|
Post by CT on Sept 23, 2009 18:54:59 GMT -5
I remember being so stoked when I saw the trailer for this one back in the day ( I was 10 mind you). I like this one a lot which probably has much to do with the fact that It wasn't only the first batman movie I saw in the theater but I believe the first superhero movie I had seen. Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey are all top notch actors and did well IMO. I think Kilmer fit Bruce Wayne much better than Clooney ( although that one was doomed from the start for many reasons). And I'm a Clooney fan It was just the wrong role for him at that time in his career (ER) and a bad movie at that. Anyway forever had a good story, good characters, and memorable performances so I give it a 4/5. PS: okay so the costumes had nipples, but a little nipple play never hurt anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Sept 23, 2009 19:16:06 GMT -5
this movie is what i call the middle batman. it wasn't as awful as batman and robin but not as good as batman begins or batman 89. also this still remains to be the only bat film to get two-faces origin right. although he was waaay to much like joker. Riddler wasn't as calculated or serious as he is in the comics but those and the bat nipples aside this was a decent fun flick.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Sept 23, 2009 19:27:39 GMT -5
Yeah you are reminding me of some stupid. Orny lines batman said. Like telling Alfred "I'll get drive thru" and I think that was in the trailer as a laugh getter. I did like the parts with Val as Bruce quite a bit. I didn't mind the way two face was written and played or the riddler for that matter. I read some of the comics as a kid and the riddler and two face were a bit boring IMO. Joker was the best in the comics and one movie had passed so why not make two face more like the joker for entertainments sake. I think it worked well.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Sept 23, 2009 20:12:14 GMT -5
In the comics Riddler needs attention. he believes that no one can ever ebat him. Two-face is a paranoid homicidal borderline schizophernic. he has no care for who he kills. and he rarely flips his coin more than twice. two-face in the comics is very much how he was like in the cartoon from the 90s
|
|
|
Post by CT on Sept 23, 2009 20:26:47 GMT -5
Who did he care about killing in the movie? Isn't he homicidal and rarely flips his coin more than twice in this movie? It has been 5 months since I've seen it I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Sept 23, 2009 20:37:11 GMT -5
true he didn't really give a ratsass as to who he killed but in the scene where he and riddler broke into waynes house. two-face flipped his coin about 7 times and shot bruce. now i'm not saying this was a bad two-face but he couldve been better and the amke up wasn't too shabby either considering if you actually look at it and consider that he couldn't look graphic back then.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Sept 25, 2009 2:06:48 GMT -5
I can appreciate Joel Schumacher wanting to put his own stamp on the franchise by moving away from Burton's dark fantasy gothic to a colourful, camp approach but it was too jarring for me and really went off the chart with the performance of the villains. A 3 for me I think.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 11, 2009 17:01:07 GMT -5
Not only the worst Batman but one of the worst movies I've ever seen period. The Dark Knight is the only really worthwhile Batman film that transcends its comic book origins and deals with legitimately interesting social issues. Other than that, the two Burton films have some visual appeal, but not much else. The other Batman films are complete garbage (save Batman begins which is perfectly watchable but not great by any means)
|
|