Viewing Thread:
"So, who else has Batman Begins booked?"

8:25pm on Thursday, can't wait.

Hedfix wrote:
> sPiKeCaSt wrote:
> bbc.co.uk claims it's better than the originals. I hope that's true,
> looking foward to it.
>
> This not hard.
>
> The original campy movies from the 60's aren't exactly great.
>
> "Why is it so hard to get rid of a bomb?" being the best
> line in any Batman movie. Well apart from Arnie's terrible terrible
> attempts at acting as Mr Freeze.
>
> Also no Batman movie will EVER beat Burton's first Batman, not even
> with free hookers.

I meant the original films. Oh and in my opinion it's better than Burton's first batman. But it's hard to compare because that was nearly 20 years ago, begins to me is darker than first but I prefer it personally. And I do hope you've seen Begins otherwise it's bold to make that statement when you haven't seen it. Just because it's modern doesn't mean it can't be better than the original.

I saw this last night, thought it was great. Easily the best superhero movie - makes Spiderman look like utter gash.

Tiny little itty bitty spoilers below:











The bit at the end with the Jokers "calling card" was pretty cool.
Although, hearing that they may make another Batman film, that sort of ties up Begins with the first film, so all I could come up with for ideas (seeing as there can't be a film in the middle) is that they'll remake the original films.

I think it'd be a good idea. THey may only be 20 years old or whatever, but with todays special effects etc it could be very good.

And if they're remade all the way up to Batman and Robin, we could remove all known memories of the original Batman and Robin and replace them with new memories.

But, if they remake Batman Forever, then it HAS to have Jim Carrey in it again.

No-one else could play the Riddler.

Can't see them remaking the other 4, apparently the next one is called "Batman Continues".

They should just ignore the other films. It's not like there's any real continuity to them anyway.

Saw it on Friday after work with a couple of similary nerdy mates.

Loved it. Right from the start I was enjoying it. My mate Peter didn't like the car or Michael Caine before going in, but I thought they'd do a good job and they did. Katie Holmes wasn't exactly perfect but everything else (especially Jim from 28 Days Later as Scarecrow) was great.

Hard to imagine Batman without Danny Elfman's classic score (though they did the last two films without him) but Zimmer (Gladiator) and Newton-Howard (Waterworld) did a decent job.

The film just seemed so much bigger in scope than the original (mostly due to budget) that it seemed all the more important. I bet Clooney was watching it thinking "Why couldn't THIS be the one I was in?"

Best film I've seen since Spider-Man 2, way better than Revenge of the Sith, even my mate admitted that. Can't wait for DVD.

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.

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?

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.

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