Last film you watched and your rating

Skarjo wrote:However, Begins was also dull as strawberry float, as Bale's fantastic take on Batman didn't have a vaguely interesting villain to play against.

Scarecrow, Ras Al Ghul.

Also, sorry, but Begin's ending was terrible. I'm not sure even comic book logic could legitimately make 'blowing up a train and sending it careering into a crowded city' compatible with a no kill rule. Hell, it's nothing short of a minor terrorist attack.

The train went careering into a carpark which was preferable to a load of people getting poisoned. The bits of track fell into the street true but anyone in the street standing underneath that section of track would have run away the minute they saw a goddamn tank firing missiles. Compare that to TDK's finale where Batman pushes Two Face off a building after he's threatened to kill Gordon's family for literally no reason at all.

Bale's take on Batman is not fantastic. He's not even the best Batman.

He is the best Bruce Wayne though.

Best live-action Batman. It goes without saying Kevin Conroy is the best overall.

Memento Mori wrote:Best live-action Batman.

Clooney m8

and Begins is far more interesting than TDK.

I prefer Keaton's to be honest. Bale's is second best.

I haven't watched the cartoons so I can't comment on Conroy.

Foxhound wrote:Bale's take on Batman is not fantastic. He's not even the best Batman.

He is the best Bruce Wayne though.

Shut up you!

Bale's 1000 cigarette a day voice ruins his Batman.

dmin wrote:
Shall be getting Harakiri though, its out the end of the month. Its superb!



Takashi Miike did a remake of it just after 13 Assassins, i think its out soon too.

Oh, I didn't realise it was out so soon - I don't actually own a copy of the film so I may have to get it. Although I'm not sure if I'm up for watching the seppuku scene again any time soon. Talking about the film has reminded me of what a wonderful, wonderful actor Tatsuya Nakadai is. Honestly, I can't think of many better.

Can't say I'm looking forward to Miike's remake, though. I've already made my thoughts about 13 Assassins clear and Harakiri is a film that I don't think ever needed a remake at all. It isn't even dated.

I think i'll just stay out of these threads.

Memento Mori wrote:

Skarjo wrote:However, Begins was also dull as strawberry float, as Bale's fantastic take on Batman didn't have a vaguely interesting villain to play against.

Scarecrow, Ras Al Ghul.

What, a Frasier with a hangover and a dude who's power is being not quite as good at martial arts as Batman is? You can't look me in the internets and tell me you actually think either Scarecrow or Ras Al Ghul are, combined, even half as interesting as either of TDK's villains?

Also, sorry, but Begin's ending was terrible. I'm not sure even comic book logic could legitimately make 'blowing up a train and sending it careering into a crowded city' compatible with a no kill rule. Hell, it's nothing short of a minor terrorist attack.

The train went careering into a carpark which was preferable to a load of people getting poisoned. The bits of track fell into the street true but anyone in the street standing underneath that section of track would have run away the minute they saw a goddamn tank firing missiles. Compare that to TDK's finale where Batman pushes Two Face off a building after he's threatened to kill Gordon's family for literally no reason at all.

Nonsense. 'Hopefully everyone ran out of the way' is not a valid defence of blatant breaking of the only rule Batman has.

As for Two-Face, not at all. Now, you can argue that his storyline is an extension of the Joker's and this cheapens probably the second most interesting Batman villain, but that's beside the point. The whole point of Joker's role in the movie is being a force of nature, indiscriminately showing the absurdity of having plans, and how having 'One Bad Day' is all that separates any good man from insanity.

Dent is the polar opposite of this; all about the plans, the future, the wife, making the world a better place. He is so faithful in this idea that he doesn't leave anything to chance, as exemplified by his two-headed coin; the most powerful symbol of chance being used to show that this is a man who leaves nothing to chance. So the Joker uses him as a chance to destroy a figurehead of purity, and so this man, with all his plans, has to be strapped up and set the strawberry float on fire whilst listening to his girlfriend being blown the strawberry float up. This destroys his grasp on his plans, and the scarred coin symbolises him surrendering his life to the chaotic force of chance that the Joker wants to wreak everywhere. The Joker is a force of nature, like all the best bad guys, and his corruption of Dent into Two-Face symbolises the way chaos forces us to surrender our plans to chance.

Scarecrow wears a funny mask with a suitcase full of funny gas and Qui-Gon Jinn ponces about with magic flowers.

Quite enjoyed that.

For me, TDK is the more exciting and emotionally involving film, they're both class though.

Last film was Thin Blue Line, excellent film. Errol Morris is a master interviewer. 9/10.

Cosmo wrote:Bale's 1000 cigarette a day voice ruins his Batman.

It was fine in Batman Begins. Supposedly the laughable gruffness in TDK was done in post-production.

Skarjo wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

Skarjo wrote:However, Begins was also dull as strawberry float, as Bale's fantastic take on Batman didn't have a vaguely interesting villain to play against.

Scarecrow, Ras Al Ghul.

What, a Frasier with a hangover and a dude who's power is being not quite as good at martial arts as Batman is? You can't look me in the internets and tell me you actually think either Scarecrow or Ras Al Ghul are, combined, even half as interesting as either of TDK's villains?

Joker obviously not. Were they better than TDK's Two Face? Yes. Two-Face is too good a character to be killed off after only like 45 minutes of screentime or whatever it was. And almost none of Batman's enemies have powers or are as good at martial arts as he is. Ras and Batman were pretty evenly matched in Begins, the fight only ended when Gordon blew up the train.

Also, sorry, but Begin's ending was terrible. I'm not sure even comic book logic could legitimately make 'blowing up a train and sending it careering into a crowded city' compatible with a no kill rule. Hell, it's nothing short of a minor terrorist attack.

The train went careering into a carpark which was preferable to a load of people getting poisoned. The bits of track fell into the street true but anyone in the street standing underneath that section of track would have run away the minute they saw a goddamn tank firing missiles. Compare that to TDK's finale where Batman pushes Two Face off a building after he's threatened to kill Gordon's family for literally no reason at all.

Nonsense. 'Hopefully everyone ran out of the way' is not a valid defence of blatant breaking of the only rule Batman has.

As for Two-Face, not at all. Now, you can argue that his storyline is an extension of the Joker's and this cheapens probably the second most interesting Batman villain, but that's beside the point. The whole point of Joker's role in the movie is being a force of nature, indiscriminately showing the absurdity of having plans, and how having 'One Bad Day' is all that separates any good man from insanity.

Dent is the polar opposite of this; all about the plans, the future, the wife, making the world a better place. He is so faithful in this idea that he doesn't leave anything to chance, as exemplified by his two-headed coin; the most powerful symbol of chance being used to show that this is a man who leaves nothing to chance. So the Joker uses him as a chance to destroy a figurehead of purity, and so this man, with all his plans, has to be strapped up and set the strawberry float on fire whilst listening to his girlfriend being blown the strawberry float up. This destroys his grasp on his plans, and the scarred coin symbolises him surrendering his life to the chaotic force of chance that the Joker wants to wreak everywhere. The Joker is a force of nature, like all the best bad guys, and his corruption of Dent into Two-Face symbolises the way chaos forces us to surrender our plans to chance.

Scarecrow wears a funny mask with a suitcase full of funny gas and Qui-Gon Jinn ponces about with magic flowers.

Well Gordon blew up the train but leaving that aside, blowing up the train tracks was clearly the far better option in that situation than letting all of Gotham get infected by the toxin which would have resulted in even more deaths. Batman actually kills Two-Face in TDK saving Gordon's son while in BB blowing up the train saves the entire city. There's no indication anyone dies in the BB finale compared to the confirmed Two Face death.

My major problem with the rushed Two-Face arc is him trying to kill Gordon's family after the entire film has been building him up as a paragon of virtue. The disfigurement and his girlfriend's murder shouldn't 180 his entire world view so quickly that he'd murder an innocent kid. Dent just isn't that far gone that soon especially as they hadn't indicated he had any kind of mental instability (like Big Bad Harv from BTAS) . In the book The Long Halloween which inspired The Dark Knight after he's disfigured months pass and the only people we see him kill or injure is the mob boss he's been trying to prosecute and a doctor right after he wakes up in hospital. Dent's development as Two Face that book was far more natural and if the movie didn't have enough time to do him justice they shouldn't have used him. I would have preferred that one of the final shots in the movie be Harvey waking up in hospital disfigured, in a similar method to how they set up Joker in Begins. TDK had The Joker, it didn't need anyone else in the final act.

Memento Mori wrote:

Cosmo wrote:Bale's 1000 cigarette a day voice ruins his Batman.

It was fine in Batman Begins. Supposedly the laughable gruffness in TDK was done in post-production.

Seriously?

I read this somewhere. I'll try and find the link.

Memento Mori wrote:My major problem with the rushed Two-Face arc is him trying to kill Gordon's family after the entire film has been building him up as a paragon of virtue. The disfigurement and his girlfriend's murder shouldn't 180 his entire world view so quickly that he'd murder an innocent kid. Dent just isn't that far gone that soon especially as they hadn't indicated he had any kind of mental instability (like Big Bad Harv from BTAS) . In the book The Long Halloween which inspired The Dark Knight after he's disfigured months pass and the only people we see him kill or injure is the mob boss he's been trying to prosecute and a doctor right after he wakes up in hospital. Dent's development as Two Face that book was far more natural and if the movie didn't have enough time to do him justice they shouldn't have used him. I would have preferred that one of the final shots in the movie be Harvey waking up in hospital disfigured, in a similar method to how they set up Joker in Begins. TDK had The Joker, it didn't need anyone else in the final act.

Fair points, one and all, but I disagree.

Except for the Rachel death. All 'Girlfriend in a Fridge' arguments aside, I still think having to listen to your girlfriend die as you lie there powerless, let down by everyone you've tried your best to help, is justification enough for anyone to lose their moral compass.

This wasn't where I read it (I probably read it on Cracked.com thinking back)but someone else on some other forum apparently read the same thing:

Though much of the voice effect is Bale's own doing, under the guidance of director Christopher Nolan and supervising sound editor Richard King, the frequency of his Batman voice was modulated to exaggerate the effect.

Critics and fans have noticed.

"His Batman rasps his lines in a voice that's deeper and hammier than ever," said NPR's David Edelstein.

The New Yorker's David Denby praised the urgency of Bale's Batman, but lamented that he "delivers his lines in a hoarse voice with an unvarying inflection."

Reviewing the film for MSNBC, Alonso Duralde wrote that Bale's Batman in "Batman Begins" ''sounded absurdly deep, like a 10-year-old putting on an 'adult' voice to make prank phone calls. This time, Bale affects an eerie rasp, somewhat akin to Brenda Vaccaro doing a Miles Davis impression."

Before the similes run too far afield, it's worth considering where the concept of a throaty Batman comes from.

In his portrayal on the '60s "Batman" TV series, Adam West didn't alter his voice between Bruce Wayne and Batman. Decades later when Tim Burton brought "Batman" to the big screen in a much darker incarnation, Michael Keaton's inflection was notably -- but not considerably -- different from one to the other.

But it was a lesser-known actor who, a few years after Burton's film, made perhaps the most distinct imprint on Batman's voice. Kevin Conroy, as the voice of the animated Batman in various projects from 1992's "Batman: The Animated Series" right up until this year's "Batman: Gotham Knight," brought a darker, raspier vocalization to Batman.

Conroy has inhabit the role longer than anyone else and though animated voice-over work doesn't have the same cachet as feature film acting, there are quarters where Conroy is viewed as the best Batman of them all -- certainly superior to Val Kilmer or George Clooney.

The animated series are notable because they drew on the DC Comics of Batman as envisioned by Frank Miller, whose work heavily informs "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." (Bale and Nolan were unavailable to comment for this story.)

As Batman has gotten darker, his voice has gotten deeper. As some critics suggest, Bale and "The Dark Knight" may have reached a threshold, at least audibly.

The original article on the Chicago Tribune appears to have been deleted.

(Some of the avatars on that forum may be NSFW, I can't be bothered to check.)
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=309674

Skarjo wrote:
Fair points, one and all, but I disagree.

Except for the Rachel death. All 'Girlfriend in a Fridge' arguments aside, I still think having to listen to your girlfriend die is justification enough for anyone to lose their moral compass.

The fridging and disfigurement was justification to kill the mobsters and corrupt cops who were involved, most definitely. I say Dent would have needed even more motivation to kill the innocent children (of his sort of friend, again LH goes into their relationship better) who weren't involved. Even if Dent had his twin children get fridged I'm not sure he'd still try and kill Gordon's kids so quickly.

Why are you all saying 'fridged'?

smurphy wrote:Why are you all saying 'fridged'?

It's a trope coined by the comic book writer Gail Simone about women in fiction who are killed solely to upset the hero.




The term came from this grim scene in Green Lantern, where Green Lantern's girlfriend is murdered by a supervillain and stuffed into his fridge.

Memento Mori wrote:

Skarjo wrote:
Fair points, one and all, but I disagree.

Except for the Rachel death. All 'Girlfriend in a Fridge' arguments aside, I still think having to listen to your girlfriend die is justification enough for anyone to lose their moral compass.

The fridging and disfigurement was justification to kill the mobsters and corrupt cops who were involved, most definitely. I say Dent would have needed even more motivation to kill the innocent children (of his sort of friend, again LH goes into their relationship better) who weren't involved. Even if Dent had his twin children get fridged I'm not sure he'd still try and kill Gordon's kids so quickly.

I absolutely disagree. I mean, let's be fair, this is an entire franchise built around the ideas of how one event (by the way, at this point, I feel the need to add, I am totally ripping off stuff Pedro has told me over many a bottle of Desperados) can make or destroy a man. Batman had his hopeful, privileged world torn apart when he witnessed his parents die, and everything about his character boils down to that. The Joker, well, all arguments of 'multiple choice' origins aside, still was born from one horrific event that made him lose his mind. So to establish Dent as a man driven by plans and control, to force him to sit there and helplessly witness all that being ripped apart in one moment is exactly the kind of character birth the Batman franchise thrives upon.

He's a tragic character, and to have him wreaking appropriate vengeance upon mobsters would, in my opinion, actually be less effective as a character than the path of destruction he actually carves. This is a man who has lost everything, so rather than strive to make the world a better place as Batman does, or just become a force of chaos as the Joker did, he takes his revenge on those he holds responsible. And, as evidenced by him sparing the Joker in hospital, he forces this new worldview through a perversion of his previous rejection of chance (with the coin) and so makes himself into a man with a cause and with nothing to lose in achieving it; an excellent recipe for a villain. He's a good villain because, like the Joker, he reflects all the flaws and darkness that reside inside Batman himself. He is, for want of a better term, exactly what Batman could have been had he not chosen a different path.

That is why TDK gooseberry fools all over BB. Neither villain in BB is the slightest bit interesting. Ghul is part of some random cult that destroys sinful cities or something and Scarecrow... Well, I haven't got a strawberry floating clue why he's supposed to be interesting. BB might have had better pacing, or editing, or a more coherent story or whatever, but it was strawberry floating boring because I didn't get why his villains were anything more than the WHAM-POW-KAZAMALAWANK baddies of yesteryear; they were just things to get in the way of Batman's fist. The only thing BB is good for is establishing a good Batman so that we care when he's our vehicle for exploring the two excellent villains used in TDK.