Batman

Blockbuster or Bomb? Hit or Miss? Classic or Cancelled?
User avatar
Suzy Wong
Senior Member
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:54 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans

Re: Batman

Post by Suzy Wong »

I saw it. As another poster said, it is NOT FOR KIDS AT ALL. In fact, there were only 3 or 4 kids in the theater and they should not have been there. I don't even think a child could understand many elements of the story.

wow, it was depressing to me. Anyone else feel that way?

I also think it was more of a "guy" movie...

Heath Ledger did do a Great job, what was annoying was almost everytime he said a word, ONE WORD, the audience would go into mob laughter or excessive cheering.

(And I barely recognized Anthony Michael Hall, time has not been kind to him).
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.—Albert Einstein
User avatar
café au lait
Senior Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:17 pm
Location: Here today, somewhere else tomorrow.

Is Dark Knight worth the hype?

Post by café au lait »

Did anybody help it attain its box office record this weekend? Would it have been as hyped had Heath Ledger not died before its release?
Forget the apple - a café au lait a day keeps the doctor away!
User avatar
bam bam
Senior Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: somewhere extremely happy

Re: Batman

Post by bam bam »

I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.
User avatar
Suzy Wong
Senior Member
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:54 pm
Location: Nouvelle-Orléans

Re: Batman

Post by Suzy Wong »

(Your welcome, and if you think "Misty" is stripping just to "get through college" you are really being taken for a pricey ride).

Not to be morbid, or insensitive but I DO think the death of Heath ledger increased attendance and the masses going to the movie, that said he did nail the part and then some.

I noticed the movie was VERY dark, storyline wise, but I remember reading when some of these movies (Hulk, Spiderman etc) follow the classic comic bok, they are darker, does anyone know for certain?

(I like A Ekhart sp? but he needs to tone down that brassy hair color. He certainly has that Marlboro man look about him)

Just read this about kids and the movie:
http://kids.yahoo.com/parents/blog/1001 ... +for+Kids?






bam bam wrote:I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.—Albert Einstein
User avatar
Blue Cross Sux
Senior Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:10 am

Re: Batman

Post by Blue Cross Sux »

Call me underwhelmed. Tedious, dreary, incoherent, and overlong. Most of the performances were well done. Maggie Gyllenhall (sp?) was miscast, though. Just not beautiful enough for the role.

The disappointing thing of it all is this kind of movie is right in my wheelhouse. I love this kind of flick and was geeked to the stars over seeing it. But it just didn't hit the jackpot. It was like watching a James Toney fight. Flabby, lazy, poorly toned, but hoping it could coast to victory through the sheer force of talent. A deflating experience.
User avatar
flyinbayou
Senior Member
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:27 pm
Location: NOLA
Contact:

Re: Batman

Post by flyinbayou »

Well, it must be a full moon because I agree with BCS on something. I thought the part of Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) was miscast. I want my heroine to be good looking. Maggie?? Eww!

That said, I thought is was an excellent film, although a little long. It had everything that I didn't expect out of a Batman movie. That was .... refreshing!
User avatar
JonSmith
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:39 am

Re: Batman

Post by JonSmith »

bam bam wrote:I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.
What bambam said.
"I wonder...what the Vintners buy one half so precious as the stuff they sell." - Omar Khayyam
User avatar
mrpwp
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:10 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: Batman

Post by mrpwp »

I just got back. Freaking awesome. I wish it was another two hours longer! Of course I am a comic book nerd. I'll likely go see it again. I think this movie did a good job showing Batman as a tragic figure who does what he does for the common good rather than for the sake of being a hero.
Post Reply