f13.net

Just got out of an advanced screening of Batman Begins, and I must say I was quite impressed.

Unfortunately, I am not quite as verbose and guifted with words as some of the other movie critics in our little community, so I will just leave you with the advice: GO WATCH IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Alltogether an enjoyable reboot of the Batman franchise, with a believable story, interesting villians, and a stellar setup for many sequels yet to come.

Oh yeah, Batman's new wheels rock hardcore.

I'm a tad worried about the close combat shaky-cam shit. Other than that, the movie sounds great from the early reviews I've read.

Every review I've heard has been overhwhelmingly positive. Unfortunately the trailers are weak and there really isn't much buzz. (A large part of that must be due to the last 2 awful Batman movies) Thank god they've gone away from camp shit and to something serious. Hopefully it will get good word of mouth and do well. I plan on seeing it and I see very few movies.

Midnight screening, Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.  I can't wait.

In related news- Mr. and Mrs. Smith was enjoyable.  Exactly what I expected, pretty much.  Some clever lines, some good action, all in all a pretty entertaining film but not exactly ROXOR YOUR WORLD material.  I wouldn't recommend going in with your cynic hat on, though, because I'm sure there are any number of artistic reasons to hate the film.

Anyone who 'artistically' complains about Angelina Jolie in Sussies can suck my dick.

Yeah, I'm looking at YOU.  YOU know who you are....

The local premiere is being held at the I-Max theater.  Goddamn I wish I was able to win some tickets to that.  I've got mixed feelings about the new batmobile, only because I think it should be more 'car' than 'tank' but in all the movie looks pretty damn kickass.  The villan in this one is Scarecrow, right?

Scarecrow and Ra's A Ghul as played by Ken Watanabe.

Just read a gushing review- not that I wasn't already, but DAMN I am fired up to see this.

Just reread First Year, Dark Knight Returns, and Dark Knight Strikes Again.  I'm practically vibrating with anticipation.

Just got back.

Well, that was pretty damn awesome.

A couple nitpicky quibbles, but only because I'm very picky about my Batman.  The film gets my stamp of approval.

For my nitpicky quibble, SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER did i mention SPOILER, read below:

Batman says to R'as, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." and leaves R'as to die in the train crash.  Batman would've saved him.  Still would've beaten the crap out of him and had him locked up for eternity, but he would've saved him.  But hey, they can portray a slightly different version of Batman if they want.  In addition, he was a bit too reckless with the lives of all those cops in the car chase scene.  Lastly, his cape allowed him to glide a bit too well.

Llava, could you go any smaller with your spoilers?  I can read that clear as day at a glance.

I take no chances with Batman material.

Everything Llava said I agree with, plus I also felt Katie Holmes character was Mostly Useless, but then I am biased after the latest media blitzkrieg invading the privacy of Hollywood lunatics.

I saw it with a pounding migraine, the theatre was too loud, they gave me potato wedges when I asked for seasoned fried, and I paid $7.50 for a shitty useless beer while watching it, but in spite of all that it was awesome and I can't wait to see it again.

Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, and Rutger Hauer for the win.

EDIT: BTW, I was staggered by just how faithful the movie was to First Year.  If you liked Frank Miller's First Year at all, well, it's rather obvious you need to see the movie.

Just saw it.

The complete opposite of the last Batman franchise.  A heavy dose of realism,  and presenting pretty plausible explanations for the whole suit/gadgets and abilities.  The Katie Holmes bit does feel a little forced,  but I think they did as well with it as they could considering there's no way a summer blockbuster could get away with having no potential love interest.

How bad is the epilepsy camera work? Aka Close combat shaky cam. I hate, hate, hate that style of filming action movies and it will seriously impare my enjoyment of this film if it is too bad. It's the reason I disliked Bourne Supremacy.

Yeah, I'd like to know about the camera too.  Not gonna see it if they have it shaky like in Bourne Supremacy.

The "shaky cam" is in it, but for only a brief couple of moments, much much less than was in Bourne Supremacy.

Delete this if posted - I don't see anything.

Saw it last night.  Overall I thought it was good and I quite enjoyed the time film spent on the background leading to Batman which took up more than half the film.

Fight scenes were too choppy for me to follow which was annoying.  Christian Bale was well casted for this and the supporting cast was superb.  It lacked a bit of magic of the first one with Tim Burton, but on the other hand it was largely successful in avoiding campy elements.

To the film's credit, the Bat actually came off as scary to the bad guys (and the audience) in a few scenes. 

Don't forget Micheal Caine!

Awesome.

This sounds a bit like shaky cam. Have we lost all semblence of good action directing in Hollywood?

I got back from it about an hour ago.  Excellent movie!  At the moment its probably the third best superhero movie out there.
Incredibles is still first, and Spider Man 2 is second.

Actually, that sounds exactly like shaky-cam.  I guess it's "shaky cam for every fight scene, but a lot fewer fight scenes than Supremacy, so it's ok."  Unless it's as bad as Bourne Supremacy, but they don't want to say it.

Shaky cam wasn't terrible, but it did detract from the fight scenes. Not as horrid as Gladiator, but still irritating.

Michael Caine and Gary Oldman were fantastic.

Great movie and well worth the money. Lucas, you are a cockweasel and will always be.

Nice setup for the sequel, but I'm worried about casting of the villian.

Why does Batman feel he has to tell women who he really is? That irritated me the most. Batman not saving Ra's didn't rub me wrong since he'd saved him once before only to have it bite him in the ass.

I don't mind shaky cams that actually stay on the action so you can see what's going on. The stuff they do in BB and other movies with the super fast cuts and the shaky cam is just another way for them to save some money so they don't have to teach the actors how to do some simple fight moves on camera. Even in a crappy movie like Blade Trinity you get to see somebody like Jessica Biel kick some serious butt since they spent the time and money to train her and it shows.

Shockeye:

He still would've saved him.  He's Batman.  He's saved Two-Face tons of times.  The comic and cartoon versions of Batman seem to always believe that death is never the answer, but the movies never do this.  It irritates me.

Also, if they cast Mark Hamill as the Joker I will personally send them a check for $1000.  He is the best Joker I've seen (or heard, anyway) by far.

This is fun.

Is this a spoiler protected movie discussion or a game of fill-in-the-blanks?

No not shaky cam.  Think of a book with pages missing or a fight sequence with sequences missing.  For those of us with real life interests in martial arts / self defense - the question becomes "how the hell did he get from that position to the move he just executed?  What?"

The Joker needs to be a skinny bastard. Mark Hamill may have the voice, but the body he does not. I actually believe Jim Carey could pull it off if they reigned him in a bit.

Saw it last night. FANTASTIC. The shaky-cam (combined with a drastically overloud sound system) really got to me about 2/3 of the way through the movie; I actually had to get up and move to the back row due to nausea. Other than that, I enjoyed it immensely. Bruce Wayne's Page 8 headline was awesome  :-D

Mad Libs!

(http://www.posterplanet.net/images/batmanriddler.jpg)

Great.

I just gave up an evening where I could've gone to the local I-MAX with the wife and her family to see the movie.

I was totally non-plussed by the previews (and by the previous movies (and the fact that it was the in-laws who are as wacky as the day is long)) that I declined. Now I have to look forward to the wife and her family coming home in about 3 hours raving about how great the movie was while I spent the night watching Animal Planet with my kid and getting drunk off my ass. Ok, so I'll be revved up for the Ren and Stimpy marathon tonight at midnight on TV-Land.
 
Phooey.

I just hope the Fantastic Four doesn't suck as much as I'm afraid it's going to. I really, really, really want this to be the third in Marvel's holy trinity of movie franchises. X-Men, Spiderman, and the 4...ohhhhhhh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Fantastic Four will suck huge donkey balls. Two words: Julian McMahon.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine in "Profiler" and "Charmed" and I'm sure he's fine in "Nip/Tuck", but he's no Doctor Doom. NOT AT ALL.

Oh, don't worry about missing Batman in IMAX. IMAX is 4:3 aspect ratio (same as television) which means P&S. Avoid that shit.

I'll have to throw that in my brother-in-law's face. He and his dad are Captain Audio and Video Boy. And they always think they know what the end-all-be-all of entertainment technology is. If and when I go see it, it'll be in 16:9. Phooey on I-MAX. We went to see Spiderman 2 in I-MAX and the center channel was either fucking blown out or someone leaned against the EQ board and muddied it all up. We couldn't understand a damn word that was said unless the actor or actress on screen at the time was thrown to the extreme right or left channel. Hold a styrofoam cup up to a friends mouth and ask him or her to say anything in what ever language you speak and you'll know how i spent that particular 2 hours of my life. Never again.

Saw Batman last night. I'll give it about 4 out of 5. Very good superhero movie. It managed to stay dark throughout, like a Batman movie should be. I personally have not read any of the year one stuff (never had even heard of Ras al Gul before this) and I think it was a very refreshing rewrite of his origin. The cast was stellar for the most part. I think the only person I really didn't care for was Katie Holmes.  She just didn't click in the role for me.

I'm basically knocking one star off for an unconvincing/uninteresting "damsel" character, and for the use of shakey cam in a couple of the fights. It was no where near as bad as in say, Bourne Supremecy, but for me - even a little shakey cam is too much.

I'll still give Spiderman 2 the title of best Superhero movie of the century, but Batman Begins was very good and worth seeing.

As an afterthought - its actually tempting to not even call this a Superhero movie. I mean really, there are no super powers present in this movie whatsoever. Neither the good guys or badguys.

Oh, and Gary Oldman still kicks ass.

I can see where people are coming from with being annoyed at the shaky cam during the fight scenes, but frankly it worked for me.  It wound up looking chaotic, violent, and nasty, which is how real fights should look.  Maybe it's just that I'm sick and tired of wire-fu ballet, but a little more chaos suits me fine.  The fights are also over quickly, which also works for me.

I do also like the fact that they don't really show Batman as combat machine; he's just a guy who's really good at sneaking around and whacking you hard in the fucking head.  That initial scene when Batman goes on his first mission really did it for me; picking off baddies one by one, faint glimpses of motion, it was like watching a scene from Alien.  That's how Batman should be portrayed, less chop socky, more mysterious, creepy motherfucker, thanks.

I also thought Batman getting his ass kicked and the resultant bruises were a nice touch as well.

Except that (and I don't know if I can express this properly), during distress (and being in a fight qualifies), your brain accellerates and you perceive every detail much faster.  I've been in an accident where I saw the stop sign I missed, thought "oh shit", saw the other person's face as she looked at me, then she mouthed "no", raised her finger and wiggled it no, I hit, banged my head against the side window lightly, and stopped a little ways off.  Couldn't have been more than a fraction of a second, I was going through that intersection at 25 MPH.

So, cutting off details that I would have otherwise registered had I been in that particular fight doesn't work with me.  Plus, jarring camera movement is really bad, because in RL we compensate for our eyes being jarred about, and everything seems to move smoothly.

Saw in tonight. The script and the acting was really good. Shaky cam, was as usual, very distracting. These directors need to learn that this isn't MTV. I don't want to feel "Chaotic". I want to be able to follow the movie.

So...on a 1 to 10 the movie should get a 9 or a 10 but I'd give it a 7 because of the shaky cam. Shaky cam isn't stylistic, it's lazy and distracting.

I dunno, maybe the shakey cam IS stylistic in this movie. He's supposed to be elusive and only there for a few seconds. For isntance, in a couple of the Batman vs 4 or 5 guy fights, you literally see flashes of black in the middle of this crowd. If they didn't use shakey cam, you might lose this effect. I thought if they showed his moves too much, he'd lose too much of his mystery.

In some of the places it's fine since you aren't meant to see him fighting, just the reaction of his victims around him. However take the first sword fight between him and Liam's character at the beginning before he was all "stealthy". Couldn't tell what was going on at all.

I haven't seen Batman Begins yet, but I'm quite sure the shaky cam isn't near as bad as the shit from Lars Von Trier or most artsy fartsy directors (the ones even *I* can't stand). That said, of all the things to complain about, shakycam should really be at the bottom of the list. I'm more worried about balanced framing, lighting and color. But to each his own or somesuch.

IIRC, the were a lot of shaky cam in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the original) and it's still probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. I don't remember complaining about the shaky camera when I was young and saw that. Maybe you just have to realize you just saw a comic book put up on the silver screen. Shaking the camera doesn't break immersion that much. Things like lens flares and horrible CGI do though. And Katie Holmes. Actresses like her break immersion, though I refuse to believe she'll even figure into the equation when I see the movie. :|

Moral of the story is, it's a good Batman. We should be so lucky.

(http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10045000/10045332.jpg)

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790732912.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

(http://www.dreammovies.net/affiches4/batman%20forever.jpg)

Ok. Then to get my extreme hate of shaky cam into the comic book world, imagine if say, in the action panels of comic books all you saw was an extreme closeup of maybe a single criminal. Then the next panel is part of an arm. Then the next is at a weird angle and if you squint it might be somebody's shoulder. Then somebody getting hit, though you're not sure who because it is real closein. You're also not sure how they were hit or by what or even who. Next panel, you see a foot hitting well, something. Do this for a multi-page action scene. Ok. Fine. Maybe. for one fights. To show it is incredibly chaotic. Not for EVERY single fucking action scene.

I liked Bourne Identity. I liked the plot of Bourne Supremacy somewhat. But only watched it once. Why bother seeing it more than once? I'll never know what was going on in the action scenes.

Batman Begins was awesome in all respects. Damn near perfect. Except for the majority of the action scenes. I literally caught myself thinking "Well maybe next time this director can do the character stuff and get a real action director to do the action scenes."

Let's put it this way. Michael Bay is a hack. But I've never walked out of a Michael Bay movie nauseated and going "What happened in all those fight scenes? I couldn't tell because the camera man had epilepsy. "

My friend and I had a debate over whether this shakycam bullshit started with Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator. Mostly because we couldn't remember which movie came first. (and of course, it may have been a movie before either of them.) All I know is, if i had my way, I'd go back in time and make sure that movie never saw the light of day if it meant never again having to see shaky cam.

Fuck this "well, it's artistic. It's showing how chaotic it is. In a real fight you'd see it like this." Bullshit. I don't want a real fight. I want a movie. I don't want wire-fu mind you. I just want some fucking fight choreography with a camera pulled back far enough I can see what is going on. Is that too much to ask?

I love action movies, but it is getting to the point where I am no longer enjoying them. Why bother watching them when all I see are blurs on the screen and the camera jerking around.

That is a load of horseshit, Riggswolfe.  Saving Private Ryan's camera-work had specific purpose, that being to give at least a partial perspective of what things were like for an individual soldier storming the beach and going into heated fighting.  Bourne Supremacy was one thing, where it is exaggerated to such a degree where you cannot tell what in the hell is happening at all, but to allude that Janusz Kaminski was doing sloppy camerawork for SPR is fucking garbage.  If you are too busy eating popcorn to watch the movie then you can have your predictably-formulaic-camerawork Michael Bay bullshit.

As for Batman Begins, I think this is a lot of nitpicking.  You say you don't care if the fights look realistic, but then if they went with operatic camera sweeps, or even static camera viewpoints, people would complain that the action feels out of place because the rest of the film's purpose is to create a realistic world of Batman, or worse, that the fights seem dull and/or hokey compared to everything else in the film.

This is the best Batman that's ever hit the screen by a wide margin, possibly the best super hero movie I've ever seen and probably the best movie I've watched this year.  This makes the Batman with Keaton and Nickolson look like complete dogshit in comparison.  (Heh, it's funny, finally something schild and I agree on in regards to movies: TMNT was a hell of a super hero flick).

The shaky cam stuff seems a bit like nitpicking to me. I could follow every fight scene just fine save the part where he takes out like 8 goons at once(when he drops into the middle of them) and at that point you're not supposed to really know how he's doing it. The first fight scene in the prison though did throw my senses for a little bit of a loop.  I can see how someome with extreme penchance toward motion sickness could be bothered.

But honestly, the movie I saw wasn't really an action film.  There was action in it, yes, but there was a lot more. It'd be kind of like calling American Pyscho a horror flick. If there's any gripe I had with the film it's that it probably would have been a bit more interesting with Talia instead of using the character of Rachael Dawes (sp).  However, Dawes character added an element which was needed in making Batman's interest in the wellfare of Gotham even more genuine.   Still, this was an opportunity missed to get the whole Ras Al Ghul family into the mix and possibly the chance of a more interesting romantic angle.

I felt the shaky cam worked very well for the style of fighting invented for the movie (saw that in a preview somewhere, lest anyone thinks I'm some sort of expert). While I appreciate other movies want to reward the viewer with all sorts of stuff they'll never be able to do for the lack of interest in decades of training, the Batman Begins fighting was as primal as the symbol he created. This wasn't Jet Li impossible nor Mel Gibson over-virality. This was a guy who trained for a decade both on his own and then with some formality to kick all sorts of ass in any sort of situation. Basically, real street fighting with training.

In real street fighting, the eye can't track anything. They could have made it work of course. They could have slowed it down Matrix style so that the guys in the audience could pretend they could repeat it, or to reference any sort of formal training they had themselves. But that's not the point. Batman isn't about his ability to kick ass and use all sorts of neato whizbang tricks. He's about figuring out what to do, doing it, and always being prepared for it. Dark Boyscout.

So I'm glad they didn't allow us to get all gaga about the fights. Screw the fights. They weren't the point.

I loved this movie. I wrote a review, but I don't say anything (http://www.darniaq.com/phpNews/news.php?action=fullnews&id=50) that hasn't already been said, so won't both copy/pasting it. Basically, this movie worked for me in the way X-Men 1/2 and Spiderman 1 did (Spiderman 2 was good, but laborious in parts). This was a real movie with real people, some of whom rose above themselves, and some of those who did so for Good so they could fight those who didn't.

Actually, Shaky cam is OFTEN not a choice of the director.  It's because the actor couldn't learn the fight technique well enough to show off the fight to the ability the director would like.

My personal guess:

The last two batman movies did not do well enough in the box offices to justify a huge expense (relatively speaking) on the part of the studio.  So the production crew had to make a decision where they would spend their money.  They opted to spend it on VERY cool sets, props, and post production work for effects like the scarecrow, etc.  Those types of shots are very expensive btw, having many friends working in the VFX industry.  They likely didn't have the luxury of training all their actors for 6-10 months before the film in figting like the Matrix did, to cite another example.

If you watch the movie, the only time the shaky cam got really distracting as per NOT a style choice (the fight where Batman is cleaning up about a dozen goons is SUPPOSED to be like that...it's not so much shaky cam as it is snapshots of a fight where a bad guy disappears with a flash of darkness, NOT shaky cam) was in my opinion, the fights between Liam Neeson and Christian Bale.  There's a very good reason for this: Liam Neeson isn't built for the type of speed fighting he's supposed to represent.  He's 6'4" and VERY solidly built, and isn't very agile.  Go watch Rob Roy for an example...he can fight, no question about that, if you give him a meat cleaver of a claymore and let him be methodical in his fight.  He's not a martial artist.

My evidence? Watch the fight between Christian Bale and Ken Wanatabe.  They show it from distance, showing full bodies, and both of them can clearly handle weapons.  The director PROBABLY had clear ideas for each fight in place, and had to make stylistic choices with the camera based on the ability of his actors.  It's been done before, and will be done again.  When you don't have the time/money to train up your actors, then you fuck with the camera to give them more ability than they have.  Incidentally, editors have been doing this to make actors look like they're more talented than they are for decades, and I'm not just talking about fighting...

There's an easy way to fix that -- speed up the footage like Lucas did in Phantom Menace in the lightsaber duels.

Speeding up slow motion fights still requires actors to be quite good. That's to say, it still looks damned awkward. With many people, it's simply not an option.

Lest we forget,  Liam Neeson isn't young anymore.  He's probably at the outside edge for doing any kind of realistic action, unless he's in excellent shape.

After a while,  you slow down too much.  Look at Clint in Bloodwork.  Any time he moved to fast, I was worried he was going break a hip.

I just finished the Batman Begins game on the Xbox. The game is worth a rental only to be Batman in a relatively decent game. The batmobile driving sequences are a direct ripoff of Burnout, but that's ok. I enjoyed Thug and Cop takedowns.

The game is about fear as much as the movie. You build your reputation not by engaging enemies directly, but by scaring them by affecting things around them or making one of the enemies in a group "disappear" suddenly by using the grapple hook.  Blowing up propane or causing a water tower to fall helps to scare the crap out of them as well. Once they are scared you can use smoke grenades and flashbangs to disorient them to take them out quickly. The game feels true to this Batman and for that it was enjoyable. All the voices from the film contributed to the game and many of the faces are uncanny. However, the game is way too short for a purchase. After finishing the game you can reply it with 3 alternate Batman suits from the past. You can also re-do the batmobile missions with the prototype batmobile instead of the black.

Nipplesuit?

I frankly don't even think they used "shaky cam" in Begins (which I just returned from and thought was kick ass).  I would classify it as "quick cut" sequences.  The camera seemed fixed but the cuts between shots were so fast that much of the action was a blur.  Worked sometimes, was somewhat annoying other times, but it is nothing like the shaky cam of Bourne Supremacy which has the camera shaking through long single set-up shots while he runs down the stairs.  (I have no idea why Liman who does good work chose to do this).  Quick editing can be exceptionally cool (my favorite is the Falcon v. TIE Fighter sequence in Ep. IV where each shot lasts no more than 2 seconds) or seriously distracting (one of the worst was Bay's car chase scene in The Rock which overall I liked).


EDIT: Oops, just checked and Liman didn't do the sequal, so that explain a lot.
EDIT2: Man I can't spell/type when I'm loaded.

You may be right Abragado. The sequences that stood out to me for this shaky cam or MTV editing, whichever were:

The prison fight scene
The fight inside Ra's house (mostly the part against Watanabe, but I may be wrong. I'll have to see it again.)
The final fight on the train.

He did it too during the dock sequence, but it felt fitting there and wasn't nearly as jarring. It fit the whole "he strikes and disappears" theme of that fight.

Just saw the movie. Twasn't shakey cam. But no need to go into it as Abagadro already did. Shakey Cam type shit is more noticeable in Lars Von Trier movies (Dancer in the Dark, etc) because he uses hand-held cameras. Also, it's used a lot in any earthquake sequence.

Movie kicked ass. Obi-Wan was decent, but Caine and Freeman stole the show. Bale doesn't have enough of a lower jaw to be Batman, but he cuts a badass Bruce Wayne. Holmes was tolerable as she had very few lines. Rutger Hauer and Watanabe were throwaways. Oh, and Oldman was wasted. He should have been off filming something better elsewhere. He simply didn't have enough lines to be of need in this movie as Oldman has incredible delivery and never needed to show it.

8/10. Not quite as good as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Qui Gon not Obi Wan, please get your Star Wars trivia right okthxbye.

Sho nuff. I did fuck that up. How about this:

Batman is neither a ninja nor a padawan.

Edit: Oh, and for those of you that keep track of this kinda shit, before my movie was trailers for Sky High (which will be ass), Wonka (which will kick ass), War of the Worlds (Dakota Fanning will kick ass), and Dukes of Hazzard (a movie filled with ass). Did I mentioned Sky High is going to be just godawful? I'm thinking Rollerball bad. Just truly horrendous. Also, at the movie theater, they were giving away mini-posters of Darth Vader with the words "Who's Your Daddy?" printed on them - I nearly vomited on the ticket taker. Though, for handing out those posters, he probably deserved to be soaked by a bucket of Blood. Lucas is such an assclown.

I enjoyed the movie.  Saw it on Saturday and feel it is the best of the bunch so far, though the handy cam fighting scenes sucked.  I do completely agree with Scott Kurtz (http://www.pvponline.com/) on the bloody water machine though.

My trailers covered all those Schild mentioned, but included Serenty, which will kick complete ass.  I do; however, think Sky High could be fun, in a Thunderbirds type of way.

I had all the trailers Schild had plus the Island and Serenity

I am in the theater for Serenity when it opens, same with Wonka.
I will probably go see War of the Worlds (which I'm tempted to abbreviate as WoW to drive Schild nuts but I'll be nice.)
Dukes, nah, I May rent it to see Jessica Simpson in that bikini.
The Island looks fairly tempting, and Ewan Mcgregor is an awesome actor. I just get the feeling it'll be kind of over the top.

As for Sky High, my first thought was "live action Incredibles." Not that it'll be that good but that that is what they are trying for. My second thought was "I better take my daughter to see it." Cause when she sees the trailers she'll ask anyway.

As for the shaky cam, I think the prison fight clearly was shaky cam. The rest was probably what Abragado described, rapid cut editing. Which is still kind of annoying. I'm a little tired of people thinking movies need to be filmed like MTV videos.

Oh, and gotta disagree Schild, Oldman was awesome as Gordon. Especially if you think in the sequels he may get more to do. I mean, we got to see Oldman play an honest man, and one was had a minor case of nerves at times.

Not only that, but does not one in Gotham use hot water? Wouldn't a hot, steamy shower cause someone to inhale the drug?

I have now seen Batman about 5 times.  I guess that makes me a fan.

Saw The Machinist in the video store recently starring Christian Bale which was made just before Batman?  Holy shit, Bale lost 40 pounds, most of it muscle to play the role in machinist.  He looked like he needed to be hospitalized:  an Aids victim in his final days of muscle wasting.  I can't believe this guy recovered so quickly to put on the muscle mass needed for Batman.

Saw it yesterday.

It was so fucking good, the ONLY criticisms I have are completely and utterly nitpicking. I REPEAT, I AM NITPICKING.

Whether shaky cam or rapid-fire quick cut editing, I FUCKING HATE THIS STYLE. It is a directorial tool, to be used very sparingly. For instance, in the scene where Batman first appears at the dock, that was the perfect use of it. But in the penultimate fight scene on the train, NO NO NO. I want to see that fight, blow by blow. I understand some reasons for it, but I still want to see it. Batman is one of the world's best H2H fighters, let me see that. If you have to use body doubles and CGI faces on the bodies, DO IT.

I was disappointed that Watanabe got so little to do. He is the perfect face for Ra's Al Ghul, and there just wasn't enough of him. Also, no mention of the Lazurus Pits, which may have been one of those "didn't need to be said for this story" thing, but still. Maybe for the sequel.

Katie Holmes... get off my radar. Please. Her character was fine, and needed, but her... ugh. She didn't ruin the movie, but she was the least interesting actor in it. Nipple shot at the end was appreciated, but her face just bugs me. Maybe it's because I keep seeing the Raging Thetan Herpes on her upper lip. Please stop acting, and do not breed with Tom Cruise.

Caine and Freeman were fucking outstanding, especially Michael Caine. Oldman was as well, and I look forward to them increasing his role in the next one. The Scarecrow was done perfectly, and for such a lesser-known and somewhat maligned Batman villain, not only did they do him perfectly, they actually made him creepy. Too often in the comics he comes off as silly. The guy who played Falcone was great, Tom Wilkinson. I've seen him in things as wildly divergent as Priest, Rush Hour, and Sense and Sensibility, and he can play just about anything. Even his corny accent just fit the part perfectly. Bale nailed the part of both Wayne and Batman.

The story was fantastic, the effects were good, the blending of Chicago and CGI to make Gotham worked for me. The Batmobile/BatTank rocked the house.

It's worth seenig many times over.

This Scott Kurtz guy actually has almost my exact feelings about the movie, from his review:


I couldn't have said it better myself. I felt exactly the same. And then later he adds:


I am beginning to realize I have the same unreasoning hatred for this "style" of action directing that Schild does for a certain director who willl remain unnamed.

Edit: Ham and I see very eye to eye on the movie. As for Katie Holmes, my issue with her is her face is weird. It's too thin or something so she looks kind of like a concentration camp victim or something.

Not trying to champion Katie, but I dont think she did a bad job.  Her character was just poorly written for the material.  She was the common cobble stone in a road lined with gold.  She looked gorgious and I kept waiting for her character to get more dynamic, which never happened, and thus made her shine out of place.

Kudos for casting Caine, he was hands down the best Alfred and made the Bruce Wayne portions of the movie.

Maybe I am getting old but I found Katie just too young looking to take seriously in the role she was depicted in.  I just kept seeing her as a kid.

About all the comments on the actions scenes - one welcome positive mentioned above was the return to some "real" fighting.  The film industry and its audiences have become so enamored with matrix style combat involving unstated supernatural agility that regular fight scenes using real strength and flexibility have been absent from action films for a long time.  It's great to see some of that resurrected in Batman.

I recall Christian in an older film in which he played a punk - and I was immediately struck by how capable he was in martial arts.  Good to see an actor for a change that can meet the real physical demands of depicting some conflicts.

So.  Have they started shooting the sequal?  I hate waiting ;)

I liked the movie, but I didn't think it was as good as some people think.  I'll have to watch it a few more times, but my first impression of X2 was higher.

Katie Holmes was a distraction only because every scene with her in it had me hoping someone would swoop down, rip her from the clutches of Cruise, and deprogram the bint before she's able to multiply.  She did a decent job for her part, though, despite her character feeling disposable.

I didn't really like Caines take on Alfred.  I always liked Alfred to be depicted as somewhat stuffy, with a kind heart, and a wry sense of humor.  Caine seems to make the character more common that I like him.

And as everyone's said, the action scenes were cut horribly, and probably was the worst part of the film.  Another thing that annoyed me were the cliche one-liners.  It's ok in a special effects movie like Terminator 3, but it just felt out of place here, and they really started to annoy me near the end of the film.  Then there was the whole water-microwave plot device.  *groan*  At least the movie didn't focus on it much, which was a blessing.  Oh, and I'd LOVE to never have to watch another batman film that delves into Bruces infatuation with Bats.  I thought it was fairly necessary for this movie,, but I'd appreciate never having to see it or bruces parents death again.

I loved that it felt darker, and more realistic. It seemed to hold true to the feel of Year One, which was nice.  The whole Dark Detective aspect of Batman is what I like most about the character, and this film touched on that better than any of the previous films.  That and Neeson's charisma put it above Keaton/Nicholson's flick

Just got back from seeing it.

Totally worth the sleep I am losing/already lost.

BTW, I must have missed the nipple shot Haemish picked up. Are you sure it wasn't another herpe?

A scene near the end,  she's outside talking with Bruce.  And choose to wear no bra that day, i guess.  I'm not sure if she meant to sabotage her lines of dialogue like that, or what....

You obviously didn't miss that much sleep if you missed that scene.  You'd have to actually be sleeping to ignore those pointy, pointy, sore looking nips.  It seriously looked like she'd taken a pencil sharpening to them.  NOT sexy.

Yeah but that's true for all summer blockbuster movies.  But of course the world is run by 22 year olds and anyone over 40 is a stubborn old coot!  ;-)

"Hey, old guys..." (http://www.hollywood.com/movies/photogallery/nav/1/id/1110444/b/p/ctr/142/idx/17)

I worried that she would give Bruce Wayne a raging case of mouth herpes.

I quite liked Kim Bassinger in the Burton film.  Older, more believable but quite attractive :)  And less judgemental ! (must avoid derail)

Either I was actually paying attention to the dialouge, or ignoring her...she is Katie Holmes, after all.


Was it the scene where she talks to Bruce at his demolished house?

That's the one.

Article in my morning paper stating that Holmes will not be invited back to do a sequal. Basically, it suggests that the studio wasn't happy with the Tom shit overshadowing thier movie. Also, it has a comment along the lines of the next love interest will be played by a "stronger actress". I don't have the exact quote (the paper never stays long on my desk in this office), but I thought it was pretty funny. Especially considering that I though her performance was one of the low points.

Yay for us! I do hope they bring back all the other principles, other than Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson. And that they put the Joker in it, except not played by someone who is an assclown. Maybe Mark Hammil. No, I'm not kidding.

Other things that struck me:

Wayne's initial conversation with the boss Falcone in the restaraunt.  Falcone offered him advice by way of threats that really set the stage for the rest of Wayne's career.  I thought the script there was exceptional.

The crime fraternity.  Neat idea - I mean most of us wanting to know the criminal world would do some waste of time degree at a University (Criminology or some such) failing to realize that the academic environment is not the best place to learn about all topics.  Wayne's angle in the story line was to pursue experience as a criminal - not a degree - I thought that was cool.

Good to hear they are dumping the slumber party Queen.  I am sure she can find more appropriate roles.


That will be a tough role to cast in keeping with the more serious angle of the first film.  Mark Hammil?  You baiting us Haemish or do you believe he can even act?

I like how he never thought of himself a criminal because he was stealing his own stuff, that is, Wayne Enterprises merchandise.

Good point.

But man what risk - being thrown in prison in what appeared to be a 3rd world country.  * shudder *

I don't think he cared. The worse the better, probably.

http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_1436301.html

Not clear that Gary Oldman has signed on yet for the sequal - but all the other actors - Freeman/Bale/Caine have. 

Say what we will about Katie - bottom line is.... She got to drive the batmobile!

http://actionadventure.about.com/od/news/a/aa091804.htm

damn good flic.  Music was weak.  Didn't get a good feeling it was making tons 'o $ tho, which I hope it does.  Bring on the next 20.

inspired.  He has been very good in the animation series.

He's good as a voice actor, but I think that everyone would be thinking "That's an ugly ass Luke Skywalker playing that part."

I think Ewan McGregor would be good at it.  I also read somewhere, maybe ign(shudder) where the writer was suggesting Paul Bettany, another actor that I think could possibly pull it off and fit Chris Nolan's theme of employing actors from Great Britain.

I wasn't baiting, I was VERY serious. Not only does he do the best Joker voice on the old Batman animated series, but he has some experience with a very similar live action role. Way back on the old Flash TV series, with John Wesley Shipp, he played a Flash villain called The Trickster, who had a similar madcap nature to the Joker, and he did remarkably well.

But it'll never happen. Much more in vogue to choose a hot actor at the time, and Mark hasn't been hot since 1980. MacGregor or Bettany could pull it off. But who I'd really want to see? Hugh Laurie.

Hugh Laurie would rule.

How about Ian McShane? He may be a bit old, but he can play the hell out of a villain. Not sure if he could go quite madcap insane though.

I love it. Cast it. Sign it. Film it.

I suggested Hammil on page 1.  But I spoiler-fied it so I guess most people skipped it.

I agree with Haemish.  Why couldn't the Joker be older?  Hell, he'll be covered in makeup anyways.

If I remember my Batman lore correctly, wasn't the Joker a mobster/hitman of some repute before he had his accident?  My conception of him has always been of the mind of a 30-40ish professional crinimal married to the soul of a teenage prankster, in which case Hamil would fit well.  Or maybe I just want another Jack Nicholson.

No, in the comics, he was an aspiring stand up comic who was married, somewhat young (probably mid to late 20's). His wife got pregnant, and he couldn't make ends meet with comedy, so he got a job in a chemical factory. Some mob types wanted to rob the jewelry store next to the factory and hired him to provide the inside access through the factory. They made him dress as the Red Hood, which was a mask worn by different people in order to throw suspicion off the real crooks. The robbery was foiled by Batman, and the Joker fell into the chemical goop wearing the red mask. His wife died in childbirth right before the robbery, and when he got a look at his chemically-altered mug, he cracked.

Well, right off we know that the origin isn't going to be the same, unless they're going to say that he foiled this chemical plant robbery off-camera some time during Begins.  And that would feel cheap, at least to me.

I understand Batman sales have been pretty good so far.  Don't have any numbers handy.

To my knowledge, Batman doesn't know that he caused the Red Hood to be the Joker in the comics, so it wouldn't break continuity for this to happen, especially not since you can tell the whole story in flashbacks anyway.

It just seems silly to not have foreshadowed it if they were planning to do it, given that almost no one would've made the connection and they reveal that the Joker will be the next villain at the end anyhow.  They could've easily made one of the first crimes he stopped take place at a chemical factory and showed someone get knocked in on the sidelines.

Crispin Glover for the Joker (here's hoping)....

Or, for a less weirdo take on it:

Ray Liotta (was originally going to be cast before Nicholson). He may be getting a little old though, but Something Wild-era Liotta would have kicked much ass in that role. Maybe he still has it.

Nice.  The Liotta from Narc could do it.  Just add some of that Henry Hill laugh.

I'd frankly be surprised if we saw a Joker over the age of 32, though. 

I think they should cast Hayden Christensen.



/ducks

Shockeye is a dickhead. Johnny Depp is the joker.

I may be a dickhead, but at least I don't have a man-crush on Johnny Depp.

Ok. I vote for Paul Bettany too.

The more I think about it the more I like that Crispin Glover suggestion. He's weird and menacing at the same time which I think would be perfect for the joker.

The big problem with the joker is if the actor tries to ham it up. That won't work in these movies.

Any actor who can carry a movie based on a themepark ride can absolutely play the Joker.

(http://www.filmski.net/slike/slike/news02/11/na-setu---charlie_ins1.jpg)

Oh and, Batman Begins is the Best.  Superhero.  Movie.  Ever.

Go back and watch TMNT again.  :-D Batman Begins is definately the second best though.

Crispin Glover would be a perfect joker, Johnny Depp would be a very close second. Nicholson was a shitty hamfisted Joker and he sucked. He has sucked in every role he has had. He must have swallowed a gallon of devil cum to have had such a long, successful career playing the exact same fucking character in everything he's been in except TOE. Fucking hack.

Blasphemy!!


And when the fuck did Katie drive the Batmobile? I know she was in it, and Gordon drove it at one point, but...

And why should there be a sequel to a prequel? We already have the "sequel" in the form of the first Batman movie.

Katie didn't drive the batmobile.

He's gotten incredible reviews for several decades now with his stage roles.  Apparently the Great White Way sees past the pop culture typecasting from twenty years ago.  Probably not as many Star Wars geeks go to the theatres.  Frankly it's Corvette Summer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077372/) that marked him in my brain for life - youthful indiscretions FTW.  I thought he was cast well in Big Red One but then he was across from Lee Marvin which helped in no small way.  Which reminds me, I need to pick up the two disc extended version of BRO.

"Big Red One" has got to be one of the best nicknames for a military unit ever...

I actually have a Hammil movie in my dvd collection (non Lucas) that he was pretty good in, playing a villain. Its a low budget sci-fi flick called Slipstream. I actually recomend it to people who can see past low budget and enjoy an interesting sci-fi story.

Crispin Glover could do a very good Joker, I agree. Hell, Depp could do a fantastic Joker, but I'd see him in the role as stuntcasting. It would definitely have to be someone who could BURY the Nicholson performance. And I loved the Nicholson performance, I thought it helped a great deal in making that movie. BUT... it kind of pigeonholed the villains in the sequels into being whacked out. I mean, Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face was really nothing more than Nicholoson's Joker, as was Carrey's Riddler. I still liked that one, though I'm not really sure why.

Glover or Liotta it is then. The only guys (well known, at least) who could play that part realistically, not ham it up, and be good enough to make people forget about Jack. Either that, or Nick Nolte on crack. I'd pay to see that too.

Gary Busey?

No, he shouldn't be let out of his house, let alone onto a movie set. Same goes for Nick Nolte.

You know who looks like the Joker though? Adrien Brody.

I just haven't seen enough of him to think he could play the part.

How about in the sequel he fights Gary Busey?  I don't mean Gary Busey portraying the Joker, I just mean Batman versus a drunken cocaine-addled Gary Busey.

You mean there's another kind of Gary Busey?

Yes, these days he's drunk with the Holy Spirit.

Much like the Matrix, my enjoyment of the first TMNT (which stuck very close to the Eastman and Laird comics) was ruined by the sequel, especially the Vanilla Ice scenes. Never got around to watch that time-travelling third one. Oh, and that TMHT travesty also ruined it.

"I'm With Busey" on Comedy Central a couple years back was hilarious. I wouldn't mind seeing some re-runs of that.

For some reason, when I saw this I kept thinking Danny Glover instead of Crispin Glover...

Danny Glover's too old for this shit.

The third TMNT movie?  Let me tell you all you need to know:  In ancient Japan, someone grabs the magical time-travel doohickey and starts it up.  Cut to the modern world, where the doohickey there activates in response.  One of the turtles exclaims "Someone must be trying to use it in the past!"

Even at the time, my brain almost fried at the stupidity.

AICN has a poll up about who should be the next Joker. Interestingly when I voted Crispin Glover was winning, here were the choices:

Mark Hamill
 Lachy Hulme
 Crispin Glover
 Robin Williams
 Adam Sandler
David Cronenberg
Adrien Brody
Andrew Koenig
Tim Roth
Jack Nicholson

See the list I think in addition to Glover that Tim Roth and David Cronenberg would be interesting. Cronenberg would bring a creepiness to it that would be interesting. i'm thinking of his psychologist from Nightbreed when I say this.

Adam Sandler? ADAM SANDLER?!

I quit.

Someone needs to die.

Jack Nicholson:

Batman vs. the Joker's geriatric Grandpa!

All I know is that I want to see "mass murdering psycho" stressed more than the "wacky clown" aspect. That, at the very least, means no comedians. Judging by Scarecrow though, I'm sure Nolan will do whatever's right.

See, I can Crispin Glover or Cronenberg either one could do that, which is why I like the thought of them doing the Joker. Cronenberg would be an old Joker, but it would be kind of neat.

Also, I am hoping since he was in Arkham, and using the playing card, that if we see his origin it'll be a flashback scene. I'd rather just see a movie about Batman foiling him. Not the origin of the villian.

Sandler....

ugh.

Okay, people THIS is the guy we're talking about:
(http://www.latinoreview.com/scoops/images/Joker.jpg)

Not this:

(http://www.movieactors.com/photos-2003/sandler.jpeg)

I know the difference is a subtle one, but I think it's one that would be important in a full length film.  Maybe that's just my opinion.

Christ.

I can't believe some people even voted for him.

I am still giggling. Kudos.

Just read on AICN that Sean Penn is  being courted for the Joker. If nothing else it gives us an idea of what kind of performance they are going for, assuming they are thinking of intense Penn and not Fast Times Penn

I could see that.  Penn is in his mature performances - Mystic River etc. - could add to the dark intensity established in the film. :rock:

Penn can do anything.

edit: For some reason though, I don't like the idea. Same with Depp.

I doubt either one of them would even take the part though...

Well, the article said Penn is hesitating because he is buddies with Jack Nicholson and doesn't want to redo his role.

Penn is a silly idea.

However, after re-reading The Killing Joke, I think this guy :

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001525/

For the Busey fans above, he is apparently on the Celebrity Fitness Club 2 starting soon on VH1. Should be an amusing train wreck.

Willie Aames, Jani Lane and Gary Busey. This will be great. (http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/celebrity_fit_club_2/92340/episode_characters.jhtml)

(http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/showimages/celebrity_fit_club_2/ep_1/288x104.jpg)

My favorite quote from that page:

I hope he got to keep the watermelon, as I imagine they didn't pay him with much else, if at all.

It is now my goal in life to be in a movie credited as "fat guy with _______"

And I thought I had high standards for myself.

Sean Penn as the Joker.

FUCK NO. SAY IT AIN'T FUCKING SO.

He is a one-note actor. I'd rather see the Matt Damon puppet from Team America play the fucking Joker.

I would rather see him reprise his role as Pacman from Colors, then have Batman kick the fuck out of him.

C'mon now....."One note"?

Fast Times
Bad Boys
Carlito's Way
Sweet & Lowdown
Casualties of War
Hurly Burly
U Turn
Dead Man Walking
Before Night Falls
State of Grace
Colors

None of those characters are really alike.

Actually, I believe just about all those characters are alike. Guy with angry chip on his shoulder. About the only one that isn't is Spicoli from Fast Times.

Penn's a good actor, but nothing about him even remotely reminds me of the Joker. Voice, look, mannerisms - it doesn't work for me. Plus, I don't think Penn is allowed to take any roles that don't include at least 15 minutes of anguished bawling any more.

Umm..Sweet & Lowdown too?

Before Night Falls -- He's a "Happy" Cuban Farmer in that.

Carlito's Way -- Alan Dershowitz on Crack

I wouldn't really want to see him as the Joker either, but geez...

edit: OK, granted, he's got a chip on his shoulder in Sweet & Lowdown and Carlito's Way as well, but there's still a big difference in how he goes about it. He doesn't play the "guy with a chip on his shoulder" quite the same everytime either. I mean, not every character is a rehash of "Pacman".

Bah he's been downhill since Fast Times.  And that was reprising a role anyone of my high school buds could have performed.

Shanghai Suprise.

That alone should've kept him away from the Academy Awards FOREVER.

God, Sean Penn sucks ass.

Johnny disagrees.

Just saw this movie, I LOVED IT.  Honestly I was surprised, this is the first movie in many years that gave me joygasms while watching.  After watching the previews I was "meh,"  but my brother who is heading to Iraq insisted on going to see it (I wanted Land of the Dead). This willl be the first time I have decided to see a movie twice in a decade --- A++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A turd packed shitpile of one? Sean Penn as the Joker kills the movie. He's a shitty one trick pony as noted previously. There is nothing about Sean Penn that is The Joker, and he lacks even the basic acting abilities that would allow him to transcend playing some small variation of himself.


There is no "intense" Sean Penn.




Jesus fucking christ, I really wish they'd stop putting the same fucking retarded, shitpile hacks in these guaranteed blockbuster rolls. The fucking movie goes on to mak a jillion dollars and every bitch in the industry thinks it's the "star's" "draw". The simple fact is, most of these rolls you could stick a CG enhanced CINDERBLOCK in and it would draw the same money. Attention shitfags, people will go see War of the Worlds because of a combination of cool special effects and there being nothing new out to see while on vacation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Spielberg, and especially has nothing to do Tom Cruise. God, another titanic Hackberg production about an evil, faceless totalitarian regime wiping out a population only to be defeated by clean living. Fucking assholes. Make a War of the Worlds remake, except have the martians invent crazy high tech shit like respirators or vaccines, and they win. Then explore what they would do with the earth afterwards. That would be a good movie. Unlike the mindless ID ripoff shitfest that got made. you all suck for seeing it. Whores.

I'm just going to go with the cheapest retort here:

Bob?

Get a life.

Stray, Sean Penn really really sucks ass. I mean badly. Terribly fucking badly.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you're defending him. He's an overrated hack of the highest order.

And must be stopped.

Edit: As for the rest of what Bob said, while I might like to see his mythical movie, calling Spielberg a pet name like "Hackberg" is somewhere I wouldn't even be willing to go.

Eh, I just think that angry bob was just being a little too "angry" there. Even by his own standards.

Or maybe it's that I've been gone awhile....I haven't quite settled into "teh hate" just yet.

You are totally out of touch with reality. Your average person goes "Ooo. Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg. It has to be good."


You know. There's this novel by a man named H.G. Wells. It's about a martian invasion and it's called War of the Worlds. Oh, and they are killed by diseases. Funny that...

Actually I just went "Hm, Spielberg eh?  Well, it'll have good production values.  Worth seeing."

Cruise didn't do anything to help.

If you're answering my post, please notice I said "your average person". I am not sure anyone that posts here qualifies.

OMFG SPOILERZ!

That's my impression of the the average moviegoer. Followed by "mmmmmmm, tits."

Damn it.  I'm average  8-)

I really really wanted to see a War of the Worlds authentic to the book...  I mean long before this version was announced, I wanted to see Martians fighting Victorian England.  But noooo, they have to move it to modern times...

Hey, there's something WUA and I agree on.

Any one heard about whether Gary Oldman has signed back on for the next one yet?

If only the first League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie hadn't sucked so badly.  The second installment of the graphic novel had exactly that (the League vs. the Martians).  And it was neat.

New scenes at the Pendragon website.  The Fighting Machines look asstastic tho...


(http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WFTRDN.jpg.jpg)

Oh my god.. is that? Could it be?! ... Freddy Mercury?!

 - meg

Yeah.  The film sticks rigidly to the novel, except for the fact that Freddy defeats the martians at the end by replying to 'Ulla' with a rousing chorus of 'We Are The Champions.'

I've heard it's going to be really moving.

Oh i'm so there.

 - meg

Of course we know I was technically joking, but right after I posted I remembered the horror that was 'A Knights Tale' and realised that maybe, just maybe....

Hey, I'd watch it.

Better than psycho boy.

Went and saw Batman last night.

Enjoyed it. Plus they had the preview for Serenity.

Is it fair to say that this Batman is our post 911 "hero"  It seems to reflect the times.  But Batmans origins - shared with his enemies in this film - really has a lot in common with tactics used by terrorists in the sense of using fear and becoming symbolic in the mind of their opponents.

Am I reaching?  Anyone esle see this?  What we really see is a variation of a terrorist group.  But in this film it is depicted as effective, since Batman harnesses their tactics for justice rather than evil / revenge.  Is this tacit admission culturally by us of the effectiveness of such organizations against us?

I disagree.  The movie partially reflects the times but I don't see Batman as being reflective of how society wants to deal with the issue of terrorism.  Vigilante justice and using terroism to fight terrorism doesn't seem to be the prevailing attitude, at least among people I know.

Most of the time when this discussion has come up in my circle the prevailing attitude has been that large scale organized and long term effort is the only real solution.  Not just militarily but, you know, showing people that terror tactics don't really work to achieve long term cultural goals and are mostly a tool used by a few very charismatic and influential people to push thier own personal agendas and further increase thier own power and influence.

What the hell are you pair talking about ?

Can't it JUST be Batman ?  Please ?

Finally saw Batman this weekend. Its definitely Dark Knight Robot Jesus. Only thing I didn't like was Batman's "scary," growly voice. I understand that he wanted a voice to go along with costume but it sounded a bit silly. Scarecrow freaked me out a lot more than I thought he would. Mmm maggots...

I liked the voice.  It worked for me.  If he used his regular voice - that would have been odd.

I am not a car affectionado but the tank in the film did impress me.  Are these things real?  Thought I heard somewhere that several were actually built.

They were real and apparently undercranking was not needed: they do go that fast.  I can't remember what company had built them, but I do remember reading that their gas consumption is, to put it lightly, "excessive".

The Batman voice did amuse me at first, but I don't mind it since a part of Batman's method is theatricality, I assume because it makes the criminal think this guy in a costume is skin-suit Buffalo Bill-style insane.

Kevin Conroy always does it when he's doing the voice over for Bruce Wayne/Batman.

His Bruce Wayne voice actually sounds outgoing and friendly.  The Batman voice, not so much.  Though I always liked that whenever he's just talking with people who know he's Batman, but he's not wearing the costume or anything, he uses the Batman voice.

THAT'S HIS REAL VOICE, BRUCE WAYNE IS THE DISGUISE OMG!

I love the animated series.

Also, in looking at Bale's interview comments on the costume he wanted to avoid "Wayne in a bat suite" and depict the act as transformational:  when he dawns the outfit - he becomes a different person.  I buy that angle too.  So independent of its practical elements, for the character, it is a transformation he experiences.

It's a bizarre extrapolation but when I wear a business suite it makes my refrain from politically inappropriate comments and profanity quite easy.  But in street clothes that stuff comes out naturally.  So by analogy, I can imagine wearing battle armor could easily engender personality changes if the person opens themselves up to it.

It's also about training too.  If you put on sports gear (karate gee, hockey padding etc.) it brings back memories of how your body should react - and you get urges to move a certain way that normally would not be the case in street clothes.  Because in that particular sports gear - you trained hard in it to react a certain way.  A lot of elements in the battle armor Wayne wears incorporated elements of armor from the Monastary where he trained - that no doubt aided changes in his behavior as well when he wore the suite.

Sorry Mate, we need proof.  I want you to go into your place of business in battle armor.  Find us the info we need.

I always felt like a bad-ass wearing a flak jacket, helmet, rifle and knife and grenades and all the other crap.  Interestingly, when talking to civillians while I was kitted out like that I was always very polite.

Talk softly and carry a big...gun.

I can assure you that they are real.  They had one on display at the downtown megamall here n Toronto as a Promotional thing, and my Brother and his wife got pics of it. 

Aye saw the picture in the paper.  By real I mean - was this actually something the military built?  Or was it built for the film?

Hmm... I seem to recall a report a guy was startled by the car and rammed it with his own car?

I'd be rather nervous of anyone who would "dawn" a bat "suite".   :evil:

But seriously - saw the movie - really good.  At least as good or better than the first (recent) movie, but with 100% less Michael Keaton.

I thought Tim Burton was involved in some way, and a few of the scenes seemed to be freaky like his style.  Maybe just Nolan's way of giving Batman 1 a nod?

Bat Mobile (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/13/A01-213652.htm)

Read an article in I think EW.  Got a free sub for BestBuying some stuff.

Having seen the film several times now I am getting into nuances :)

His Age.  Her age.

I gather Bruce was 28 years old when he returned to Gotham (parents died when he was 8 years old, and Wayne Inc. had been without his Dad for 20 years).  He was gone on his Eastern journey 7 years.  That would make him 21 years before he left (* puts calculator away *).

At 21 years of age Wayne speaks with Katie holmes (character) who is involved with the trial of the killer of his parents.  If in the film Katie's character is close in age to Bruce - and they are both really around 21 years of age - seems Katie must be doing quite well for herself to have finished law school and have a high profile position with the DA involved with this case to begin with? (or did those perky breasts of her provide early leverage in her career path?)

This is all details of course - but on a purely technical note I would find Bruce's age in the early 30's at the start of Batman more believable.  That would make him older before he left for the East in the first place - Katie's character too - making her position at such a young age during the trial more realistic.  This of course, would make me feel better about the slow pace of my own career  :-D

Hmmm, yes, Interesting, Interesting.

No wait;  Who cares?

Edited to add a great big LOL to Tebonas.

No need to whitewash it, the pacing of your career sucks. Get perkier breasts, jpark.

Don't you mean get scientology?

I'm sure Tom Cruise would think you have a pretty enough mouth, Jpark.  :crying_panda:

Stolen from CNN:

I don't think any of those will work except the Surfer (if it's animated), and the Black Panther.

I'm not sure what could be worse though. Nick Fury or Doctor Strange? Even Namor has a better chance than those two (just because of the Atlantean setting).

I have high hopes for "Ghost Rider" and I would enjoy a movie "Doctor Strange" as long as they keep the awful dialogue from the comic.

Nick Fury would have potential if they filmed it as a human government agent having to deal with superhuman threats to the world.

But it won't be that.

It will be The Punisher, part 2.  Might as well just put Tom Jane in an eyepatch and throw him in front of the camera.

Hmm....That could actually work then  :-D Tom Jane rocks.

We don't need another Nick Fury. The Hasselhoff nailed it. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119781/)

(http://www.chezcomics.com/comics-resources-information-pages/marvel-comics-information-resources/marvel-superhero-film-movies-tv-shows/nick-fury-1998/nick-fury-agent-of-shield.jpg)

Did you SEE The Punisher?

Gah.

He got the Punisher shirt from his kid on their island vacation, where a native said it would protect him from evil spirits?  IT'S A FUCKING T-SHIRT.

That said, it's not like it was Jane's fault that film sucked.  He did a decent enough job acting in really poorly conceived film.

Yeah, I've got a ton of problems with the film itself. I just thought he was cool. If they make a sequel, he'd be the only thing worth salvaging (that, and the old school non-CGI stunts were a breath of fresh air).

Dr. Strange has been done.. okay, slapfest B rated, but still pretty good. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104115/)

Never heard of it. It's got Jeffrey Combs at least. It couldn't be too bad.

Now I know we all love us some Ghost Rider... but...

So we're stuck with Holmes. Great.

Don't cast a comedian as the Joker.  He's more sinister than he is goofy.  Steve Carrel, much as I like him, would be among my last choices for the role.

I don't know.  You don't want Christopher Walken or Emperor Palpatine in whiteface.  I think a comedian would be better, actualyl, and Carrel could definitely pull off the insane smile/laughter the Joker needs.  He has the right kind of face for it too...other comedians, like Adam Sandler, just don't like it.  I can easily picture Carrel as Joker. 

Carrel has too much of a desperate look.  Blatantly false confidence is his thing.  The Joker's confidence and malice are quite real.  I'd be more inclined to look for someone like Dennis Leary than Steve Carrel if I was absolutely dead set on casting a comedian.

Actually, Leary might not be a bad choice if he takes the role seriously.

Dennis Hopper.

That is all.

I think Jim Carrey would have made a great Joker, but they already used him as the Riddler.

Johnny Knoxville?   :evil:

Actually, on the Carrell note - I think Jon Stewart could make an incredible joker. As could Louis Black.

Edit: Black would have to drop 50 lbs though.

Again I say: Ray Liotta or Crispin Glover.

I have a love/hate with Nick.  I simply don't like him but I grudgingly admit that he's a relatively decent actor with interesting roles.  I'll take a Cage to the gut to see a Ghost Rider movie.

I think Steve Carrell could do a fantastic Joker, because of the ability to go from dead serious to completely funny in a split-second. Crispin Glover would be good from a look-alike standpoint but I'm not so sure of his ability to do teh funney. I still say Mark Hammill.

Cock Knocker?

Apropos of nothing, look up L. Ron Hubbard in Oxford's book of quotations. There's only one entry, all scientologists should read it before joining up imo.

Huh?

I guess Carrel is just too over the top for me.  I'd see him playing the Joker as out of control.  My preferred Joker is very much in control of himself, he just expresses that very strangely.  Just because his humor is over the top doesn't mean he is.

I've been reconsidering on Mark Hammill because he's not really built for the part.  But he ought to coach whoever does get the role.

And just because:
(http://www.cartoondepot.com/pages/img/wb/le/WB1150%20Classic%20Joker.jpg)

Willard did a good sociopath in Willard, but I think Steve Carrell would be funnier with the mentally unstable role.  The thing I'd like to see most, though, is for Paul Dini's Batman: The Animated Series to be continued.  I loved that damn show.

Jack Nicholson.

/agree

The Joker is not 200 years old.

Already been done.  I think we can do better.

Whomever said Adrien Brody was on to something.  He's already got the look, and he's a decent actor.  I'll go with creepy, malevolent sociopath over someone trying to make the role funny, thanks.

Del Toro?

Christian Slater?
Christopher Walken?

In his Dead Zone days, sure.  Now he's just too old.

As was Jack Nicholson, really.

Perhaps Matt Dillon (http://ww.imdb.com/name/nm0000369/)? Frog knows he needs a good part after being associated with the Herbie remake.

He's condemned to Herbie remakes and Ensemble flicks from now on.

I'm sticking by Leary.  The more I think about it, the more I think that he, coached by Hammill, would do a fantastic Joker.

James Marsters

I say - lets reinvent the Joker.... P Diddy or Carrottop.

Christ, I can actually see that working.

arg.

Ditto, actually.  Not perfect, but I could get behind that choice.

Plus we know he doesn't mind dyeing his hair.

OMG YES!

I love me some Spike action.

James Marsters would be awful. The guy is terrible in everything, and comes off as a lightweight. The dreary british vampire...bleah!

I don't think casting comedians for the Joker would work. The guy is insane, not a standup comic. They tried it with Carrey as The Riddler and that was awful. (A lot of that was the direction to be fair) The Joker doesn't tell jokes, he thinks the whole world is a joke. He doesn't value anything. (Yes, he does tell actual jokes sometimes, but in the good stories at least to illustrate that theme) For example when he shoots Batgirl in the back and makes jokes comparing her to a book with a damaged spine. It's not like "I just flew in from Arkham and boy are my arms tired!"

Jack Nicholson had played a lot of characters with varying degrees of sanity, including in The Shining. He has a sort of dangerous aura to him. That's the main thing the Joker needs - he needs to put you ill at ease and feel dangerous. Even though he isn't much of a fighter, doesn't have powerful weapons or super powers. The kind of guy you really wouldn't want to stand next to in an elevator.

Dennis Leary sort of fits that part. He's the type of guy that seems like he could just go off and do anything at any moment. But he's more angry than crazy, and the Joker doesn't really come off as angry very often. Somtimes bitter and vindictive, but never just rageful.

John Stewart I could maybe actually see except his face would never work. I don't think Christopher Walken would work because the Joker has a sort of youthful, manic energy to him that Walken is the exact opposite of.

If Angelina Jolie were a man I would say she would be good. She has that sort of crazy gleam in her eye. Someone you don't want babysitting your kids. Antonia Banderas might not be that bad. (I can't believe I just wrote that)

The basic criteria are these:
Someone who can display manic energy
Someone who radiates unpredictability and a dangerous edge.
Someone who can derive pleasure and humor from sadism.
Someone who does something just because they can.

Kevin Spacey? yeah, that's my final answer. I can so see Kevin Spacey as the Joker! I'm a casting genius. I'm quite happy now because the more I think about it the more I can see how good that would be. He certainly can project a sort of unstable edge, he could deliver comedic lines with wit and sarcasm and bile and not seem fluffy or jokey but sinister.

Edit: Apparently Spacey is already playing Lex Luthor in some new Superman movie. I really think he would be better as the Joker. Take his characters from Swimming with Sharks, Seven, The Usual Suspects and K-PAX and you're halfway there. (Ok, just kidding on that last one) Kevin Spacey can play guys who are somewhat deranged and Lex isn't really deranged enough.

You are right on the angry count.  The Joker is always menacing, but there's one scene in Mask of the Phantasm in which he actually gets angry and he gets even more frightening, albeit just for a second as he quickly diffuses the situation with a joke:
"DON'T TOUCH ME, OLD MAN!  I don't know where you've been, hah!"

How come I agree with everything Margalis said, but find all the casting choices he made woeful ?  I don't get it.  We seem to see the Joker as the same person, but not actors...

I still think McGinley could do it if he lost some weight and bulk.  The guy has played some really, really frightening characters in his time and his current Scrubs persona seems to fit the energy and comedy aspects.

However, I think we ALL will agree on one thing :  Finding the RIGHT unknown would be much better than any other option.  That way he can make the Joker his own.

(For example, I think everyone in this thread who says Nicolson was in any way good as the joker needs to be shot in the head.  But that's just me.)

Perhaps not shot in the head, but I agree.  I didn't really care for his Joker.  Hammill's Joker is the definitive Joker.  Nicolson should take acting lessons from Hammill.  (How often do you get to say that sentence?)

Tim Roth would work.

I agree, and also it's been a while since I've seen him around.  He needs the work and would seem to fit in with their "Brits only, except the skanky ho who's a beard for a Scientologist" policy.

And yet it's the superior Batman film.

Just Sayin'

No doubt.  You seem to think I give a rat's ass about which country gets the casting.  I couldn't care less about which country's spoiled celebrities get cast, I just want a good movie.

Wait, I thought you were a Scot?

So ?  Just like Gulp, all I care about is a good movie too.

(oh, and I have a friend who was cast as an extra in it.  It'd be nice for her to get another cheque.)

Umm...OK. Swing and a miss.

Anyways...I don't care either way. More Brits I say, if that's what it takes.

I could see Del Toro doing it, especially after his turn in Sin City and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He is a chameleon type actor. Spacey would be good, but I like someone who has shown more manic than menace.

The Joker DOES tell jokes, and he wanted to be a stand up comedian. Thus, I can see comedians being cast, especially comedians who aren't known as just "one-liner" types. I would hope that when/if they do the Joker, they don't try to overdo the rubber-faced makeup thing, like in Burton's Batman. I mean, it worked for that movie, but I don't think it'd work for this one.

And if Nolan does decide to do the sequel, I have no doubts about him making the Joker menacing, no matter who they get to play the part. The fact that he made an also-ran like the Scarecrow into a villain with actual menace.

"Chillin' with the Jooooker, buuuudy! Let's get some griiiindage!"

Hey, the Weasel wants dearly to be a comedian and he's certainly scary enough.

Plus he can't act worth a crap.

FWIW, I thought that Cillian Murphy would have been a good Joker. In fact, I thought that was who he was going to end up being when I first saw him onscreen. His cheekbones are perfect for a big ol' Joker smile.

I still say James Marsters, but for a secondary.

Vincent D'Onofrio (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000352/) would kick seven kinds of ass.

Yes he could...Truly the most underappreciated actor around. I mean what the hell, he's working on like the billionth Law and Order spinoff or something now, right? That's a shame.

I don't know James Marsters because I haven't watched Buffy before. But I'm just going to be a shithead and say "Hell no".  :-)

Most of these suggestions want to make me scream 'Not Thin Enough!!'

But I've got Bollands Joker in my head.

Yeah, I'd agree about physicality being important and all that, but Donofrio is an exception. He can play just about anything.

As far as skinny actors go, I just don't know enough about Adrien Brody to think whether he could do it or not. Everything I've seen him in he's been, he's come off as quiet and inhibited....But he definitely looks the part more than anyone else suggested.

It's a damn a shame that they didn't cast Liotta when he was young though. If anyone here has seen Something Wild, then they'll see what I'm saying. He IS the Joker, trait for trait.

Friend of mine suggested Jude Law.

I think he's too young looking.

But how does his dick measure up?

Is there a joke there?  Randomly bringing up genetalia isn't, on its own, funny.  Is there some nuance or subtlety to your inquiry that I'm missing?  I mean, feel free to just make joking replies, by all means, but I'm just not seeing the joke here.

Go see the joke. (http://www.jossip.com/gossip/jude-law/jossip-juxtaposition-jude-laws-teeny-weenie-20050817.php)

Oh.

Okay.

Looked average to me for non-erect, especially considering that has little bearing on its size when erect.  But hey, it's a tabloid that goes around snapping naked pictures of people and claiming it's a celebrity, guess I shouldn't expect much.  <shrug>

(Incoming jokes about how if I think that looks average, then my dick must be small.  Clever!)

Have you seen Road to Perdition (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257044/).  I think he could do it.  However, I still like Marsters better and Vincent more.

I agree.  He was a very well played total Pyscho in RtP and it came across well.  Indeed, the whole 'smile for the camera' thing is something that the Joker himself has done.

However, does he have the energy and mania required ?  I wonder.

The guy who played Agent Smith in the Matrix could pull off a good Joker, I bet.

Or maybe Snoop Dogg.

Mathew Broderick.

Your account was hijacked by a studio exec, wasn't it?

Mocha. In my nose.

C'mon, man. Snoop in a hot purple pinstripe pimpsuit and green dreads? He's the Joker...he's a smoker...

He's a midnight toker.

Personally, for Del Toro, I see
(http://www.batman-superman.com/batman/img/twoface1.gif)

Ahh, Tommy-Lee Jones.  Another person totally unsuited to a Batman villian.

I knew you'd buy-in!