I agree with Leeds, the new Batman films are, from a cinematography point of view, they aren't very good. The acting is mostly lacking, the story isn't that strong, only the action and special effects safe it from being a total drudge, and special effects and action don't make a good film...

I'm glad you said all that as I've been thinking it but dared not say it because of the Heath thing

Well I disagree. I think the lack of nuance is what makes Ledger's performance. His unhinged-ness. The fact that he is a mirror for Batman. His philosophical rants on chaos are fascinating and the way he manipulates the city of Gotham is genius.

That movie may not be top 10 of all time, but it's easily a classic.

He took a character that pretty much everybody knew inside out and made it his own with what most people probably consider a 'complete' performance. And he had some stiff competition with Nicholson and the stylings of Mark Hamill's voice work on the animated series. If you want ham, I suggest John Travolta



I only meant that they probably could have chopped 15-20 mins off it, but I don't know if the characters would have lost any of their impact then for me - I thought the story connections between them were really well done, actually better than the comics that inspired them

When I walked out of the cinema I couldn't wait to see more of Gotham in that style again. I'm still scouring for what little updates I can find on the next film

[/quote]

The characters are superficial or the cast wooden? Compared to what, other Batman films, never mind the average blockbuster? The action was hardly sterile considering it's more of a psychological crime drama than an action film, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone else say it was predictable, in fact I think some of the Joker's schemes were a little too elaborate for the overall film.

I'd say the film had it's own style in that it (and Batman Begins) tries to take the more fantastical elements of the Batman saga and ground them more in reality, similar to what's happened with Bond - I doubt many want a return to camp characters in 'franchises' these days, as great as some of them still hold up today.

Actually, that brings me to '89 Batman. That was my favourite Batman film until Begins, which itself was then superceded in that regard by TDK. I'd argue each of those films has it's own style and nuances - look at how more 'weirdly gothic' Returns was to '89 Batman even. The Penguin and Catwoman as they were in Returns wouldn't have worked alongside Jack's Joker (who's still the sh1t after all these years ).

Regarding mass appeal, I'd sooner be treated like an adult by a film and it's director than someone with the attention span of a goldfish. Why TDK got the box office it did was a combination of all sorts of things I reckon, from the Ledger/Joker aspect (which probably drew in a lot of women also tbf), the sheer scale of the plot, IMAX tickets... I certainly went to see it twice and watched it again recently on BR

Sorry about the whole essay bit

Don't think I could face watching it again, but it was much, much better than Transformers 2 (I couldn't face watching that once, I gave up half way through).

There are a couple of things that I like about the new Batman films, but paradoxically they are also things that cause me to pause and question the thinking behind the production of the new set of films.

The biggy: there is no style. By this I mean that there is no evidence of grandeur that Gotham city once had. There are hints of towering spires of glass and metal, but in the here and ow of the story, that is all gone. Gotham City is a sprawling metropolis just like any other. I am expected to believe that within this modernistic nightmare of collapsing commerce, a billionaire vigilante takes on the mantle of a bat, creates a costume and bases his crime-busting life on that aesthetic. I would believe it more if he used regular SWAT style body armour and accoutrements.

In the Tim Burton film, there is definite evidence of a greater and more affluent past. Gotham has a very dark Art Deco style which hints and a past glory that is crumbling. It is totally conceivable in this environment that a billionaire vigilante would adopt some design aesthetic to do his work in. You would not “bat” an eyelid in this case. This is continued in the cartoons and comic artwork. Burton’s film carries on this rather grandiose look and feel. He “gets it”.

It is clear that in all versions of the Batman universe that Bruce Wayne is a unhinged as the characters he pursues, and because of this the new films can get away with his bat persona. His choice of a fanciful disguise is down to a psychosis than to any practical consideration. At the same time, this Batman exists in a world that is real - walk through any major city, and you will find that the Gotham as portrayed in this series is believable. The architecture fits our time, the cars, the clothes. This series of films brings Batman to us, rather than take us to him.

As you can see, it’s hard to separate my liking of the new Batman from my contempt. I think that they have done what they did very well. However, Batman Begins only made sense after seeing The Dark Knight. Batman Begins sets him up, but does little to do Batman in full flow. The sequel does.

Now, we get to the whole “Heath question”. I think that there was a lot of stock placed on his portrayal of the Joker, and when he died, he became practically canonised. It was hard to say “well, err, he was good and does unhinged well, but...” and complete the sentence with a statement along the lines of “I’ve seen better” or “where’s the range?” HIm dying probably did the film a lot of good, conversely had he not dies, I an sure the film would have put bums on seats, but probably not with the same level of urgency or enthusiasm.

I went to see how they did the Two Face effects. I heard that that was a technical feat. I was impressed.

Personally, I much prefer the inevitable cartoon series that accompany a new Batman film, though I am less impressed by the artwork and animation in Batman: The Brave and the Bold. I feel that they are not trying any more.

That's one film I seriously regret not asking for my money back. That and AvP2

I'd say they've gone for realism 'as much as possible', even Marvel have tried to do that recently, making Iron Man and Hulk that little bit more gritty and realistic within the confines of a comic book character

The recent Batman comics reflect modern cities when depicting Gotham to my mind - big, new glass buildings, with a seedy underbelly. New York, or even LA in general, basically.



+1, and I'll explain my thinking on that next...



IMO, Begins essentially had to separate the increasingly silly/weird Batman from the 90s (Returns onwards) with what has become Batman for 'today'. So much of the Batman comics output of this decade has been about him dealing with himself as much as the villains.



I just thought Heath worked, and I had no idea he was such a good actor, by which I mean I bought into the character rather than thinking of it as a performance, or 'his final role' etc



They were definitely



I get what they're trying to do, but I'm just not inclined to watch it, same with the previous cartoon

His best role was Brokeback Mountain, it's that which he should be remembered for really IMO. (not really crying, but it is a beautiful film)

That's just one of those films I'm rarely in the mood to watch, not cos of the subject matter (though that doesn't help ), just that I often need to be in the right mood to even watch a long crime drama, for example.

Batman The Dark Night for me is a 5 star film. I'm not knocking anyone's opinion good or bad but for me it took a comic book hero and made a serious crime drama/thriller. At times I could imagine replacing the bat with a person (and toning down the more over the top action bits) and the film would resemble a 'proper' film of the genre (Heat?). My missus - who would scoff at superhero/robot/comic book types - wanted to watch it again the second it finished. For me there's not better praise than that lol

I was also prepared to mock the critics and hollywood who were calling for a posthumous Oscar for Heath thinking it was some 'sympathy vote' until I saw the film. He was amazing.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/ ... s/?a=13375



For those who've seen Avatar, is he right do you reckon?

I've just seen this film. In 3D. I'll be writing a review soon.

Mark

Nice one