2000 AD Online Forum

Freekin fantastic...

Really well thought out and exicuted story of the birth of Batman.

Everyone puts in a star turn in their respective rolls.

Bale, Cane, Freeman, Oldman, Neeson, Holmes (hhhmmmmmmm) and the rest are all great.

No over the top performances, no-one trying to steal the show, all played straight and sincere (sp?).

Go see it.

haven't seen it yet.
Having a 15 month old amazingloverlybestthingEVAH daughter tends to put a cramp in one's "style".
;-)
Lucky buggers who get to see it!

I know exactly where you're comming from.

I had to go to the MIDNIGHT showing 'cos it was the only time I had free while everyone else in the house was asleep!

I'll go see it Saturday.  Is it true the Joker's in it?

I'll be going to see it Sunday, as it tis my birthday that day (if my birthday wasn't anytime soon, i'd probably go watch it tomorrow or saturday, oh well...)  

Don't think I'm spoiling anything here


hold on....


pos spoiler just in case.....




























by saying The Joker Isn't in it, but could be in a sequil.

Where did you hear that?

If they do, I hope they have his origin following the Red Hood way (original *or* Moore version-type-thing).

Well, you see what happens with The Joker is.. agghh, mustn't say...stop...ack!


Oh just see it, then we'll talk.

Ump: Batman year one, right?

this I must see! How was the Japanese bloke?

So, I'm only going to get to see one of them, so which one should it be? Sin City or Batman Begins? I want to see both, but can't!

get a morgage, then you can go see both ;)

My local cinema has this on,so I will be going to see it tomorrow.
From the clips I've seen so far it looks really good and a nice counterpoint to the more day glow looks of Spiderman.
Is anybody else find it a shame though,how every review on television and radio can't seem to not start without playing the 60s tv soundtrack,I just don't see why they can't see the film and tv show are to very different beasts.

I know what you mean, every review I read has either KAPOW! or HOLY NEW BATMAN or whatever.

I guess these journalists either think its very clever or just lazy.

Aw, I can't complain about the news running clips from the old TV show.  This is, actually, the best Batman film to not have Adam West in it!

Saw it. Loved it. It's by far the best Batman movie, and their decision to use someone who directs "proper" movies has definately paid off.

Thanks for the tip Conexus. Decided as I've already got a morgage I'd go and see both! Saw Batman Begins this afternoon. Pretty damn good. Really enjoyed it. My boy didn't like it at all though, he's 12, he thought the best thing about it was the Batmobile! Going to see Sin City tomorrow, let you know what I though after that.

I really injoyed the film.
I thought all the casting was excellent,Michael Caine especially was wonderful.
The design of Gotham was striking,the above ground subway style system and the factory look of Arkham being highlights.
The film imbued a good sense of forboding into Gotham at night.The Scarecrows fear gases effects were nightmarish and various.
The film had some good jokes in it,but didn't swamp the movie in them.
I did feel they under-used Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy.Its a shame as I would have liked to have seen more of the scarecrow,the scene with him on the horse being one of the highlights of the movie and showed how nightmarish a character he could be.In the same way I would like to see more of Tom Wilkinson who played Falcone.
All in all this is a great reboot which stands head and shoulders above the Batman movies that came before and stands equal with the likes of spider-man 2.

Yeah, uhm great movie.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R


Wouldn't a device that evaporates water with such a violent passion (manhole covers flying etc) also cause humans to explode as body water would also expand?

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
...I was kind of thinking that, but didn't want to let a patch of bolloxy science ruin my enjoyment of the movie.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
I thought that too, but like Art , I ignored it, for quibbling about that would be too petty, as although it's going for realism more than most superhero* movies, it ain't axactly going for hardcore sci-fi either






*could we leave the old debate 'is batman a superhero or vigilante?' out of this, ta  

Heh...


It occured to me in the movie, but I immediately ignored it until the film had finished.
It is a Batman baddie evil-toy-of-doom, after all - just possibly more suited to Adam West era then the ultra-real dark version.

I really did enjoy this film, but I can't help but wonder what was so wrong with 'BATMAN' that it needed to be done again, but different? They could have done pretty much the same story as a continuation of the previous series.
Ahhh I dunno.

Continuation, you serious? - that woulda meant that Swartzcoff et all woulda been offical movie continuity, now we can prtend it didn't happen

I'm happy pretending that 'BATMAN & ROBIN' never happened - but by your rationale, this new film ties that film in firmly with 'BATMAN' and 'BATMAN RETURNS'.

It could have easily been placed as a next movie in a James Bond stylee - rather then make a James Bond Begins which rubbishes Dr No. They could've just made a *good* sequel.

The last scene on the roof kind of pees on any notion that this might be a prequel to the Burton Batman films.

Yeah Art, I think of it as a sort of Ultimate Year One Batman.

We gotta forget ALL the previous Batman movies in relation to this one. They're not connected.

Well, theres nothing that stops this from being a sequel to the one with The Penguin in a nuclear submarine...

"Shark repelant bat spray!"

"Why yes, Batman, that surplus submarine was sold to a Mister P.N. Guinn.  Yes, that's right.  Well, no, as a matter of fact, we don't have an address for Mister Guinn..."

How's it like violence wise? Could a five year old sit through it?

He sat attentively through THE INCREDIBLES and EPISODE III but got a bit bored during Spiderman II (so did I actually).


The clips I've seen so far look very Year One and also refreshingly free from the curse of CGI (weightless, placeless monsters in every scene). That Batmobile looks well chunky - was it real or just really good effects?

I'm also impressed that the trailers haven't spoilered all elements of the plot so far (I've hardly seen The Scarecrow or Raas).

Possibly a bit scarey for a five year old - I'm tyhinking of the scarecrows hallucinagenic gas sequences in particular. It *is* violent, though most of the violence is cut in such a way that its just a confusing blur of activity.

I've not seen episode III,but I would say its slightly darker then The Incredibles and spiderman II.The bits which he might not like are when the Scarecrow uses his fear gas,which has a bit with maggets crawling all over the Scarecrows mask.The only time cgi is really used is to crate the fear gas nightmares.

Saw it this morning, was great! Everybody really pulled their weight and pulled off a top class job!

Where is this good version of the film being shown? The one I saw was rubbish. It hardly had Batman in it and...





HUGE SPOILER






Ken Watanabe is an emotionless statue and the Scarecrow gets defeated by the District Attorney. The District Attorney.








Rubbish.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
.
.
.







Not just the District Attorney...

His assistant!

We'll leave Tiny Tips behind then - he'll have to make do with watching Mystery of Batwoman on DVD.

We are off to see it on Thursday night.  

Looking back at bits of the old Tim Burton films they have dated VERY quickly in almost every department (some of the special effects are particularly bad for a blockbuster).  But I still have a soft spot for BATMAN RETURNS.

I really like the almost dialogue free opening sequence showing the birth of the penguin and the completely irrational origin of Catwoman. Elfman's music is brilliant (and works best in the scenes above).

It also has some fabulous, playful dialogue (e.g. when Christopher Walken attempts to bribe Catwoman with "a really big ball of string").

I'm so glad they didn't make increasingly dire sequels after Batman Returns. Yes I am. Lalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalala, only two Batman films made. Lalalalalalala.

Tankys taking me to see it tomorrow for my barfday. Can't wait!

Just saw it and thought it was brilliant. Don't think it's really going to be enormous though as I don't really see the kids going for it, but then they don't seem to have really been bothered about that. Only quibble was that I felt the action scenes had been directed a little confusingly. Or edited confusingly rather, too much fast cutting and movement, took away the punch of them a bit. Fantastic though, and dark as hell.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r









and Batman looked cool as hell in the Scarecrow's hallucination. Really fecking evil.

That was great. Really great.

An introspectve action film with emotional content - who'd have thought?

I've been disappointed coming out of the cinema with all my favourite franchises over the past  years (Bond, Star Wars) so it was refreshing to come out thinking how much better it was than I imagined.

A few of the reviews have said it was grim and gritty but no fun - I really can't see where that's coming from at all. It was packed full of gags - I think a lot of critics are equating primary colours with fun.

The casting was really good - it's not often Gary Oldman comes so far down in the list of top performances (Caine, for a change, didn't seem to be taking the cheque and running). Katie Holmes and her sideways mouth looked particularly attractive. And Christian Bale did very well in his three roles of Bruce Wayne, Batman and drunken billionairre playboy.

Who else kept looking at Liam Neeson (especially the scene where he's talking about how he came in "from the dark") and thought "I wish we could transport this performance into Star Wars Episode I"?

Action sequences were suitably grounded and dirty - not a bit of incongruous bullet-time or very obvious CGI stunt double to be seen.

I really liked the bit at the docks where he takes down Falcone.  It seemed more like the criminals were being attacked by a monster (the alien) than some costumed buffoon. Very effective and slightly scary - as it should be.

I could nitpick; the microwave thing was pub-science, Gordon seemed underdeveloped (I had Year One in my head when I set off to see it) and there was the usual amount of reckless endangerment of civilians and cops going on (for someone sworn NOT to kill).

I'll be bold here and say it's my third favourite superhero movie ever; pipped only by Superman (1978) and The Incredibles.  

I always preferred DC to Marvel anyway so it's nice to have Bats back at his best.

And it's also making me think SUPERMAN RETURNS might be good too (again, a proper director involved).


Have I gushed enough, now?


s

p

o

i

l

e

r

s

Jared - I think Ken was meant to be an emptionless statue given what his real role in the film was. I fell for the actual twist reveal - didn't even cross my mind.


And I think you were also meant to believe that Batman had already defeated The Scarecrow - our plucky assistant DA was only really dealing with a gibberring loon/shadow of his former self who had broken free from Arkham.

I watched it in the USA on vacation and can I say that the pleasure of cinema going was particularly good.

Not much else to add really.  Id say Id agree with Tips whose normally much more eloquent than I am, especially as Im jet lagged.

Oh and Im back I suppose.  

Slips

Welcome back then!

Finally watched this last night. Now that's how you make a Batman movie!

Oh, and Lord Running Clam - There's tons of CG. It's just good CG, that's all. Most of the gotham city backgrounds were CG, for a start...

Heh,As soon as I reread what I had posted,I saw the clanger I had dropped with the cgi question.But in my defence I was only really counting cgi like the fear gas effects and other bits that stood out.I don't really count the buildings.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R



IIRC The campy Batman movie actually DID feature a device that could remove all the liquid from anything (and convert crooks to dust - who could later be rehydrated.)

I may be misremembering though.

I thought Batman Begins was tops.

- pj

I liked the first half a lot, but the 'race against time/ 1950 b-movie bomb that will destroy the city' bits sort of let it down for me.  And Bale wasn't up to scrath as Batman - it just looked like someone had accidently let the stunt-double play the part while the main actor went off and did something else.  It looked like the Batman suit was eating his face at a few points, too.
It's still a good film, though - my dad hates Batman, and superhero movies in particular, and he loved it.

I should probably point out that I never liked the Tim Burton Batman movies, though.  Batman had departed from the camp crusader personae of the 1960s sometime around the mid-1970s in the comics, so I hardly think taking fifteen years to catch up counts as a reinvention of the franchise that many people thought Burton's under-directed fairy-tales (with crap acting and terrible characters and dialogue) were.  And for blockbusters, the action scenes were horribly flat and unexciting, too.

The Burton Batman films (the first in particular) havn't dated too well. The effects are ropey and the prince soundtrack makes ot sooo 80's.

Much prefer Batman Returns and the other two are just crap really (but we know that already).

I thought Bale was very much up to scratch as Wayne/Batman, but I see your point about the 50's B movie bomb thing, but still, very enjoyable.

Best Batman film EVAR!


S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S


I, too, picked up on the the whole microwave machine fluff, but let it slide.
Also thought there could've been more made of the Scarecrow riding around the place on that big horse. That was one scary-ass image.

Mark Steyn in the Spectator bags it a bit; for stealing martial arts cliches and for being too dark in an effort to be meaningful (he said something like, this makes Tim Burton look like Mel Brooks)

yours, coincidentally enough reading a Batman archives book now

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, and the definite highlight was the appearance of the cop from the 'all night coffee and cops' episode of Black Books.  I was slightly disappointed not to see Manny running about in a manic fashion, but there you are.

On a British Comedy Cameo Tangent, I also saw Land of the Dead, which apparently has Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright appearing as zombies...

Without any spoilers, what's the verdict on Land of the Dead, Ming?

I've heard it's just a Resident Evil rip-off.

No plot giveaways, but here's a
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
anyway.
Well, pvs, without technically spoilering anything, it really wasn't very scary; a few jumpy moments here and there, but it lacked the tension that I found in the original Dawn, f'rinstance.  Saying that, it had a Romero feel to it, and some very nice touches.  The idea of zombies starting to think (a bit) could have been taken further, but hey, at least they don't run.  Tom Savini shows up, which is nice.  More details on request!

Final verdict: worth getting out of bed for, but not worth getting out of someone elses bed for (at least not in a hurry).