|
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 23, 2008 at 3:24pm
Awwww...aren't you a sweetie...yes, you've just obliterated me by basically recycling the same redundancies I have heard over and over again. That's what I love is that you idiots never change...you never get any more intelligible with your problems with a critical review of something. All you do is repeat the same things over and over again. It's like you fucking people have a club for losers. But, that's fine. It really doesn't make a difference to me what you think of one of my reviews...I just love sparring with morons from time to time. I have plenty of people who read my work online and in print and they seem to be pretty okay with what I have to say about film...so, when a pompous little ass like yourself comes along and tries to wag his tail in my face, it tickles me.
You're about as much a real \"Batman\" fan as I am a Laker girl. You're just a poser...a wannabe...the real 'hack'. Have nothing to do but surf around the net all day, finding reviews to pick apart because they don't meet your standard of 'excellence', which judging by these remarks is probably only half a notch about \"Jury Duty\". So, keep up the good work. It's morons like you who make a critic's job worth doing.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 23, 2008 at 3:27pm
Oh...and the most humorous thing about this whole ridiculous diatribe is that I actually have this film a positive review.
|
The Red Clover
|
Posted: July 23, 2008 at 6:24pm
Hah! If that's the best you can come up with then I feel sorry for your so called \"subscribers.\" I do hope your print is a tad more eligible then your horrendous punctuation habits here in your replies. Poor thing, so unaware of when you've been out-classed. xD
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 23, 2008 at 6:59pm
Oh, child...grow up. Out-classed? Go back to your WarCraft with all of the other nothings.
|
Cryptorchild
|
Posted: July 24, 2008 at 3:47am
Yeah seriously. Just agree to disagree. You both enjoyed the movie to one degree or another. Fucking get over it. Damn, you're both acting like little kids. Anyway, I finally had the pleasure of watching this movie ther other night. Firts off, I hate comic book movies. Always have, always will. I couldn't give two shits about Batman or any other superhero out there. There was one reason and one reason only that I saw this movie and enjoyed it. The Joker. To ME personally, he stole the movie. I thought he was amazing. And that's just my opinioin, which to be honest does not mean anything to anyone. And that suits me just fine. I really enjoyed this movie a lot and I would gladly recomend it to anyone.
|
Ginose
|
Posted: July 26, 2008 at 11:40am
I know my comics back and forth. I've been reading \"Batman\" since early childhood. I have an undying love of the characters and stories that few would understand and still consider me a normal human-being, and I, like Billy Ray, did enjoy the movie, but it was not a damn masterpeice... hell, I'll play middle man to their hillariously pointless argument and say that Burton's movies weren't fucking amazing, either. \"Batman Returns\" was great, but not a classic worth remembering.
As a fanboy supreme I STILL managed to judge this movie by filmmaking quality rather than \"OMG BATMAN/JOKER/TWOFACE ZOMG!?!!/1!/1?1?!\" factor. I wish others would do the same. If you judge it as an action movie, it's not incredible... hell, if you judge it as a hardcore Batman comic-nerd then you'll probablly find even more things to gripe about.
Speaking of which, what's all this bullshit about canon? You want canon? Jack's Joker is much more canon than Ledger's because, how can I put this... oh yes: HE WAS A CLOWN! He was a psycho, yes, but a funny one. A witty one. A psycho-criminal with tons of camp because that's what gave him personality. Ledger was, as I stated, merely a psychotic thug. That's all. I liked it, but I would have liked the actual Joker much better than this... thing... all in all, I did like Ledger's performance over Nicholson's, but that doesn't mean I liked his charecter more. The biggest kick in the balls to \"real fans\" of the comics is how much the director/writer is willing to sacrifice from the source material in order to humanize the characters.
Christ, Burton is not a hack.. he's done... a few good movies... And, I did LIKE Keaton as Batman, I didn't care for his Wayne, mostly because there's really not a role I've seen him in that he doesn't come across as (accidently or not) too funny for his own good. There wasn't alot of seriousness in his role as a whole.
Good movie. Not amazing.
And why am I feeding this fire? Because I'm a damned nerd, that's why.
|
Rik
|
Posted: July 27, 2008 at 8:55am
Call me crazy, but I thougt Val Kilmer made a great Batman.
\"It's the car right? Chicks love the car.\"
|
Vash
|
Posted: July 27, 2008 at 7:00pm
not to flog a dead horse, but...
- i loved the movie, but it is not the movie people seem to think it is. i'd love to have seen it (and the box office results) in a world where ledger was still alive. plot holes, unnecessary bloat and inconsistencies create issues. hong kong sequence, vigilante subplot and constant use of \"everyone is corrupt!\" twists were excessive.
- \"realistic batman\" movies render the character of batman useless, as evidenced by the fact that the movie focuses far more on gordon, dent and the joker than it does on batman. joker still manages to work in the \"realistic\" realm of the movie, whereas batman merely provides the action center. all superheroes are inherently ludicrous; removing them from their fantastical habitat only serves to magnify their ridiculousness. the guy dresses up as a bat, people.
- nolan needs to learn how to zoom out. action sequences, though clearly not the focal point of the movie, were muddy. would prefer more long shots like batman gliding over hong kong, or joker hanging out of the squad car.
- the \"canon\" argument is null and void when dealing with a franchise that is almost 80 years old. west, burton, miller and timm all produced wildly different takes on the material, and no one would call either one into question. (as an aside, you can't use miller's versions as canon anyway, since dark knight returns was \"elseworlds.\")
- ledger is the definitive joker, usurping nicholson's \"iconic\" version, which isn't that far removed from the actor's own persona. oldman and eckhart do amazing work with the unenviable task of playing straightmen in the face of bale and ledger. as for bale, we need more bruce wayne, less batvoice.
- eric roberts!
- all things considered, the movie makes it easy to ignore its own flaws, even upon second viewings. not the best movie ever, or even the best superhero movie ever, but a damn good summer blockbuster.
- bluemeanie is a buttblasting faggot.
- k thx bye
|
Vash
|
Posted: July 27, 2008 at 8:50pm
SPOILER!
also, can someone settle the argument of whether or not two-face is dead? i'm on the record as saying he is not. if he IS, then that's a huge waste of a character that they spent two and a half hours building up. also, they base the movie around this guy, and his denoument is a quick fall off a not-very-high building? this is why i think he's alive. that, and the fact that they didn't actually show him being buried or anything at the memorial. obviously the joker's resolution was left hanging (ha) due to obvious circumstances, but i felt that the two-face thing was way too open-ended. the movie is long anyway, five minutes of exposition at the end of it wouldn't have killed anybody.
bluemeanie sucks, although we do pretty much agree on this movie, so i can't hate on him for that. he still sucks, though.
|
The Red Clover
|
Posted: July 27, 2008 at 10:31pm
Vash -
In my own opinion it would seem that Two-Face is not dead. Nolan hinted earlier in the movie that a fall from that distance wouldn't kill a man when Batman dropped Maroni and Maroni fell only to break his ankles. To be honest I think Dent would have had to fall on the exposed part of his skull to sustain enough harm to kill him however Two-Face landed on his back. Batman almost comments that, \"Dent is dead\" while Gordon makes mention of wanting to \"save him.\"
If Nolan was to make his epic into a trilogy the logical next villain would be Two-Face with a secondary villain that keeps with the \"killer\" theme. While he has a huge base of villains to choose from, so far Nolan has only dealt with murderers -- the rest are really thieves, just, glorified thieves. I believe Eckhart did with Two-Face/Harvey Dent the very same thing Ledger did with the role of the Joker and that was make it his own. Eckhart would own the next movie if Nolan were to take that step.
|
Crispy
|
Posted: July 27, 2008 at 10:44pm
If you'll remember when Dent attempted to interrogate one of Joker's thugs, Batman identified him as a schizophrenic named Jervis Tetch. Jervis Tetch is the real name of the Mad Hatter, so that's my prediction for the next villain.
|
Vash
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:08am
totally didn't catch the mad hatter thing. i've always wanted him to be in a movie, but i always figured they'd go for someone like the riddler for the next one. you never know, though. a lot of the bat-villains are just take-offs on the joker, so i hope they pick someone who can really create their own persona in the nolan series. mad hatter and riddler are great, but i think they're too close to the joker to really stand on their own.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:35am
Too bad his name was Thomas Shiff, and not Jervis Tetch.
|
Crispy
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:51am
So I got some lying friends, what a dipshit. Strangely, there are STILL forums ripe with the idea that he'll come back to be the Hatter.
|
Chad
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:54am
Wikipedia says that it's Jervis. No clue, not a fan, yatta yatta, but there you go.
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:55am
It's too bad this movie ate it. What a waste of time, bring back Joel Schumacher dammit, it is best.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 12:58am
Not only is that description inaccurate, but they say his name in the movie. Foreshadowing? I think not.
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 1:02am
It's foreshadowing Catwoman, I'll tell you that. I guarantee the 3rd one is gonna end up like Spiderman 3. Mark my words. Then we'll have yet another revision and so on and so forth. What is the point of this post? Nothing!
|
The Red Clover
|
Posted: July 28, 2008 at 1:03am
Aaron Eckhart will undoubtedly reprise his portrayal as Dent as the main villain. The secondary villain will probably be another murderous psycho that compliments Two-Face's presence. Someone like the Mad Hatter would not go well in the Nolan vision, nor would the Riddler. Someone like Deadshot with maybe a possible appearance by Harley Quinn. Though technically with how the Riddler beat Green Arrow's ass after the whole \"Hush\" thing I'm sure Nolan could find a way to fit Riddler 2.0 somewhere. It'd be interesting to see at least.
|
|
