Batman Begins
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
I liked the first punisher movie, personally. Not sure how close to the comic books it was though._xxx_ said:
epic
I was just checking imdb.com when i ran into this tidbit of trivia:
Diplo said:I'm really interested in seeing him in El Maquinista (The Machinist) as it sounds a really interesting premise (IMDB Link). For the film Bale starved himself down from 184 lbs to 121 lbs (83 kg to 55kg) - that's a loss of 63lb (28.5kg). Now that is commitment to playing a roleGuden Oden said:
Although i generally like this kind of movies, this one was somewhat disappointing - there was very little actual going on even for me and i usually don't mind such movies.
It wasn't bad, but not a movie i would keep in my movie collection.
mito said:
We'd need a bigger batsuit.
Natoma said:
Nearest IMAX is an hour's drive away. But I'm tempted to go for a second viewing.
John Reynolds said:
Saw it last night.
Natoma's Review: BAD-FUCKING-ASS!!!!!!
This was, bar none, the best comic book film I've ever seen. And a damn good film to boot as well. It was just so well done in every facet. It just felt perfect. Absolutely perfect.
I was filled with glee during the film. And what made it better was that we had perfect seats in the IMAX. About 6 rows up, dead smack in the middle. Couldn't see anything but screen.
EVERYONE MUST GO SEE THIS FILM!!!!
Its a good flic, though I liked Sin City a lot more.
Christian Bale is a pretty good Bruce Wayne, but not so great as Batman (his deep voice sounds Hokey).
The whole training sequence in Tibet is completely unbelievable, and rather ridiculously badly acted (surprisingly Liam Neeson is the culprit). Some of the 'im here for justice' lines are boring. Batman is all about revenge, yet they moved away from that in this movie trying to make a rather bizarre comprimise. I thought he needed more indestructable fire/will to make the character believable, considering what he turns into.
I didn't like the Bat car (err I mean tank) that much.
I also didn't think he had enough time to truly become Batman, you would think he would need so much more training to even be the man he was in prison.
Also a few stupid scenes (like when the batcar suddenly appears out of nowhere, randomly in front of Gordon in the slums).
Katie Holmes has no role and plays it poorly. Though the Scarecrow villian was damn good, I liked him a lot.
Christian Bale is a pretty good Bruce Wayne, but not so great as Batman (his deep voice sounds Hokey).
The whole training sequence in Tibet is completely unbelievable, and rather ridiculously badly acted (surprisingly Liam Neeson is the culprit). Some of the 'im here for justice' lines are boring. Batman is all about revenge, yet they moved away from that in this movie trying to make a rather bizarre comprimise. I thought he needed more indestructable fire/will to make the character believable, considering what he turns into.
I didn't like the Bat car (err I mean tank) that much.
I also didn't think he had enough time to truly become Batman, you would think he would need so much more training to even be the man he was in prison.
Also a few stupid scenes (like when the batcar suddenly appears out of nowhere, randomly in front of Gordon in the slums).
Katie Holmes has no role and plays it poorly. Though the Scarecrow villian was damn good, I liked him a lot.
<SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
The biggest plot hole was the microwave device. It somehow could vaporize all the water in the mains, but not all the water in people standing right next to it.
But, c'est la vie.
And yes, Scarecrow was one of the best villians they've had in a while.
The biggest plot hole was the microwave device. It somehow could vaporize all the water in the mains, but not all the water in people standing right next to it.
But, c'est la vie.
And yes, Scarecrow was one of the best villians they've had in a while.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
RussSchultz said:
It's a focussed device, and it's pointing straight down at the water mains. You could see that from when it's on the train and travelling into the city. They pretty much tell you it's a focussed device when they first describe it.
I'm pretty certain batman/liam neesan ended up "in front of" the device at one time or another.
Anyways, it was just a minor nitpick.
Anyways, it was just a minor nitpick.
epicstruggle said:
apparently in the new superman clark goes into space to see what really happened to krypton and when he comes back years later lois has a baby with another guy .
I don't know wtf these people get to make these scripts but they are bad. Why can't they just give fans what they want . Superman sells well with out this bastard child .
Except when batman swings below the train.jvd said:actualy the weapons output is facing down. So no one actualy goes under it
So why did all the pipes burst on the ship? Why didn't it sink in a giant cauldron of boiling water when the device was activated? The orientation was identical in the train as it was on the ship, unless the outward orientation doesn't indicate where the weapon is aimed.
And why, then, when the device was activated in the narrows, did all the pipes all over burst, instead of the ones right below it?
Again, its all nitpicky stuff, and the movie was good enough to allow myself the suspension of my disbelief.
