205 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

I think you could accomplish bringing the past and the present together in a "realistic" fashion.

I don't think I'm understanding you. How, exactly, would you suggest going about that?

[Mister E]

I think you could accomplish bringing the past and the present together in a "realistic" fashion.

I don't think I'm understanding you. How, exactly, would you suggest going about that?

Maybe not the Timm "dark deco" but like we see the flavor of the 30's and 40's in the atmosphere but conscious of a modern world.

Edited by Mister E, 20 July 2008 - 05:28 AM.

[Harmsway]

Maybe not the Timm "dark deco" but like we see the flavor of the 30's and 40's in the atmosphere but conscious of a modern world.

You mean more like, say, SEVEN? If so, that would be one way to go about it. If David Fincher ever tackles Batman, and he'd be my #1 choice to pick up after Nolan, I could see it going that route. And I'd be happy about it.

But I'm satisfied with the "Batman as done by Michael Mann" style of THE DARK KNIGHT. It's not the only way to do it, and we'll get many more visions of Gotham in the future, but it works. It's nice to see a Batman that feels very, very contemporary.

[Mister E]

You mean more like, say, SEVEN? If so, that would be one way to go about it. If David Fincher ever tackles Batman, and he'd be my #1 choice to pick up after Nolan, I could see it going that route. And I'd be happy about it.

Hmm, maybe a little more colour then that but the SEVEN look is good. I was personally thinking more like the "streamline" designs during that 40's era. As for David Fincher, that's an interesting choice.

But I'm satisfied with the "Batman as done by Michael Mann" style of THE DARK KNIGHT. It's not the only way to do it, and we'll get many more visions of Gotham in the future, but it works. It's nice to see a Batman that feels very, very contemporary.

True, it did work.

[tdalton]

Out of those listed in the poll, I'd have to say that BATMAN (1989) and Michael Keaton are my favorites. I do think, however, that BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM gives BATMAN a good competition for that top spot as the best Batman film.

[DR76]

Then we have Rachael. I was glad Holmes was gone, but Gyllenhaal was only marginally better. To be frank she still irritated me much like Holmes did in Begins.

Frankly, I thought that Gyllenhaal was no better or worse than Holmes. But at least Holmes' Rachel didn't seem overshadowed like Gyllenhaal's did at times.

[Safari Suit]

I certainly find the 66 film to be the most enjoyable. Val Kilmer was my favourite Batman, even though the film was deeply flawed. I agree with the praise for Phantasm.

[bond 16.05.72]

I haven't seen DK yet but I wouldn't being presumptious to say it will be at the the top of my list from next Friday onwards.

mine would be.

1. Batman Begins 4/5
2. Batman Mask of the Phantasm 3 and a half/5
3. Batman Returns 3/5
4. Batman 89 2/5
5. Batman 66 1/5
6. Batman Forever 1/2/5
7. Batman & Robin 0/5

Begins was easily the best, yes I recognise it's flaws and will probably notice it more after watching DK, the first half of the film is definitley the best. The 2nd half dips a little and the train sequence is reminiscent of the end of Spiderman 2 but much better in my opinion. Bale's Bats & Wayne easily the best. Oldman's Gordon wipes Pat Hingle's pathetic attempt from the face of the earth and Caine's Alfred is so much more engaging than Gough's stereotypical Butler routine.

I remember much enjoying Phantasm but it was a while ago, might have to pick this up sometime. Returns was easily the best of the earlier films. Keaton seems more comfortable in the role and he doesn't seem so dull. Devito & Phieffier are good value but Walken steals the film with his psychotic Max Shrek

Batman 89 is so overrated, Nicholson's lazy hammy Joker completley hijacks the movie and not in a good way. Keaton's Bats is ok but his Wayne dosen't convince. The film never flows and comes across like the Matrix Reloaded, a collection of action sequences strung to together with no coherence and not really making sense. Returns doesn't really have a plot yes but apart from the origin of Batman with Nicholsons Napier having killed Waynes parents, the plot is non existent. The only redeeming features are Furst's gothic designs & Elfman's iconic score. Having said that Nolan's films wouldn't work with this kind of score, they are too light and having too much fun and would not gel with Nolan's take.

Batman Forever although makes B89 seem quite competent, nothing about this film is any good Kilmer's not right for Wayne or Batman and the villains are poor, Carey was so wrong for the Riddler and Lee Jones was really insulting himself accepting such a poorly written character and as for Chris Odonnell, well I don't need to go there. Schumacher is like Tamarhori of the Batman films, he all but ruins the franachise, although worst was to come

What can be said about Batman & Robin what hasn't already said, it a piece of excrement and thats kind, Maybe Cloooney could have made a good Wayne & Batman but there is no sign of it here. Arnie & Thurman just awful, Silverstone's Batgirl has most likely put paid to another Director attempting this character for some time and Odonnell just gets worse. Joe's day glo neon nightmare is only matched by another Warner's flick Avengers in the sheer awfulness stakes, both featured Thurman, I hope she sacked her agent after those choices.

It is amazing to think some posters ranking of these films, I did go to see all of these at the cinema with the exception of Phantasm and paying to see B&R will always haunt me, Forever I enjoyed initially but a recent viewing made me wonder how I could have been so easily pleased. B89 was enjoyable the first time round but a 2nd viewing outside of the hype showed it's flaws an each subsequent viewing has magnified them. Thanks goodness Ledger has been allowed to portray The Joker properly unlike Nicholson's showboating, wanna see Jack act then watch Chinantown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or the Shinning. Jack Torrance channeled into Nicholson's performance could have been something special instead of the drunk uncle act we got.

As I said DK will probably take the top spot from Friday onwards, I'm not a big graphic novel reader and have read few of them, Arkham Asylum & Dark Knight Returns but it seems to me Nolan has captured the character and essence better than Burton & Schmacher could dream of doing.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 20 July 2008 - 02:08 PM.

[Harmsway]

Then we have Rachael. I was glad Holmes was gone, but Gyllenhaal was only marginally better. To be frank she still irritated me much like Holmes did in Begins.

Frankly, I thought that Gyllenhaal was no better or worse than Holmes.

I thought Gyllenhaal's Rachel was much better and more interesting than anything Holmes did with the part. At least she was believable. Holmes' Rachel wasn't.

[sharpshooter]

More likable as well I'd say. Holmes as Rachael was one of my annoyances in Begins. A character which I thought was a lost cause was given a new lease of life in TDK. She was at least integral to one of the main characters development.

[jaguar007]

So, I see there is no love for Mickey G's dad

[Loomis]

Maybe not the Timm "dark deco" but like we see the flavor of the 30's and 40's in the atmosphere but conscious of a modern world.

You mean more like, say, SEVEN? If so, that would be one way to go about it. If David Fincher ever tackles Batman, and he'd be my #1 choice to pick up after Nolan, I could see it going that route. And I'd be happy about it.

But I'm satisfied with the "Batman as done by Michael Mann" style of THE DARK KNIGHT. It's not the only way to do it, and we'll get many more visions of Gotham in the future, but it works. It's nice to see a Batman that feels very, very contemporary.

How about Tim Burton as Nolan's replacement?

[Harmsway]

How about Tim Burton as Nolan's replacement?

Are you joking or serious? I can't tell. I know you're not a Burton fan.

But if you're serious, well, no. IMO, Burton doesn't really "get" Batman, and he's not a good storyteller. It's no mistake that both of his Batman films were, narratively speaking, complete messes.

[DR76]

More likable as well I'd say. Holmes as Rachael was one of my annoyances in Begins. A character which I thought was a lost cause was given a new lease of life in TDK. She was at least integral to one of the main characters development.

What new lease of life for the Rachel character? I didn't really see it. Actually, Rachel's character in TDK was almost in danger of being shoved into the background during several parts of the movie. This is not Gyllenhaal's fault, but the writer.

But as to who was the better Rachel Dawes . . . sorry, but I don't have a choice. Granted, both Holmes and Gyllenhaal portrayed the character in slightly different styles, I just don't see the difference in quality.

Tim Burton returning as director for the BATMAN saga . . . ugh! I never cared for his take on Batman.

[Harmsway]

What new lease of life for the Rachel character? I didn't really see it.

I did. For once, she actually contributed to the film she was in, big time, and was entirely believable in her role. Holmes' Dawes accomplished neither. She was unconvincing and utterly useless.

[Single-O-Seven]

What new lease of life for the Rachel character? I didn't really see it.

I did. For once, she actually contributed to the film she was in, big time, and was entirely believable in her role. Holmes' Dawes accomplished neither. She was unconvincing and utterly useless.

Holmes was very, er, "nipply" though. She had that going for her at least. But Mags was definitely a better cast, especially when the character became something of a more pivotal part of the plot. What I like about Nolan, and it comes back to the Rachel character, is that he knows when a character has run out of steam and it's time to weed them out, never a moment too late or too soon. What's even stranger is that she felt more significant to the story once she was no longer in it.

[Loomis]

How about Tim Burton as Nolan's replacement?

Are you joking or serious? I can't tell. I know you're not a Burton fan.

But if you're serious, well, no. IMO, Burton doesn't really "get" Batman, and he's not a good storyteller. It's no mistake that both of his Batman films were, narratively speaking, complete messes.

I was serious. Knowing your tremendous love for SWEENEY TODD (in addition to which I gather that you do at least quite like BATMAN RETURNS), I'd assumed that you'd love Burton to return to Batman, a la Campbell coming back to Bond for CASINO ROYALE many years after GOLDENEYE.

Guess not, though.

[Harmsway]

How about Tim Burton as Nolan's replacement?

Are you joking or serious? I can't tell. I know you're not a Burton fan.

But if you're serious, well, no. IMO, Burton doesn't really "get" Batman, and he's not a good storyteller. It's no mistake that both of his Batman films were, narratively speaking, complete messes.

I was serious. Knowing your tremendous love for SWEENEY TODD (in addition to which I gather that you do at least quite like BATMAN RETURNS), I'd assumed that you'd love Burton to return to Batman, a la Campbell coming back to Bond for CASINO ROYALE many years after GOLDENEYE.

Guess not, though.

Well, SWEENEY TODD succeeds because it was already fully-formed before Burton stepped in. All Burton had to do was add the window dressing. And that's why it's his greatest cinematic success. All the work was already done for him!

And I like BATMAN RETURNS in spite of itself. It's not a very good film, objectively speaking, and I'm much happier now. There's just enough about the film that I like to keep me entertained when watching, but that's all.

[tdalton]

How about Tim Burton as Nolan's replacement?

Are you joking or serious? I can't tell. I know you're not a Burton fan.

But if you're serious, well, no. IMO, Burton doesn't really "get" Batman, and he's not a good storyteller. It's no mistake that both of his Batman films were, narratively speaking, complete messes.

I was serious. Knowing your tremendous love for SWEENEY TODD (in addition to which I gather that you do at least quite like BATMAN RETURNS), I'd assumed that you'd love Burton to return to Batman, a la Campbell coming back to Bond for CASINO ROYALE many years after GOLDENEYE.

Guess not, though.

I wouldn't mind Burton making a return, provided that the sets were designed in a much more realistic and non-fake looking way.

[DR76]

Holmes was very, er, "nipply" though. She had that going for her at least. But Mags was definitely a better cast, especially when the character became something of a more pivotal part of the plot.

I guess that's how you feel. But I don't. I don't see the fuss over the claim that Gyllenhaal was better than Holmes. Her role only served a big purpose . . . in the film's last act. And just before that, I almost forgot that she was in the movie. Sorry, but I'm just not jumping on the "Gyllenhaal Was Better Than Holmes" bandwagon.

Edited by DR76, 20 July 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[Harmsway]

Memorability aside, do you really think Holmes was believable as an assistant district attorney? If you do, well fair enough, but I thought she was about as credible an ADA as Denise Richards was as a nuclear scientist.

[Righty007]

Memorability aside, do you really think Holmes was believable as an assistant district attorney? If you do, well fair enough, but I thought she was about as credible an ADA as Denise Richards was as a nuclear scientist.

Holmes was better and I'm impartial because I'm not really a fan of either one of the actresses.

[Harmsway]

Memorability aside, do you really think Holmes was believable as an assistant district attorney? If you do, well fair enough, but I thought she was about as credible an ADA as Denise Richards was as a nuclear scientist.

Holmes was better and I'm impartial because I'm not really a fan of either one of the actresses.

What about Holmes struck you as better?

[Single-O-Seven]

Memorability aside, do you really think Holmes was believable as an assistant district attorney? If you do, well fair enough, but I thought she was about as credible an ADA as Denise Richards was as a nuclear scientist.

Holmes was better and I'm impartial because I'm not really a fan of either one of the actresses.

What about Holmes struck you as better?

More nipples poking against cloth.

[Righty007]

Memorability aside, do you really think Holmes was believable as an assistant district attorney? If you do, well fair enough, but I thought she was about as credible an ADA as Denise Richards was as a nuclear scientist.

Holmes was better and I'm impartial because I'm not really a fan of either one of the actresses.

What about Holmes struck you as better?

Holmes played Dawes as a tough woman whereas it seemed Gyllenhaal was only there as Dent's arm candy. Gyllenhaal's Dawes didn't strike me as the same woman that slapped Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. She is probably a much better actress than Holmes, the Tom Cruise Wackjob, but in this case, Holmes shines.

[Harmsway]

Holmes played Dawes as a tough woman whereas it seemed Gyllenhaal was only there as Dent's arm candy.

I think that's a bit unfair. Rachel takes on Lau with lots of confidence, stands up to the Joker, and isn't shy about confronting Bruce. I think she's her own, tough woman, and far more believable as a tough gal than Holmes (whose awkward, "Yeah, you better run!" pretty much sums up the toughness of her interpretation). Holmes came across as a girl. Gyllenhaal came across as a woman.

Gyllenhaal's Dawes didn't strike me as the same woman that slapped Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

Clearly Gyllenhaal isn't looking to recreate Holmes' performance. She's going her own road, and had she been in BEGINS, she would have probably performed everything a lot differently than Holmes. So naturally there's going to be a disconnect between the two.

I do believe that in the same circumstances, that Gyllenhaal's Dawes wouldn't hesitate to slap Bruce.

[DamnCoffee]

My favorite Batman film is Batman Begins... though I'm going top refrain from voting untill The Dark Knight is released.

[Cruiserweight]

The problem i have with Batman(1989) & Batman Returns is Keaton.
The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman is somewhere around 6'0-6'3 & Keaton is all of 5'9.Way to short to play the role.Favorite actor would have to be Bale.But my favorite Batman theatrical film isn't even listed. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

[Mercator]

Batman & Robin was fun. Clooney was coolest - most like the comic books which I love. I agree with everybody that Michael Keaton was not very good in the role. Reminds me of Daniel (who I like but the film not so).

Edited by Mercator, 21 July 2008 - 09:31 PM.

[The Dove]

Well I give you that Clooney was WAY better than Val Kilmer as Batman..but I much preferred Batman Forever to Batman and Robin..