87 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

I'm gonna echo Harmsway, Dave, and say you should definitely check out Batman Begins. Fantastic movie. Somehow makes the whole idea more logical.

And BTW, I always love it when somebody comes along who is a "Duel" fan. Love it. Love it, love it.

[Matt_13]

Not a fan of HP or LOTR...or anything of that genre.

[killkenny kid]

Not a fan of HP or LOTR...or anything of that genre.

indeed.

[DaveBond21]

Usually good movies last, whilst over-hyped movies die very quickly. So just wait three or four years and then sit back and enjoy what are by now 'classics', and probably cost you less to own on DVD than it did to see in the cinema. It means you can't join in film conversations, but you can always glaze over and nod occasionally.

I agree. There are many DVDs on sale for $5 at my local video store which were supposed to be amazing or the latest blockbuster just 3 or 4 years ago.

I never get excited about new films now. I get really excited about discovering old movies from the 1940s through to the 80s. Recently discovered Blind Terror and Daughters of Darkness. Much more exciting to me than the latest Hollywood rubbish.

[Number 6]

I sometimes feel like I am the only person who hasn't watched all of the Lord of the Rings movies, and the Harry Potter films. I have only seen the first LOTR one.

I also believe I will never watch them. It's the same with the new Batman
Anyone else with me? Or am I strange?


Cheers...

*uncorks holy water*

The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you! The power of...

[Athena007]

I'm pretty "sudo-anti-Harry Pothead" I did see Chamber of Secrets only because Kenneth Branagh was in it and I was kinda tricked and dragged to the theater. I later rented and tried to watch Goblet of Fire because David Tennant is in it, but I just couldn't do it out of boredom and annoyance, but ended up FF to all the parts with Tennant.

As for Lord Of The Rings. I really really like the first film. I feel it's the one with all the character development. But the other two just fall flat, meh... I could live without them.

Spiderman... loved the first one, I could live without the second one, but I'm excited for the third one.

Batman... I'm a little tired of all the movies having that same exact theme. "Oh someone killed my parents... woe is me." Can we please have a new motivation for out Bruce Wayne! Otherwise I think they're fun and I like them.

Superman... I liked the new one a lot. That's all I have to say.

Hulk... the style is which the last film was edited was pretty cool otherwise... yawn. I couldn't care less about the second film that's coming up.

[Harmsway]

As for Lord Of The Rings. I really really like the first film. I feel it's the one with all the character development. But the other two just fall flat, meh... I could live without them.

I think the TWO TOWERS and RETURN OF THE KING Extended Editions (not the theatrical cuts) provide ample character development all around, on par if not better than what was provided in the first film (for example, David Wenham's Faramir's outstanding development in both extended cuts).

Batman... I'm a little tired of all the movies having that same exact theme. "Oh someone killed my parents... woe is me." Can we please have a new motivation for out Bruce Wayne! Otherwise I think they're fun and I like them.

His parents' death wasn't even mentioned in BATMAN RETURNS, and I don't think it was mentioned in the infamous BATMAN AND ROBIN, either.

As far as BATMAN BEGINS goes, I think it's an absolutely indispensable element for an origin story. From what I've read of THE DARK KNIGHT, though, I don't think the Waynes' are going to feature much as a story element.

[zencat]

I have no burning love for either. I saw the LOTR trilogy, but the only one I can say I really liked was The Two Towers. I found the first Potter film VERY long and dull. I've never seen the others. I'm sure the books are great, but I've just never had the desire to get into them.

[Loomis]

As for Lord Of The Rings. I really really like the first film. I feel it's the one with all the character development.

Agreed. FELLOWSHIP is very good, with interesting characters and character development. TWO TOWERS is fairly impressive on a visual level, but that's about it. RETURN OF THE KING is a yawnfest.

Spiderman... loved the first one, I could live without the second one

First SPIDEY is pretty decent, yep. Second appallingly overrated.

Batman... I'm a little tired of all the movies having that same exact theme. "Oh someone killed my parents... woe is me."

Yeah.

Superman... I liked the new one a lot. That's all I have to say.

Same here. Were we separated at birth or something, Athena?

[Harmsway]

First SPIDEY is pretty decent, yep. Second appallingly overrated.

I think they're both appallingly overrated. The first SPIDER-MAN is just a poor film in all respects, and SPIDER-MAN 2 is a mostly poor film that manages to have better thrills, and thus becomes pretty entertaining.

[Loomis]

First SPIDEY is pretty decent, yep. Second appallingly overrated.

I think they're both appallingly overrated. The first SPIDER-MAN is just a poor film in all respects, and SPIDER-MAN 2 is a mostly poor film that manages to have better thrills, and thus becomes pretty entertaining.

Well, yeah, I certainly wouldn't go further than "pretty decent" when praising SPIDER-MAN. And that, of course, is being fairly generous. SPIDEY 2, though, seems to me one of those sequels that's commonly considered far, far better than its predecessor (Maltin gives it ***1/2, and I think he only awards SPIDEY 1 **1/2), like THE GODFATHER PART II or MAD MAX 2.

I don't think it is a huge leap forward - I just find it more of the same, actually (but with more of a smug air); but I do get the feeling that many people view it as a predecessor-eclipsing triumph, for whatever crazy reason. Hence my calling it appallingly overrated.

In any case, I don't plan to see SPIDER-MAN 3, even on DVD. THE DARK KNIGHT interests me chiefly because the lovely Maggie Gyllenhaal is in it, replacing the awful Katie Holmes, but I somehow doubt it'll be the sort of Batman outing I'd like to see.

[Harmsway]

THE DARK KNIGHT interests me chiefly because the lovely Maggie Gyllenhaal is in it, replacing the awful Katie Holmes, but I somehow doubt it'll be the sort of Batman outing I'd like to see.

What would be the kind of Batman outing you'd like to see?

Anyway, what I've read of the script for THE DARK KNIGHT has been phenomenal. BATMAN BEGINS was good, but THE DARK KNIGHT takes a bold leap forward in all respects... especially the originality of the tale that's being told. It's going to be one dark, intense ride.

If BATMAN BEGINS was the THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS to BATMAN AND ROBIN's A VIEW TO A KILL, then THE DARK KNIGHT is shaping up to be the Batman franchise's LICENCE TO KILL.

[Tiin007]

I'm so happy other people agree with me about Harry Potter and LOTR. They're simply...not good!

As for LORD OF THE RINGS, in particular, it has a specific appeal - some people will "get it" and others won't, as is the way of the world. I'm a bigger fan of the books (the books are truly masterpieces of the fantasy genre, beautifully telling a mythological tale in the tradition of other mythological epics), but I enjoy the films. At the same time, I can perfectly understand why someone wouldn't want to sit through 10+ hour epic about hobbits and dwarves and wizards all seeking to destroy a magic ring.

That's how I feel about LOTR. Too mystical/fantastical/wizardish.

[Athena007]

Were we separated at birth or something, Athena?

I'm starting to think we were!!!! hee hee

[Turn]

Usually good movies last, whilst over-hyped movies die very quickly. So just wait three or four years and then sit back and enjoy what are by now 'classics', and probably cost you less to own on DVD than it did to see in the cinema. It means you can't join in film conversations, but you can always glaze over and nod occasionally.

I agree. There are many DVDs on sale for $5 at my local video store which were supposed to be amazing or the latest blockbuster just 3 or 4 years ago.

I never get excited about new films now. I get really excited about discovering old movies from the 1940s through to the 80s. Recently discovered Blind Terror and Daughters of Darkness. Much more exciting to me than the latest Hollywood rubbish.

I'm this way as well. I remember thinking it was great having dozens of cable movie channels, only to rarely watch any of them unless a new one comes on a Sunday night or I DVR it or play it on demand.

I rarely go to the cinema for anything new, seeing only Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa there recently.

As far as some of the blockbusters go, I have never watched an LOTR film, enjoy the Harry Potters, think the Spider-Mans are decent but vastly overrated (especially the second, which proved preditible and way too much like Superman II), and would like to see some of the others, but really don't care one way or the other if I do.

It seems like there's nothing but horror/slasher movies each week, Will Ferrell movies and second-rate superhero flicks.

I too would rather see a great version of an old favorite in a great DVD package (my most recent purchase was the first Rocky) than take a chance on some of the junk out there. The last thing I watched on cable was the remake of Poseiden, one of the most pointless films I've seen in a while.

[Loomis]

THE DARK KNIGHT interests me chiefly because the lovely Maggie Gyllenhaal is in it, replacing the awful Katie Holmes, but I somehow doubt it'll be the sort of Batman outing I'd like to see.

What would be the kind of Batman outing you'd like to see?

A film with class but none of the ludicrous, chest-beating self-importance and talking down to the audience that marred BATMAN BEGINS. A film with more of a sense of fun than BB, and much more visual "wow" factor (imagine a Batman outing directed by James Cameron circa TRUE LIES). A film that does something new and interesting with the character and takes him out of Gotham City for a while (fair enough, BB did do the latter to an extent, resulting in by far the most interesting section of the picture). A film geared more to intelligent general audiences than to Batman fans (not that I'm saying you can't be a Batman fan and an intelligent general audience member, of course). Finally, ditch that awful murky shooting style of BB. I want the CASINO ROYALE of the Bat franchise, not the LICENCE TO KILL.

BTW, here's a new article on MSN I mostly agree with:

Overrated: Superhero Movies

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the annual deluge of superhero spectaculars, ready to turn summer into the usual intellect-free zone of fanciful fantasy and vapid CG. You can run and you can hide, but you simply won't be able to avoid Spider-Man 3 when it hits UK cinemas on 4 May. As soon as Tobey Maguire's puppy-faced web-slinger departs, his place will be taken by the Fantastic Four sequel, which promises (or should that be threatens?) the arrival of the Silver Surfer alongside its returning posse of mutant daredevils. Oh, and we probably shouldn't forget Underdog, a Disney offering about a talking pooch suddenly invested with super-canine powers. The mind truly boggles.

Or it would, had we not zoomed down this road so many times before. Cast your mind back 12 months ago and you'll recall the similar hoopla that surrounded Superman Returns (dull and worthy) and the third X-Men pic (dumb and noisy). The year before that it was Batman Begins and the original Fantastic Four movie; the year before that we had Spider-Man 2 and The Incredibles. Admittedly the latter was a cut above the average, if only for being animated and having a sense of humour about its dysfunctional masked crusaders. Even so, the fact it was made at all was proof that there are simply too many of these capers around

[Double-0-Seven]

I'm not a fan of either.

I can't sit through a Lord Of The Rings movie. I just find them boring. They aren't bad films, just not my cup of tea.

[bill007]

I'm with you, Dave.

LOTR - I read the books in my early teens. Then saw the animated film in the 70's. Didn't catch any of the new series, and continue to pass them by at the rental store.

HP - I took the young ones to see the first film (loved Robbie Coltrane). They were old enough to go see the sequels on their own.

Batman & Superman - I might catch these based upon what I've read here. It'll help pass the time till Bond22 comes along.

[Harmsway]

A film that does something new and interesting with the character and takes him out of Gotham City for a while (fair enough, BB did do the latter to an extent, resulting in by far the most interesting section of the picture).

Well, he goes to Hong Kong in THE DARK KNIGHT. I'm not sure for how long that is - I would imagine it's rather brief, given that the film is entirely centric to two story threads: the rise of the Joker and the other is the disintigration of Harvey Dent, and both are in Gotham City.

But, in the end, what you'd want there and what Nolan is trying to do is a little incompatible. Nolan's writing an "origin" trilogy, and by nature, that has to be rather Gotham-centric. Perhaps when that's over, we can have your globe-trotting sort of Batman film (Batman globe trots all the time in the comics, so it's not out of character).

I want the CASINO ROYALE of the Bat franchise, not the LICENCE TO KILL.

Fair enough, and I can appreciate that.

All I can say is that the character of Batman really isn't about thrills per se - he's not that kind of superhero. His movies would indicate otherwise, for the most part, aside from the very unique and bizarre film BATMAN RETURNS. His stories are generally detective tales (hence his title, "the world's greatest detective" - something that has been mostly ignored in all the Batman films thus far), often set in a film noir genre, with very little epic-ness. His stories are like SE7EN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, just with a more colorful flair by nature of the villains. In general, to create an action-driven Batman film is actually to go against his nature as a character.

BTW, here's a new article on MSN I mostly agree with:

I think that article is very snobbish. While I agree that there's plenty of room for criticism of superhero films (the vast majority of them haven't been good), I think the article is rather irritatingly condescending. I bet you the guy didn't care for CASINO ROYALE much, either (I don't know if he does or doesn't, but he seems to have a lot of venom for James Bond here).

And frankly, I'm suprised that you, Loomis, the man who enjoys such silly and hollow spectaculars as DIE ANOTHER DAY (an "intellect-free zone of fanciful fantasy and vapid CG") would be so eager to condemn.

[Loomis]

A film that does something new and interesting with the character and takes him out of Gotham City for a while (fair enough, BB did do the latter to an extent, resulting in by far the most interesting section of the picture).

Well, he goes to Hong Kong in THE DARK KNIGHT.

*Drool*

Scratch everything I wrote, I'm up for THE DARK KNIGHT now!

His stories are like SE7EN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

*Raises sceptical eyebrow, Moore-style*

Re-ah-lly?

What, in particular, should I read? (I presume you're not referring to anything done for film or TV.)

I think the article is rather irritatingly condescending.

Yes, very much so. I mean, I agree with this writer, but he certainly comes across as smug and condescending.

[Harmsway]

His stories are like SE7EN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

*Raises sceptical eyebrow, Moore-style*

Re-ah-lly?

There's a reason Batman fans always toss around David Fincher as a possible future Batman director. Batman's generally been situated in the crime mystery genre.

What, in particular, should I read? (I presume you're not referring to anything done for film or TV.)

Well, I'm trying to think outside of the smaller one-issue stories which are harder to get ahold of, as well as stories that are a little more approachable if you don't know a lot of history for the character.

I suppose a good place to start would be my personal favorite Batman comic, and I think it's probably the greatest, The Long Halloween, a mystery set from one Halloween to the next, each issue detailing a different holiday. It's set fairly early in Batman's career and details the fall of organized crime to the "freaks," while a serial killer begins taking out prominent figures in the Falcone family. There's some nice GODFATHER and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS homages along the way. It's not the "grittiest" Batman story ever written, but I find it consistently engaging and entertaining (perhaps the most consistently entertaining story ever written for the character), and it has some of the best artwork to ever be associated with the character.

I've always been partial to Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, which is a shorter graphic novel about the Batman and the Joker. The Joker decides he's going to prove that "one bad day" can make anyone mad, so he kidnaps Commissioner Gordon and puts him through hell, in the process shooting Gordon's daughter through the spine. Pretty dark and disturbing ("suggested for mature readers" is written on the back), but good.

You could always give Batman: Year One a try. It's the grittiest and most-realistic Batman story to date, if that appeals to you, and it's probably the only good thing Frank Miller ever wrote. In full film-noir mode, it follows Gordon and Bruce Wayne on parallel stories throughout Batman's first year of operation. Unfortunately, though, his Bruce Wayne/Batman is entirely personality-less and, as a result, this really should be titled James Gordon: Year One, since Gordon takes all the focus. Still, it's pretty solid, and Gordon is pretty compellingly written.

Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth is a rather bizarre entry in the Batman graphic novel history, but one of the most interesting. It's a surreal entry into madness as the inmates of Arkham Asylum take over and invite Batman in for a visit. Mostly a triumph of artwork over material, but it's pretty impressive.

And I've never read it, but I understand that Batman: Gothic is pretty good, as well. Seems like it's a darker Batman tale about Batman pursuing a murderer (standard Batman plot), but with a supernatural aspect. It has Batman journeying to Austria for a little bit, apparently.

[Safari Suit]

Even though I didn't like the first at all, I'm quite interested in the next Hulk movie now that they've cast Ed Norton. I'm not really a fan but I think that's good casting.

[Harmsway]

Even though I didn't like the first at all, I'm quite interested in the next Hulk movie now that they've cast Ed Norton. I'm not really a fan but I think that's good casting.

It's good casting, but I couldn't be less excited about the rest of it. Whether it was successful or not, the first Hulk at least tried for something interesting, even though they didn't allow for Ang Lee to go far enough with it.

This new HULK movie, which is a remake/reboot/quasi-sequel (we don't really know), is going to be nothing more than "Hulk smash!" It's what they figured they didn't give the audience enough of in the first try. And with Louis Leterrier at the helm (The Transporter, The Transporter II) and Zak Penn on the screenplay (Last Action Hero, Inspector Gadget, Elektra), I have very little faith in the whole enterprise.

[Safari Suit]

At the risk of sounding dreadfully unintellectual I would rather see a good "Hulk Smash!" movie then a failure with noble intentions, which is what Lee's movie was to me. There's no gaurantee they'll make a "good" smash movie though; especially with that pedigree. I'm not that big a fan of the character mind you, so I can't say I'm too worried anyway.

Edited by Safari Suit, 22 April 2007 - 04:37 PM.

[Blunt_Instrument]

Not weird at all my friend, I couldnt be less interested myself

[Loomis]

His stories are like SE7EN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

*Raises sceptical eyebrow, Moore-style*

Re-ah-lly?

There's a reason Batman fans always toss around David Fincher as a possible future Batman director. Batman's generally been situated in the crime mystery genre.

What, in particular, should I read? (I presume you're not referring to anything done for film or TV.)

Well, I'm trying to think outside of the smaller one-issue stories which are harder to get ahold of, as well as stories that are a little more approachable if you don't know a lot of history for the character.

I suppose a good place to start would be my personal favorite Batman comic, and I think it's probably the greatest, The Long Halloween, a mystery set from one Halloween to the next, each issue detailing a different holiday. It's set fairly early in Batman's career and details the fall of organized crime to the "freaks," while a serial killer begins taking out prominent figures in the Falcone family. There's some nice GODFATHER and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS homages along the way. It's not the "grittiest" Batman story ever written, but I find it consistently engaging and entertaining (perhaps the most consistently entertaining story ever written for the character), and it has some of the best artwork to ever be associated with the character.

I've always been partial to Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, which is a shorter graphic novel about the Batman and the Joker. The Joker decides he's going to prove that "one bad day" can make anyone mad, so he kidnaps Commissioner Gordon and puts him through hell, in the process shooting Gordon's daughter through the spine. Pretty dark and disturbing ("suggested for mature readers" is written on the back), but good.

You could always give Batman: Year One a try. It's the grittiest and most-realistic Batman story to date, if that appeals to you, and it's probably the only good thing Frank Miller ever wrote. In full film-noir mode, it follows Gordon and Bruce Wayne on parallel stories throughout Batman's first year of operation. Unfortunately, though, his Bruce Wayne/Batman is entirely personality-less and, as a result, this really should be titled James Gordon: Year One, since Gordon takes all the focus. Still, it's pretty solid, and Gordon is pretty compellingly written.

Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth is a rather bizarre entry in the Batman graphic novel history, but one of the most interesting. It's a surreal entry into madness as the inmates of Arkham Asylum take over and invite Batman in for a visit. Mostly a triumph of artwork over material, but it's pretty impressive.

And I've never read it, but I understand that Batman: Gothic is pretty good, as well. Seems like it's a darker Batman tale about Batman pursuing a murderer (standard Batman plot), but with a supernatural aspect. It has Batman journeying to Austria for a little bit, apparently.

Thanks, Harmsway. I gather THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a classic. Would you agree?

[Harmsway]

Thanks, Harmsway. I gather THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a classic. Would you agree?

I abhor THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, actually, despite convential wisdom holding it up as a classic (though there has been a lot of controversy over it). It's why I didn't recommend it.

Despite having an important place in the character's history, it hasn't aged well. THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is Frank Miller on full self-indulgence mode. Everything I detest about Frank Miller is in full-force in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, but on an even more muddled and confused scale than usual. In keeping with the majority of Miller's writing, it has about as much subtlety as a sledgehammer, and enough silliness and overblown style to make SIN CITY look restrained. I'm rather concerned that if you read THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, it will turn you off from the character and graphic novels altogether.

If you are going to check out one of the vaunted classics, I'd suggest BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN, as I mentioned above. If you're dead set on reading a Miller Batman story, YEAR ONE is the only worthwhile entry. Both are more widely accepted these days than THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and are good degree better. But actually, all of the ones I've cited on my initial list are fanboy-approved "sacred cows."

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

If you are going to check out one of the vaunted classics, I'd suggest BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN, as I mentioned above. If you're dead set on reading a Miller Batman story, YEAR ONE is the only worthwhile entry. Both are more widely accepted these days than THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and are good degree better. But actually, all of the ones I've cited on my initial list are fanboy-approved "sacred cows."

Should also check out Dark Victory, the sequel to TLH and Haunted Knight. Hush is also a good title. I would recommend starting with Batman Year One then read TLH and DV. Think of it as Year One, Two and Three.

[Harmsway]

Oh, ASO, I quite agree as far as the quality of those titles. I regard BATMAN: YEAR ONE, BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN, and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY as sort of a "holy Batman trilogy" that establishes the character very well. In fact, any of the Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale collaborations are often valuable (their SUPERMAN: FOR ALL SEASONS is a masterpiece, and probably their best work together).

But I was merely recommending starting places... and thus you need something good and pretty arresting. I think LONG HALLOWEEN (and some of the other titles I recommended - ala THE KILLING JOKE) is a good place to start - I know quite a few people who got into Batman comics because of that one, and it's more entertaining than the often too-grim YEAR ONE.

As for BATMAN: HUSH, well, it's entertaining, but would be immensely confusing to a Batman novice, because of the sheer amount of history and character knowledge it demands.

[DaveBond21]

I realise that I should check out Batman Begins.