2081 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I don't understand (and perhaps someone can clear this up for me) the entire discussion about Batman's "one rule". The one thing that really irritates me about BATMAN BEGINS (and, from the clips of THE DARK KNIGHT that I've seen, that film as well) is that Batman often goes out of his way to put ordinary people in danger. In BEGINS when he's escaping with Rachel, he runs over a squad car with his tank, completely crushing it, and if there was not a follow up shot of the two officers inside radioing for backup, then I would have just assumed that nobody made it out of that car. Then, later, he's dropping explosives out of the tank for the police to run over, sending their cars flying through the air, another situation in which his "one rule" could easily have been broken.

Yes, I would, for the most part, agree here. It's true that Wayne later says he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, but that's like driving home drunk because you didn't have cash to pay for a cab. It's needlessly reckless. I know Batman was in a hurry, but nearly killing a bunch of cops to save Rachel kind of goes against his crime frighting mores. After all, he's supposed to be on the same side as the police.

Agreed. And it's also why it just completely confuses me as to why the police tolerate his presence in the city. Up until he sends Duccard and the train flying off the tracks, he had done significantly more damage to the police in the film than he did to any of the villains. Even at the end of the film I felt as though Gordon should have been arresting Batman rather than rewarding him with the Bat signal and asking for his help with the Joker.

[killkenny kid]

Wow, it's a movie folks. And a DAMN fine one at that. Enjoy.

[Harmsway]

Wow, it's a movie folks. And a DAMN fine one at that. Enjoy.

Yeah. There's a level of scrutiny to apply to a film like BATMAN BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT, and you can quite easily go beyond it.

[tdalton]

It's hypocritical. It's not a big deal for me, but yes, it's hypocritical (moreso in BEGINS than in THE DARK KNIGHT, though). Not quite as hypocritical as the whole "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you" moment, though. That one's a head scratcher.

I didn't particularly like that moment either, especially as Batman's whole ideal, as explained just before he saves Duccard in the beginning of the film, is that he wants the villains to face justice and by tried in a court of law. This and what I was saying in my previous post is a very big reason as to why I can't enjoy BATMAN BEGINS. The portrayal of both Batman and Bruce Wayne doesn't do a whole lot for me, and this moments where Batman is no better than the villains that he supposedly trying to stop really makes me wonder what the point was in even making the film. If Nolan had decided to make Batman THE villain in THE DARK KNIGHT, I would not have been surprised given the way he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS, as he does as much, if not more, damage to the city and the police force than Scarecrow and Duccard put together.

Edited by tdalton, 20 July 2008 - 05:34 PM.

[killkenny kid]

And new weekend record holder!

http://www.cnn.com/2...t.ap/index.html

[Harmsway]

The portrayal of both Batman and Bruce Wayne doesn't do a whole lot for me, and this moments where Batman is no better than the villains that he supposedly trying to stop really makes me wonder what the point was in even making the film.

Nolan suggested that this was the theme of the film: "The struggle and the conflict between the desire for personal gratification or vengeance and the greater good for a constructive, positive sort—something more universal. Because Batman is limited by being an ordinary man, there's a constant tension between pragmatism and idealism." I think that's what that final scene is trying to get at.

Still doesn't fit easily with the other things said in the film, though, or things said in THE DARK KNIGHT. If you try hard enough, you can reconcile them, I think, but I don't have a lot of patience for such fanwankery. And to be honest, I don't have any real problem with the potential casualties in the action sequences (we're clearly not meant to apply such an intense level of scrutiny), but I do have a problem with that line, though. It's obviously broken.

What makes BEGINS worth watching, for me, is the Bruce/Alfred relationship and the small character moments. There's enough that they redeem the film. But the film has big issues, otherwise.

If Nolan had decided to make Batman THE villain in THE DARK KNIGHT, I would not have been surprised given the way he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS, as he does as much, if not more, damage to the city and the police force than Scarecrow and Duccard put together.

Now that's one heck of an exaggeration. He hurts some cop cars and concrete barriers and suddenly he's caused a city-wide disaster the scale of the Narrows incident? Come on now.

[tdalton]

If Nolan had decided to make Batman THE villain in THE DARK KNIGHT, I would not have been surprised given the way he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS, as he does as much, if not more, damage to the city and the police force than Scarecrow and Duccard put together.

Now that's one heck of an exaggeration. He hurts some cop cars and concrete barriers and suddenly he's caused a city-wide disaster the scale of the Narrows incident? Come on now.

No, he didn't cause a disaster like that, that's why I said up to that particular point in the film, he had done more damage than the villains had. It still doesn't justify Gordon turning to Batman at the end of the film by asking for his help with the Joker. To me, Batman in BATMAN BEGINS is not the kind of vigilante that the police would, or should, put up with, and he should have been arrested at the end of the film rather than given the Bat signal, no matter how much good he may have done towards the end of the film.

What makes BEGINS worth watching, for me, is the Bruce/Alfred relationship and the small character moments. There's enough that they redeem the film. But the film has big issues, otherwise.

I didn't particularly like this aspect of the film either. I very much liked Michael Caine's portrayal of Alfred, but the portrayal of Bruce Wayne in the film doesn't do much for me at all. I'm not saying that it's not a faithful portrayal of whatever source Nolan is pulling the material from for BATMAN BEGINS, but I much prefer the portrayals where Bruce Wayne is more down to earth and not as arrogant as he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS.

[bond 16.05.72]

I don't understand (and perhaps someone can clear this up for me) the entire discussion about Batman's "one rule". The one thing that really irritates me about BATMAN BEGINS (and, from the clips of THE DARK KNIGHT that I've seen, that film as well) is that Batman often goes out of his way to put ordinary people in danger. In BEGINS when he's escaping with Rachel, he runs over a squad car with his tank, completely crushing it, and if there was not a follow up shot of the two officers inside radioing for backup, then I would have just assumed that nobody made it out of that car. Then, later, he's dropping explosives out of the tank for the police to run over, sending their cars flying through the air, another situation in which his "one rule" could easily have been broken.

Yes, I would, for the most part, agree here. It's true that Wayne later says he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, but that's like driving home drunk because you didn't have cash to pay for a cab. It's needlessly reckless. I know Batman was in a hurry, but nearly killing a bunch of cops to save Rachel kind of goes against his crime frighting mores. After all, he's supposed to be on the same side as the police.

Agreed. And it's also why it just completely confuses me as to why the police tolerate his presence in the city. Up until he sends Duccard and the train flying off the tracks, he had done significantly more damage to the police in the film than he did to any of the villains. Even at the end of the film I felt as though Gordon should have been arresting Batman rather than rewarding him with the Bat signal and asking for his help with the Joker.

Your just nitpicking now to justify your crticism of Batman Begins, like some have said it's a film, Burton's efforts has so many more moments like this.

[Harmsway]

If Nolan had decided to make Batman THE villain in THE DARK KNIGHT, I would not have been surprised given the way he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS, as he does as much, if not more, damage to the city and the police force than Scarecrow and Duccard put together.

Now that's one heck of an exaggeration. He hurts some cop cars and concrete barriers and suddenly he's caused a city-wide disaster the scale of the Narrows incident? Come on now.

No, he didn't cause a disaster like that, that's why I said up to that particular point in the film, he had done more damage than the villains had.

In purely physical terms, yes. And it's why Alfred chews him out about it.

It still doesn't justify Gordon turning to Batman at the end of the film by asking for his help with the Joker.

Well, he knew the whole story. He knew what Batman had done for the Narrows attack, and he knew why Batman was in such a rush during that chase. He sees Batman, rightly, as a force mostly for good.

To me, Batman in BATMAN BEGINS is not the kind of vigilante that the police would, or should, put up with, and he should have been arrested at the end of the film rather than given the Bat signal, no matter how much good he may have done towards the end of the film.

I suppose then, that you failed to gather that Gordon was acting on his own, disobeying his superiors. Even at the beginning of THE DARK KNIGHT, official police policy is to arrest Batman on sight.

I'm not saying that it's not a faithful portrayal of whatever source Nolan is pulling the material from for BATMAN BEGINS, but I much prefer the portrayals where Bruce Wayne is more down to earth and not as arrogant as he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS.

I actually see Bale's Bruce Wayne as the noblest, most heroic, and most believable cinematic portrayal of the character. There's not much noble or heroic or believable about Keaton's Wayne/Batman.

[Single-O-Seven]

I don't understand (and perhaps someone can clear this up for me) the entire discussion about Batman's "one rule". The one thing that really irritates me about BATMAN BEGINS (and, from the clips of THE DARK KNIGHT that I've seen, that film as well) is that Batman often goes out of his way to put ordinary people in danger. In BEGINS when he's escaping with Rachel, he runs over a squad car with his tank, completely crushing it, and if there was not a follow up shot of the two officers inside radioing for backup, then I would have just assumed that nobody made it out of that car. Then, later, he's dropping explosives out of the tank for the police to run over, sending their cars flying through the air, another situation in which his "one rule" could easily have been broken.

Yes, I would, for the most part, agree here. It's true that Wayne later says he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, but that's like driving home drunk because you didn't have cash to pay for a cab. It's needlessly reckless. I know Batman was in a hurry, but nearly killing a bunch of cops to save Rachel kind of goes against his crime frighting mores. After all, he's supposed to be on the same side as the police.

Agreed. And it's also why it just completely confuses me as to why the police tolerate his presence in the city. Up until he sends Duccard and the train flying off the tracks, he had done significantly more damage to the police in the film than he did to any of the villains. Even at the end of the film I felt as though Gordon should have been arresting Batman rather than rewarding him with the Bat signal and asking for his help with the Joker.

Your just nitpicking now to justify your crticism of Batman Begins, like some have said it's a film, Burton's efforts has so many more moments like this.

I am nitpicking, you're right! But don't get me wrong. I absolutely love BB and TDK. I think the films are well done, and that they've taken Batman in a great direction. I just enjoy pointing out the irony between what Batman does and what he claims to be doing!

[tdalton]

I'm not saying that it's not a faithful portrayal of whatever source Nolan is pulling the material from for BATMAN BEGINS, but I much prefer the portrayals where Bruce Wayne is more down to earth and not as arrogant as he's portrayed in BATMAN BEGINS.

I actually see Bale's Bruce Wayne as the noblest, most heroic, and most believable cinematic portrayal of the character. There's not much noble or heroic or believable about Keaton's Wayne/Batman.

I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see Bale's Bruce Wayne at all that way. If we're just talking about portrayals of Bruce Wayne, then I would have to say that I prefer George Clooney's take on him than the others (although, as a total package, I prefer Michael Keaton). Granted, Clooney's Batman wasn't good at all (although he really wasn't given much of an opportunity for success anyway), but I quite liked his Bruce Wayne, especially his interactions with Alfred which were, IMO, quite good.

[Harmsway]

I don't see Bale's Bruce Wayne at all that way.

How can you not? He's a guy who chooses self-denial over personal gratification, choosing to devote himself toward saving a city most folks view as entirely lost. That's noble and heroic. Much better than the personal gratification/psychosis/social oddity of Keaton's Wayne/Batman.

If we're just talking about portrayals of Bruce Wayne, then I would have to say that I prefer George Clooney's take on him than the others (although, as a total package, I prefer Michael Keaton).

Clooney's too much of a "normal dude" to be believable as Wayne. He in no way is convincing as a guy who take on a lifelong, self-sacrificial, life-endangering crusade. In one comic, Wayne/Batman is referred to as the "zenith of human fortitude and ambition." Only Bale has captured that.

[tdalton]

I don't see Bale's Bruce Wayne at all that way.

How can you not? He's a guy who chooses self-denial over personal gratification, choosing to devote himself toward saving a city most folks view as entirely lost. That's noble and heroic. Much better than the personal gratification/psychosis/social oddity of Keaton's Wayne/Batman.

I just don't particularly care for the way that Bruce Wayne talks down to people in the film. He's quite disrespectful to Lucius Fox throughout the film as he, as Fox puts it, treats him like an idiot. He's that way with virtually everyone he interacts with apart from Alfred and Rachel throughout the film. I just don't care for that portrayal, and obviously many, many others do, and that's perfectly fine. I'll just wait for the next reboot or whatever change of direction is coming down the road for the franchise.

[Vauxhall]

It's great reading everyone's reviews. Thanks for posting them.

Friday evening at 8.30pm is when I've booked my tickets for THE DARK KNIGHT. I'm going to try and watch as many of the other five Batman movies between now and then.

[Harmsway]

I just don't particularly care for the way that Bruce Wayne talks down to people in the film. He's quite disrespectful to Lucius Fox throughout the film as he, as Fox puts it, treats him like an idiot.

Only because he's pretending to be Bruce Wayne, the high class, arrogant jerk. That's his facade, his disguise to keep people from thinking he's at all Batman. That's not the genuine Bruce Wayne. The real Bruce Wayne is the one he shares with Rachel and Alfred.

And after Fox makes that comment, he drops that image. They suddenly become chums. This is even clearer in THE DARK KNIGHT.

[DR76]

Oh, now this is just getting ridiculous. THE DARK KNIGHT is already at number four on the IMDb's 250 top movies list!!!!!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/...t/top?tt0468569

Here's the top ten:

1. 9.1 The Godfather (1972)
2. 9.1 The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. 9.0 The Dark Knight (2008)
5. 8.9 Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
6. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994)
7. 8.8 Schindler's List (1993)
8. 8.8 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
9. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
10. 8.8 Casablanca (1942)

Right then, I may be ignorant but I'm not stupid, so.... what's the catch? Should we all just surrender to THE DARK KNIGHT right away? I mean, is it the greatest thing since sliced bread? Is resistance futile?

Give me a break!!! Are they serious? Good grief! Talk about a movie being overappreciated. It was a good film, but it wasn't that good.

I feel this movie could have been better than BATMAN BEGINS. Unfortunately, it has two major flaws . . . the story’s morality tale, especially in regard to the Harvey Dent character, ended up being handled in a heavy-handed manner. I found the viewpoint that Dent was Gotham’s “white knight” and the situation regarding the two ferry boats a little ridiculous. And quite frankly, Nolan took this story just “a bridge too far”. I’m not referring to the movie’s running time. I’m referring how the story’s final act came off as a tacked-on finale. Dent’s transformation into “Two-Faced Harvey” could have been handled in a third film.

Despite these flaws, "THE DARK KNIGHT" was an excellent, though intense and gloomy film.

[Harmsway]

You're not the only reviewer to feel that way, but I think it ignores what the point of the film is. THE DARK KNIGHT is Dent's film, all the way through, and the film wouldn't work without the Two-Face story. That conclusion was anything but tacked on - it was the resolution of everything that came before it.

[tdalton]

I just don't particularly care for the way that Bruce Wayne talks down to people in the film. He's quite disrespectful to Lucius Fox throughout the film as he, as Fox puts it, treats him like an idiot.

Only because he's pretending to be Bruce Wayne, the high class, arrogant jerk.

This will be my last post on this particular subject since it has nothing to do with THE DARK KNIGHT and I'm sure that there are other things that everyone would rather be discussing, but it's Wayne's pretending to be the high class, arrogant jerk that really puts me off. I'm not sure that pretending to be a jerk is the only way to get people to think that you're not Batman. I've always been surprised, though, that the general public or the police never figured out that Wayne was Batman anyway. With all of the gadgets and high-tech things that Batman uses, it would take someone with extraordinary wealth to conduct such an operation, and that person would most likely live within the city and have to be somewhat young and athletic, which would, I think, significantly narrow down the number of people that could potentially be Batman.

Anyway, perhaps this particular version of Batman just isn't for me, and I'm not going to waste anyone else's time by constantly bringing the threads towards the negative side.

[Harmsway]

I'm not sure that pretending to be a jerk is the only way to get people to think that you're not Batman.

It's not, but it's a mighty effective way.

I've always been surprised, though, that the general public or the police never figured out that Wayne was Batman anyway. With all of the gadgets and high-tech things that Batman uses, it would take someone with extraordinary wealth to conduct such an operation, and that person would most likely live within the city and have to be somewhat young and athletic, which would, I think, significantly narrow down the number of people that could potentially be Batman.

See THE DARK KNIGHT for reference to that story point.

And in the comics, Wayne's been pinned down a few times but manages to escape through deception. But for the most part, it's about suspension of disbelief. Batman never can be, and never will be, completely realistic. These stories are fantasy.

[Single-O-Seven]

I was surprised with Dent's finale. I thought Two-Face was meant to return as the primary villain of B3, but now realise finishing him off was the right thing to do. After all, his character's arc was well-completed within the TDK. To carry him on might be overkill, as there's nothing else he can really do unless they make the character suddenly more evil and involve him in a grander scheme, which would be outside what they established with the character.

Leaving the Joker open for a return is a good idea, as he was always Batman's arch-nemisis. To have him return for B3 might be too soon. I know a lot of people feel nobody can top Ledger, which is possibly true, but if the character was held back until B4 or B5 (if the series goes that long) that would open a gap of six to nine years. This might be enough for a new actor to ease into the role without Ledger's performance overshadowing it too much.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's hypocritical. It's not a big deal for me, but yes, it's hypocritical (moreso in BEGINS than in THE DARK KNIGHT, though). Not quite as hypocritical as the whole "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you" moment, though. That one's a head scratcher.

I don't know why that line gets so much #@$%. It makes sense to me. He doesn't kill per principal but he also doesn't have any obligation to save anyone (who happens to be evil).Batman is independant. He's not a doctor or firefighter. I liked that line. It makes perferct sense to me and it's one of my favorite moments of Begins, which is taking an unfair retroactive beating these days in the wake of TDK. The movie is still an excellent issue # 1.

[Gobi-1]

I'm surprised at the Batman Begins backlash. Makes me wonder why everyone was anticipating The Dark Knight so much if they apparently hated the first film. I chalk this up to fanboys feeling they have to dump on another film just to make their current favorite look better.

Personally I feel Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are equally good.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I'm surprised at the Batman Begins backlash. Makes me wonder why everyone was anticipating The Dark Knight so much if they apparently hated the first film. I chalk this up to fanboys feeling they have to dump on another film just to make their current favorite look better.

Personally I feel Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are equally good.

I prefer my sequels to be better than their predecessors and TDK is better, the way FRWL is superior to Dr. No. Doesn't make me not love Dr. No!

[Harmsway]

I'm surprised at the Batman Begins backlash.

Well, as much as I like BEGINS (and I still do, honestly), I've generally been very open about its flaws. One can criticize something they enjoy.

Makes me wonder why everyone was anticipating The Dark Knight so much if they apparently hated the first film.

The reason I was so extremely excited about THE DARK KNIGHT is that THE DARK KNIGHT held the promise of rectifying BEGINS' flaws. And it did, so I'm quite happy, indeed.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Namely Katie Holmes. Maggie Gyllehthal was damn good.I totally belived she was an assistant D.A. unlike that other actress who looked like she was just out of law school.

[Mister E]

I was surprised with Dent's finale. I thought Two-Face was meant to return as the primary villain of B3, but now realise finishing him off was the right thing to do. After all, his character's arc was well-completed within the TDK. To carry him on might be overkill, as there's nothing else he can really do unless they make the character suddenly more evil and involve him in a grander scheme, which would be outside what they established with the character.

I agree. I think they should have done the same in DARK VICTORY as well because TWO-FACE's motivations are about revenge again the mob. I don't think it ever made much sense for him to cook up grand schemes, he should been more like opposite of Batman.

Spoiler

I liked that too. What I also liked was when Joker crawls out of the truck, he stands in the middle of the street, screaming ‘hit me!’ taunting Batman to run him down. What happens next is a classic Joker moment; Joker refuses to move, Batman stands down adhering to his no killing policy, and swerves out of the way. In doing so, he falls off the bike and is rendered unconscious. Joker essentially ‘wins’ without doing a thing, and moves over to take care of Batman – before being arrested by Gordon. This is much better than the similar Batman (1989) moment, where Batman swoops down in the Batwing and opens fire on Joker, only to be shot down. There, he looks incompetent with his missile aim (that or his equipment is faulty )and a killer – neither which he is. He could be trying to intimidate the Joker, but I don't see him taking that risk.

Yeah both scenes are simular and executed wonderfully.

Indeed. The scene in Batman Forever with Two Face re flipping his coin for the scarred side is downright insulting to the character. Tommy Lee Jones' intepretation itself was insulting to the character. He was playing The Joker, not Two Face.

The sadder thing is Tommy Lee Jones could have been a wonderful Two-Face. He had the right looks to be Harvey Dent.

Edited by Mister E, 20 July 2008 - 11:15 PM.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Indeed. The scene in Batman Forever with Two Face re flipping his coin for the scarred side is downright insulting to the character. Tommy Lee Jones' intepretation itself was insulting to the character. He was playing The Joker, not Two Face.

The sadder thing is Tommy Lee Jones could have been a wonderful Two-Face. He had the right looks to be Harvey Dent.

I've always held that opinion as well. Not his fault, really; it's pretty obvious that it was one of the many things in the film that fell victim to studio interference.

Anyway, I caught the fillum on Friday night. Epic and masterfully executed in all departments, to say the least. I have no complaints thus far. Also one of the best moviegoing experiences of my life; the IMAX screen combined with the audience (nobody made a peep when the WB logo came up; you could literally hear a pin drop) made for one helluva good 2 1/2 hours. A landmark in the comic book and crime film categories.

10/10

[tdalton]

The sadder thing is Tommy Lee Jones could have been a wonderful Two-Face. He had the right looks to be Harvey Dent.

Agreed. Tommy Lee Jones could have been a very good Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and had he been in a film that was closer in style and tone to the first two films, he could have been for Harvey Dent/Two-Face what Jack Nicholson was for the Joker.

I don't think, however, that Jones was particularly bad in BATMAN FOREVER either. Considering what he had to work with (the stylistic direction that the film took), he did quite well with it, and was a better villain in that particular film than was the Riddler. I think that a BATMAN FOREVER that was directed by Tim Burton and featured Michael Keaton as Batman and Tommy Lee Jones as a more serious Two-Face would have been fantastic and could have been the best film in the franchise by a significant margin.

Edited by tdalton, 21 July 2008 - 01:50 AM.

[Harmsway]

I don't think, however, that Jones was particularly bad in BATMAN FOREVER either.

I think he's lazy, uninteresting, and makes shambles of a good character. The character wasn't written well, but it's really Jones who pushes the character into awfulness.

I think that a BATMAN FOREVER that was directed by Tim Burton and featured Michael Keaton as Batman and Tommy Lee Jones as a more serious Two-Face would have been fantastic and could have been the best film in the franchise by a significant margin.

Any Burton Two-Face film would have featured Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent (and Burton did toy with the idea after BATMAN RETURNS, before he was pretty much told he wasn't wanted back).

But I'm convinced no Burton Batfilm would ever have been up to snuff. The man just can't create a coherent, solid narrative. It seems to be entirely beyond his ability to do so. Both his Batfilms, B89 and BR, suffer from incredibly weak stories that are a mess of unfollowed avenues and random ideas. I'm glad he left.

[tdalton]

I don't think, however, that Jones was particularly bad in BATMAN FOREVER either.

I think he's lazy, uninteresting, and makes shambles of a good character. The character wasn't written well, but it's really Jones who pushes the character into awfulness.

I think that a BATMAN FOREVER that was directed by Tim Burton and featured Michael Keaton as Batman and Tommy Lee Jones as a more serious Two-Face would have been fantastic and could have been the best film in the franchise by a significant margin.

Any Burton Two-Face film would have featured Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent (and Burton did toy with the idea after BATMAN RETURNS, before he was pretty much told he wasn't wanted back).

I thought that it was more the direction that Schumacher took the films than it was the particular actors that made the villain portrayals subpar. Looking at the four actors who portrayed villains in Schumacher's films (Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), they're all good actors who are capable of bringing very good portrayals of characters to the screen, but yet they all portray their characters in BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN & ROBIN as being way over-the-top, which makes me think that this was the way that Schumacher wanted it rather than a conscious decision on the part of any of the actors to take it upon themselves to take their characters in that direction.

I do agree that a BATMAN FOREVER by Tim Burton would have featured Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, but I was just saying that Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face in a Tim Burton (or another director making a Batman film in a similar style) would have been very good.