The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
8:25pm on Thursday, can't wait.
Page:
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> The 'original' Batman movies were more like feature length episodes of
> the TV programme.
>
> *POW* *SMASH* *THWOP*
Didnt they used to show Batman episodes at the cinema in the forties/fifties?
> The 'original' Batman movies were more like feature length episodes of
> the TV programme.
>
> *POW* *SMASH* *THWOP*
Didnt they used to show Batman episodes at the cinema in the forties/fifties?
The bomb bit in one of them was inspired though.
The 'original' Batman movies were more like feature length episodes of the TV programme.
*POW* *SMASH* *THWOP*
*POW* *SMASH* *THWOP*
Hedfix wrote:
> Which isn't the original. ;P
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> Which isn't the original. ;P
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Which isn't the original. ;P
Hedfix wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> The original campy movies from the 60's aren't exactly great.
>
>
> Spikecast wrote:
>
> I meant the original films. Just because it's
> modern doesn't mean it can't be better than the original.
>
> Yes and as you can clearly see above that IS infact what I said. Or
> are you still labouring under the mis-conception that Burton made the
> first Batman movie?
I know Burton didn't make the 60's ones. I wasn't refering to those but the "Batman" 89 movie. Stop trying to cause trouble you!
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> The original campy movies from the 60's aren't exactly great.
>
>
> Spikecast wrote:
>
> I meant the original films. Just because it's
> modern doesn't mean it can't be better than the original.
>
> Yes and as you can clearly see above that IS infact what I said. Or
> are you still labouring under the mis-conception that Burton made the
> first Batman movie?
I know Burton didn't make the 60's ones. I wasn't refering to those but the "Batman" 89 movie. Stop trying to cause trouble you!
Ant wrote:
> Well it was good, but definitely not better than Revenge Of The
> Sith...
Definitly far less cheesy than Revenge of the Sith - the dialog was'nt as clunky and the direction was done by a real director
> Well it was good, but definitely not better than Revenge Of The
> Sith...
Definitly far less cheesy than Revenge of the Sith - the dialog was'nt as clunky and the direction was done by a real director
Well it was good, but definitely not better than Revenge Of The Sith...
It was far too long, but I loved the way they used the hallucinogenic stuff. Gave an evil twist to the film.
And as always, Liam Neeson was godlike.
It was far too long, but I loved the way they used the hallucinogenic stuff. Gave an evil twist to the film.
And as always, Liam Neeson was godlike.
Hedfix wrote:
> The original campy movies from the 60's aren't exactly great.
Spikecast wrote:
> I meant the original films. Just because it's
> modern doesn't mean it can't be better than the original.
Yes and as you can clearly see above that IS infact what I said. Or are you still labouring under the mis-conception that Burton made the first Batman movie?
> The original campy movies from the 60's aren't exactly great.
Spikecast wrote:
> I meant the original films. Just because it's
> modern doesn't mean it can't be better than the original.
Yes and as you can clearly see above that IS infact what I said. Or are you still labouring under the mis-conception that Burton made the first Batman movie?
I saw it yesterday and it was actually really good. Hadn't seen any of the others before so didn't know what it would be like. Will have to borrow the others from some one.
Page: