is only half-warranted. In my opinion it isn't as excellent as everyone else wants it to be ... or perhaps I'm just almost as old as that other old WOSser ... whassisface that Caring Gal ... bah, humbug! It's an ok movie but not all that.
Live fast, get kicked in the head...attain your dreams...get kicked in the head some more...become a nihilist...everything is overated and I wish I was a squirrel...die young.
On the first viewing, I'll give it 7/10, and that will rise with further viewings once I really get into the detail of it. No really bad bits, but a couple of things which didn't sit right with me.
Spoiler:
But that shouldn't hide the fact that the film is *filled* with nice touches, from the disappearing pencil trick onwards. The pace is also varied - it feels like you're reading a story rather than watching a film.
However...
Lucius Fox's role should have just been a cameo dealing with the rogue employee. Everything else seemed to fit into the role of Alfred much better. Ironically, Alfred's role was split between two people in this film.
Glad they got rid of the tumbler - didn't feel right, and as the film covered, far too recognisable if you're in with the right people and access in WayneTech. The motorcycle thingy was a good substitute.
Heath Ledger's Joker was remarkable. Of course, it's not deserving of an Oscar, but he set the tone between psycopath and dark hilarity perfectly. It pretty much matches the Joker in the graphic novels, and it's a toss-up between him and Mark Hamill as to who did the best Joker - Ledger edging it probably because he wasn't playing a part in a kids show.
As for Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent.... he did OK for the script he was given, but aside from the impressive make-up jobs towards the end, his story could have been the story of *any* man - besides the coin obsession and the make-up job, there wasn't much Two Face in Harvey Dent.
And now the huge black mark against it: the beginning of the Hollywoodization of the franchise. Killing off Two Face was a mistake. In fact, killing off *any* major character in a franchise such as this is a big mistake. Batman Begins avoided this, and even Batman '89 wasn't innocent of doing this, but it was a huge disappointment - just as the Two Face persona could surface and develop, they kill him off. I thought that capturing the Scarecrow at the start of the movie would have proved my fears about this wrong, but not so.
And why only 7/10 at the moment? As I'm not well up on current movie trends, the structure of the movie seemed unorthodox to me. The finale with the Joker was OK, but they tried to turn the Two Face finale into an epilogue, and it didn't seem to fit right to me. Maybe that will sort itself out with a second viewing now that I know the structure of this movie.
Didn't like the Bat-Basement. Teasing us with the Joker at the end of Batman Begins was a mistake. I'd have prefered they allowed a three-year gap to allow the mansion and Batcave to be rebuilt. The Bat-Basement was characterless.
Agreed that Two face wasn't really developed enough and then needlessly killed off. I have to admit that his appearance had me quite shocked, I had no idea he was going to be in it and just thought Dent was a nod to the comics and maybe a set-up for a future film (much like in Batman '89). The make-up was astounding though, I really wasn't expecting that.
Heath Ledger's Joker was fantastic, much better than Jack Nicholson's. Interesting that they never felt the need to properly explain his existence either, which I think added significantly to the character. It's such a shame that Heath won't be able to reprise the role in future, given that Joker survived the movie.
Fox + Alfred is a bugbear though, they're essentially performing the same role and one or the other needed to go. Personally I'd hope that Fox is relegated to the Q role in future films as he made more sense there. The whole excursion to Hong Kong bit I could quite happily have lived without.
The bat-basement and tumbler I'd also agree on, I want Wayne Manor, a proper batcave and a Batmobile in the next one. Batman hasn't had a decent car since the '89 movie and it's about time he did if you ask me.
The phone thing was pretty stupid, just about forgivable as a means of moving on the plot. Unlike Die Another Day the rest of the film compensated, I think. :)
It wasn't so much the globetrotting that bothered me, just that the whole bit didn't seem to add that much to the film, except as an excuse to introduce the silly phone thing which wasn't really needed.
My feelings exactly AndyC! Still, Dark Knight is probably the best overall Batman movies IMO. It gets the vulnerability and power of the the caped crusader just about right and the villains were proper scary villains for a change. Nolan definitely gets my vote to direct the next Batman - that man has a plan!
While I agree that it's a good movie, I disagree about the characterization of The Joker. I would have liked some semblance of a back story to him, having virtually NOTHING weakened his role in the story somewhat, in my opinion, to that of just another one of Salvatore's hired hoods. It was a disapointment to be 'teased' with The Joker at the end of Batman Begins and then have a movie that was mainly focused on the rise and fall of Harvey Dent.....another bugbear in that so much time and effort was spent telling Harvey Dent's story, only to have him killed off in what was quite frankly a pretty feeble manner.
I also found it odd how he'd managed to get himself kitted out in the iconic Two Face suit (2 halves) despite only having been out the hospital a very short time.
So, still a good movie, but could (and should) have been a great one.
While I agree that it's a good movie, I disagree about the characterization of The Joker. I would have liked some semblance of a back story to him, having virtually NOTHING weakened his role in the story somewhat, in my opinion, to that of just another one of Salvatore's hired hoods.
Spoiler:
Well I thought the lack of backstory added to the psychotic element, especially when the joker told different stories about how he got his smile to different people. I personally find much more satisfying that a character representing chaos isn't neatly explained.
I liked it. Great film, didn't actually seem long which is surprising given the amount of non-action scenes are in it. The story was good, but it did focus too much on Harvey Dent.
It was a disapointment to be 'teased' with The Joker at the end of Batman Begins and then have a movie that was mainly focused on the rise and fall of Harvey Dent.....another bugbear in that so much time and effort was spent telling Harvey Dent's story, only to have him killed off in what was quite frankly a pretty feeble manner.
Spoiler:
Ah, but was he actually dead? I don't think we know for certain we just see him lying there motionless.
Spoiler:
I also found it odd how he'd managed to get himself kitted out in the iconic Two Face suit (2 halves) despite only having been out the hospital a very short time.
Spoiler:
I thought that was the suit he was wearing when he got burnt? He would have then been taken to hospital in that suit. The suit would be the only clothes there that were his so he would've just put it on when The Joker let him go.
And that was a great scene with The Joker dressed up as a nurse.
They still did the usual though - tried to put too much stuff in one film. The bulk of the Harvey story could've been muted and put in the next film instead.
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
Well I thought the lack of backstory added to the psychotic element, especially when the joker told different stories about how he got his smile to different people. I personally find much more satisfying that a character representing chaos isn't neatly explained.
Spoiler:
To be fair, they were actually being very true to the comic books by not explaining his back story, and his constantly changing reasons for how he got his scars. And it worked quite well...it's just that on a personal level, with regards to movies, I feel the need to understand the characters in order to appreciate more the actor's portrayal of them. I thought Heath Ledger was great, but as a character, his version of The Joker didn't come across to me as sadistic and threatning as Jack Nicholson's did....because of the lack of backstory, I had trouble seeing his as anything more than just another one of Salvatore's hired goons. Albiet a very deranged one. But that's just personal opinion. If he's bought back for a sequel, I'll probably appreciate the character more. It's a shame that Heath Ledger won't be playing him again though :(
Ah, but was he actually dead? I don't think we know for certain we just see him lying there motionless.
Spoiler:
I thought Harvey Dent/Two Face was dead? I thought that they had a public funeral for him right at the end, with a big picture of his face hanging up in the background. Unless of course they meant that he was presumed dead in the hospital explosion. There's definitely a chance that he'll be back. I hope so :)
I thought that was the suit he was wearing when he got burnt? He would have then been taken to hospital in that suit. The suit would be the only clothes there that were his so he would've just put it on when The Joker let him go.
Spoiler:
With regards to the 'Two Face suit'.....the suit he was wearing at the end of the movie was a definite custom designed suit, all nice and spangly on one side and all dull and normal on the other.....similar to the one he wears in the comics/cartoon. I found it a bit strange as he'd only escaped from the hospital a short while earlier!.
They still did the usual though - tried to put too much stuff in one film. The bulk of the Harvey story could've been muted and put in the next film instead.
I agree with that. Personally I wanted to see more focus on The Joker but at the end of the day they still did a very good job with the film, and it was far superior to either of Joel Shumacher's 'efforts'.
They should have used the same combo as Batman Begins: major foe (Raas Al Ghul) plus minor foe (Scarecrow). Instead of Two-Face they could probably have used someone like Cavalier.
I thought Harvey Dent/Two Face was dead? I thought that they had a public funeral for him right at the end, with a big picture of his face hanging up in the background. Unless of course they meant that he was presumed dead in the hospital explosion. There's definitely a chance that he'll be back. I hope so :)
Spoiler:
IIRC there were only Gordon, his family and Batman there when Two Face died. If they had said what happened then he wouldn't have got his public funeral as loads of people would've been angry and shocked at him. It would make sense that they at least covered up what happened and said that he died in the hospital.
Hopefully he's in Arkham Asylum.
Oh, no. Every time you turn up something monumental and terrible happens.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
Watched the first 1hr 13 mins last night.........pretty boring so far..don't see what the fuss is about...Ill watch the rest tonight, things better pick up in the last hour or its back to redtube.
Watched the first 1hr 13 mins last night.........pretty boring so far..don't see what the fuss is about...Ill watch the rest tonight, things better pick up in the last hour or its back to redtube.
What you are saying is that you have your own private movie theatre? ;-)
Or are you holding a local theatre hostage ... they put the movie on pause for you overnight?
Comments
Come down to Bognor. We have intermissions!
Intermissions should be mandatory in my opinion ... A healthy bladder means a happier movie-goer.
If I remember that one was pants, even worse than the one with Val Kilmer.
Haven't seen that prequel one with the Bat......tank, where Michael Cane is Alfred. Probably get it in the $1 section at family video now :D
Oh but the Dark Knight does look pretty good, but that's another one I can wait for a DooVD of. Superhero movies are too shite usually to waste the cinema money.
Rant.
"Batman and Robin" was the second Schumacher Batman which came out in 1997. I tried to watch it once and, like "Batman Forver" I just found it too terrible to persist with (and, if the critics are to be believed, BF looks pretty good in comparison). Joel Schumacher completely killed the franchise that Tim Burton had so carefully nurtured by removing the dark, more adult feel and turning it back into the camp 1960s TV series only with a much bigger budget. Weirdly, "Batman Forever" was quite well recieved by critics at the time and did well at the box office, it was only his second film that got the critical mauling and financial flop he deserved. I don't know if this is true but supposedly the audience reaction to "Batman and Robin" was so bad at one screening Schumacher attended that he came out of it in tears.
Get "Batman Begins" on DVD and watch it first; it's a reboot of the franchise that uses a similar interpretation of the source material to Burton although is arguably even more adult in tone. It's well-worth watching.
Expect a rant or a rave later that night.
If no rant is forthcoming, where will the rave be at?
Agree with you somewhat ... the hype is only half-warranted. In my opinion it isn't as excellent as everyone else wants it to be ... or perhaps I'm just almost as old as that other old WOSser ... whassisface that Caring Gal ... bah, humbug! It's an ok movie but not all that.
I'm past the "young" part ... now I'm just going for "die old" (health permitting ;-) :p )
However...
Lucius Fox's role should have just been a cameo dealing with the rogue employee. Everything else seemed to fit into the role of Alfred much better. Ironically, Alfred's role was split between two people in this film.
Glad they got rid of the tumbler - didn't feel right, and as the film covered, far too recognisable if you're in with the right people and access in WayneTech. The motorcycle thingy was a good substitute.
Heath Ledger's Joker was remarkable. Of course, it's not deserving of an Oscar, but he set the tone between psycopath and dark hilarity perfectly. It pretty much matches the Joker in the graphic novels, and it's a toss-up between him and Mark Hamill as to who did the best Joker - Ledger edging it probably because he wasn't playing a part in a kids show.
As for Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent.... he did OK for the script he was given, but aside from the impressive make-up jobs towards the end, his story could have been the story of *any* man - besides the coin obsession and the make-up job, there wasn't much Two Face in Harvey Dent.
And now the huge black mark against it: the beginning of the Hollywoodization of the franchise. Killing off Two Face was a mistake. In fact, killing off *any* major character in a franchise such as this is a big mistake. Batman Begins avoided this, and even Batman '89 wasn't innocent of doing this, but it was a huge disappointment - just as the Two Face persona could surface and develop, they kill him off. I thought that capturing the Scarecrow at the start of the movie would have proved my fears about this wrong, but not so.
And why only 7/10 at the moment? As I'm not well up on current movie trends, the structure of the movie seemed unorthodox to me. The finale with the Joker was OK, but they tried to turn the Two Face finale into an epilogue, and it didn't seem to fit right to me. Maybe that will sort itself out with a second viewing now that I know the structure of this movie.
Didn't like the Bat-Basement. Teasing us with the Joker at the end of Batman Begins was a mistake. I'd have prefered they allowed a three-year gap to allow the mansion and Batcave to be rebuilt. The Bat-Basement was characterless.
Definitely buying it on DVD though.
Heath Ledger's Joker was fantastic, much better than Jack Nicholson's. Interesting that they never felt the need to properly explain his existence either, which I think added significantly to the character. It's such a shame that Heath won't be able to reprise the role in future, given that Joker survived the movie.
Fox + Alfred is a bugbear though, they're essentially performing the same role and one or the other needed to go. Personally I'd hope that Fox is relegated to the Q role in future films as he made more sense there. The whole excursion to Hong Kong bit I could quite happily have lived without.
The bat-basement and tumbler I'd also agree on, I want Wayne Manor, a proper batcave and a Batmobile in the next one. Batman hasn't had a decent car since the '89 movie and it's about time he did if you ask me.
The excursion to Hong Kong was fine by me - there are plenty of Batman graphic novels which have him globe-trotting like this.
And I saw the Skyhook thing coming having got Thunderball on DVD ;)
It wasn't so much the globetrotting that bothered me, just that the whole bit didn't seem to add that much to the film, except as an excuse to introduce the silly phone thing which wasn't really needed.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
I also found it odd how he'd managed to get himself kitted out in the iconic Two Face suit (2 halves) despite only having been out the hospital a very short time.
So, still a good movie, but could (and should) have been a great one.
X-Men 2 is still the best comic book movie IMO.
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
And that was a great scene with The Joker dressed up as a nurse.
They still did the usual though - tried to put too much stuff in one film. The bulk of the Harvey story could've been muted and put in the next film instead.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
I agree with that. Personally I wanted to see more focus on The Joker but at the end of the day they still did a very good job with the film, and it was far superior to either of Joel Shumacher's 'efforts'.
Hopefully he's in Arkham Asylum.
I don’t think I have the stomach for it.
--Raziel (Legend of Kain: Soul Reaver 2)
https://www.youtube.com/user/VincentTSFP
What you are saying is that you have your own private movie theatre? ;-)
Or are you holding a local theatre hostage ... they put the movie on pause for you overnight?
Or I have a naughty copy of it at home...hmmm which one I wonder...
They made an all-nude version of Batman????????????