[Guden Oden]

...In a lazy, half-distracted manner. They show a black-and-white photo of what looks like James Gordon, very similar to what he looks like in the comic, at least as a young man in Miller's Batman: Year One. As I see the image, and the similarity, I say to myself - thinking of the actor - "that guy on the photo looks a lot like whatsisname".

Yes, I'm sure he looks like whatsisname.


Absentmindedness rules.

[vazel]

[hey69]

god i hated this movie..

batman..... BAD MAN yeah

[John Reynolds]

Best Batman movie, evar!

[Fodder]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Best Batman movie, evar!

Not quite.

[silence]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Best Batman movie, evar!

my guess is that you said that is cause you didnt watch it.....

[Blade]

Adam West's real name is Billy West? There's a mindfuck.

As for the Batman movies.. I rate them as follows: Begins, 1989, Returns, Forever, B&R. Never saw the Adam West one; probably deserves its own category.

I saw BB in the theater, but.. almost fell asleep. I actually literally fell asleep for a minute here and there. (it was late!)

Anywho.. I bought it on DVD, watched it again (catching everything) and I think it's the best Batman movie. I think it has good replay value.

[Moloch]

Originally Posted by Fodder

Not quite.

Too cheery...
The problem I have with alot of movies is that I have a good memory, not to brag or anything, so alot of movies have poor replay value for me.
I can watch comedies over and over though.

[suryad]

Batman Begins is #1 out of all the movies of Batman. Second would be Batman....the first one.

[boltneck]

Batman Begins is by far the best of the series. It is also a fantastic action/drama on its own merit.

[suryad]

Exactly!

[Guden Oden]

BB is OK as an action flick. I just wish they hadn't used the desperate microwave generator as a plot device tho, that sounds like something out of a bad Star Trek episode.

For starters, there's lots of water in people too, not just in water mains. Second, rather than pouring poison into the water to vaporize it later with a super microwave oven (that the badguys knew existed how exactly???), why not just get some planes or freakish inflatable balloons to distribute it with?

The execution was pretty slick, apart from the bogus plot and fight scenes which were cut too much and used too many closeups. Guess it's just really hard in reality to fight wearing a cape. Still, I want to have it in my collection.

Too bad there's no director's commentary track on the disc, that's what I enjoy most. All the other DVD extras can go to hell as long as I get my commentaries.

[Moloch]

Did you enjoy the erm... voice change when he became batman

[YeuEmMaiMai]

the first one with keaton was the best.....this one comes in second in my opinion

[Guden Oden]

I can agree with that, more or less anyway. Except Keaton was miscast, and so was Nicholson to some extent. His big-star status sort of competed out the lead character of the movie.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

BB is OK as an action flick. I just wish they hadn't used the desperate microwave generator as a plot device tho, that sounds like something out of a bad Star Trek episode.

For starters, there's lots of water in people too, not just in water mains. Second, rather than pouring poison into the water to vaporize it later with a super microwave oven (that the badguys knew existed how exactly???), why not just get some planes or freakish inflatable balloons to distribute it with?

The execution was pretty slick, apart from the bogus plot and fight scenes which were cut too much and used too many closeups. Guess it's just really hard in reality to fight wearing a cape. Still, I want to have it in my collection.

Too bad there's no director's commentary track on the disc, that's what I enjoy most. All the other DVD extras can go to hell as long as I get my commentaries.

Suspension of disbelief my friend.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

All the other DVD extras can go to hell as long as I get my commentaries.

I wish they could do commentaries in a different manner.

If they could make it into a distilled commentary, it would be much more useful. After watching the 2 hour movie, I certainly don't want to watch the whole thing over to get the directors take on the movie. If they could boil it down to the salient points, no more than about 20 minutes, I'd gladly watch the commentary more often. Now, its a very rare thing that I watch it.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

I wish they could do commentaries in a different manner.

If they could make it into a distilled commentary, it would be much more useful. After watching the 2 hour movie, I certainly don't want to watch the whole thing over to get the directors take on the movie. If they could boil it down to the salient points, no more than about 20 minutes, I'd gladly watch the commentary more often. Now, its a very rare thing that I watch it.

Most commentaries just seem to be replacing the normal soundtrack with one which includes the directors/actors/writers rambling along as the film plays.

Much better would be if they had a script of relevent and salient comments for the interesting parts of the movie. The you could just press skip and go to the next part of the commentary and that would jump you to the matching bit of film. Instead of having to go through the whole film again, you'd actually have a proper talk with illustrating clips.

[Guden Oden]

You guys are too MTV-influenced. You want your food pre-cut up before it's served to you as well? Pre-chewed too maybe? If the director is interesting to listen to, such as Robert Zemeckis, Paul Verhoeven, Ridley Scott, Rob Reiner etc, there will be interesting stuff coming all through the length of the movie. The commentaries on most of the movies I have by these (and other) directors can't be condensed into a campbell's soup-can for easy ingestion, because they have interesting things to say about most every scene. It might be background information, trivia about the location, actors, anecdotes what happened during the shoot, information about particular difficulties shooting a scene or how a particular sequence was realized, regarding lenses, lighting, angles, stuff like that. More importantly, WHY it was realized, what the director wanted to accomplish with it.

Why would anyone have to listen to the commentaries right after watching the movie by the way? If one has bought the movie, it won't go anywhere. It'll sit on the shelf until the time feels right to pick it up again and look at the special features.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

You guys are too MTV-influenced. You want your food pre-cut up before it's served to you as well? Pre-chewed too maybe?

No, I just don't want to have to listen to 1-1/2 hours of drivel to get to the 30 minutes of worthy commentary.

I don't really give a rats butt about what they had for breakfast that day, or how dreary the weather was. Or how many takes it took to get the light to fall just right. Tell me something that expands the understanding of the movie.

The commentaries on most of the movies I have by these (and other) directors can't be condensed into a campbell's soup-can for easy ingestion,

Yes it can.

because they have interesting things to say about most every scene.

No they don't.

It might be background information, trivia about the location, actors, anecdotes what happened during the shoot, information about particular difficulties shooting a scene or how a particular sequence was realized, regarding lenses, lighting, angles, stuff like that.

ummm, YAY! TRIVIA! Tell me again what Frodo ate for breakfast!

More importantly, WHY it was realized, what the director wanted to accomplish with it.

Gosh, now what was I asking for again?

Why would anyone have to listen to the commentaries right after watching the movie by the way?

Because I know what I just got out of it, I want to know what the director wanted me to get out of it.

If one has bought the movie, it won't go anywhere. It'll sit on the shelf until the time feels right to pick it up again and look at the special features.

If one rented it, it will go back tomorrow.

How bout they make the 'full length with trivia bits' for you, and the salient points for me.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

You guys are too MTV-influenced. You want your food pre-cut up before it's served to you as well? Pre-chewed too maybe? If the director is interesting to listen to, such as Robert Zemeckis, Paul Verhoeven, Ridley Scott, Rob Reiner etc, there will be interesting stuff coming all through the length of the movie.

But most of them arn't like that at all. Most of them are just the commentator watching the film through and talking off the top of their head about whatever comes into their minds as they watch. That's often pretty dull stuff, especially when it's for two hours.

In fact I'm pretty sure that's just a "value add" that most people will never watch, but it's there so the movie companies can try and justify the high prices of their DVDs. "Gee, we have to charge you more because we put in all these scenes that we threw away and got the director to talk through the movie". I think most people would rather have the movie alone for half price, rather than all the additional extras of rambling commentary they are never going to watch anyway.

[_xxx_]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

I can agree with that, more or less anyway. Except Keaton was miscast, and so was Nicholson to some extent. His big-star status sort of competed out the lead character of the movie.

Kim was the actual star of the first movie IMHO. The movie itself would have been MUCH better if someone else played the leading role instead of Keaton, who looks like a wimp and not like someone you can imagine being a superhero.

[jvd]

Batman begins wasn't good .


I like continuity and it just goes against much of it .


Of course dc and marvel don't really care about continuity in the movies see the new superman movie for just how bad they mess up thier characters

[PC-Engine]

Originally Posted by _xxx_

Kim was the actual star of the first movie IMHO. The movie itself would have been MUCH better if someone else played the leading role instead of Keaton, who looks like a wimp and not like someone you can imagine being a superhero.

Keaton didn't look like a wimp. When he becomes Batman, he goes kinda berzerk a scary kind of berzerk. Superman and Spiderman are kinda the same, when they're not in their superhero mode they're kinda wimpy.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I liked Keaton. He does "crazy schizophrenic" really well. When it came to being Batman, anyone in the muscle suit would have worked fine - there's not exactly a whole lot of acting methodology involved there. He was better than everyone bar Bale, and Keaton had to deal with Burton's quirky Batman vision, which seemed to concentrate more on Joker than Batman.