Christian Forums

I'm surprised no one has posted on this one yet. 

I saw this on Friday night... and, it was very well done, I thought.  It was not predictable and had some plot twists and turns I didn't see coming.  Great flick.

Haven't seen a Bat movie since Kilmer.  He kinda soured it all...just too wierd.

The new series with Christian Bale is nothing like the ones from the 90s (Keaton/Clooney/Kilmer... no alliteration intended).

The new ones are a different interpretation of the story with a completely different style.  They blow the others out of the water.  The only one I really cared for from the last series of Batman movies was the first one with Keaton and Jack Nicholson, as the Joker.  I don't know if I even saw the one with Kilmer.  But, the others I did see from that series were horrible, IMO.

Keaton is still the only Batman.

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 - 12:45:21
Keaton is still the only Batman.

I thought Keaton was Mr. Mom??? 

We're planning on seeing it this coming weekend.  For once, it's a movie we all want to see.

love,

Sopranette

How kid friendly is it?

My sister asked someone who'd seen it that very question yesterday.  His answer was "not very".  Dark and violent.

I plan to see it sometime this week.

Quote from: Weeble on Mon Jul 21, 2008 - 13:54:24
How kid friendly is it?

Depends on how old the kids are.  Below a certain age, I think smaller kids may be pretty scared at times.

I wouldn't recommend it for kids much under 12.  The Joker is closer to a pschotic serial killer type compared to previous iterations of the character.  There is a pschological aspect of it that would probably go over most kids' heads though.  But, if you have concerns about excessive violence, that might be a problem.

Thanks for the heads up.  IT was WAAAYYY to dark for my 7 and 4 year old. But I rather enjoyed it!

I saw it today.  Very good. I left thinking that this is what Batman is supposed to be. It struck me that this was pretty close to being film noir (with explosions).

If you're looking to spend some quiet time in the theater because you're stressed out, however, this may not be the right movie.


I'll post more later, probably.

Quote from: Big Mike Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2008 - 12:45:21
Keaton is still the only Batman.

he has been supplanted by the remarkable christian bale.

as for the character of the joker, if you know the idea behind his artistic origins and his intended persona, you would find the portrayal by the late heath ledger to be more accurate.

the idea for the joker came into fruition when a photo of conrad veidt was shown as the inspiration for the nemesis in the 1st rendering of the batman comic.

the photo showed veidt as the character, gwynplaine who was the subject of the victor hugo novel"the man who laughs".

in the novel and the movie, gwynplaine has his face disfigured to create a permanent grimaced "smile" on his face.

I wrote about the Dark Knight on my blog (http://adisciplesthoughts.blogspot.com) on July 22, 2008, if anyone cares to read about it.

Best movie EVER!!!

I actually went back the next day to see it again. Even though it costs me $9.25 each time. Now that's a new topic all together....

Easily the best Batman movie yet.

Interestingly, the frightening part is mostly the psychological aspect, which makes the movie scarier for tweens than for kids.

Saw it twice.

If you want your kids to have nightmares, take them to see Dark Knight. It was okay. Christian Bale is a horrible Batman. What is with his voice? Sounds like he's got a pencil in his mouth when he talks...speech impediment or something. And that's the worst costume yet. Why is his forehead so big? Why is his nose so big? Joker was an interesting character in this one. Way darker than Nicholson. But Jack was the man. We see Two Face...the people behind me said "The Riddler" when Gordon was asked what they used to call him and I almost threw my drink at them because that's stupid.

We see remnants of Scarecrow which almost made me leave because I fell asleep in Batman Begins.

Maybe next time in the next movie we'll get a real Batmobile instead of the Hummer he drives around.

As for the ending, that was dumb to make it seem like Batman was the bad guy. They are meddling into the other movies now.

I would see it again. It was decent, but to say its better than Burton's Batman is funny.

Keaton is still the only Batman. [as I listen to the soundtrack to the 89 Batman movie]

Adam West is the only Batman, and now he is the mayor of Quahog.

I'm not ready to say that the new one is better than the one with Keaton and Nicholson (Batman, '89 version).  When I was making the comparisons earlier, I was mainly thinking about the sequels to the '89 version... which were horrible, in my opinion.  I didn't even like the second one with Keaton, where Danny DeVito played the Penguin.

Batman '89 was a great flick though... and, Jack Nicholson made that movie, IMO.  But, the franchise bit the dust after that.

Batman Begins (the first one with Christian Bale) was... overall... decent in my book.  But, I do think this new one topped it.

Quote from: DCR on Fri Jul 25, 2008 - 16:50:49
I'm not ready to say that the new one is better than the one with Keaton and Nicholson (Batman, '89 version).  When I was making the comparisons earlier, I was mainly thinking about the sequels to the '89 version... which were horrible, in my opinion.  I didn't even like the second one with Keaton, where Danny DeVito played the Penguin.

Batman '89 was a great flick though... and, Jack Nicholson made that movie, IMO.  But, the franchise bit the dust after that.

Batman Begins (the first one with Christian Bale) was... overall... decent in my book.  But, I do think this new one topped it.

I agree with the red part. I thought Batman Forever was decent with Jim Carrey as the Riddler. Val isn't really a great Batman but he wasn't George Clooney.

This depends greatly on how you came to know Batman and how you prefer to view him.

While I enjoyed the sixties series when I was small, when I started reading comics in the early seventies, the books I read presented a reaction against the series, a return to Batman's darker origins as a crimefigter rather than a cosmic superhero (after all, he did begin in Detective comics). These stories presented Batman patrolling the dark alleys of Gotham, fighting grotesque criminals sometimes connected with organized crime.  Revisiting this a while later, I discovered that my favorite issues were drawn by Neal Adams, who captured the dark side of Batman well.




While these issues weren't always the best-written, and were at times a bit gaudy, the campiness, or at least the intentional campiness, was done away with.  At least that's the way I remember it.

In the eighties, Frank Miller completed the return to the dark side with The Dark Knight and later, Batman Year One (which seems to have influenced the new movie quite a bit).  Alan Moore and Brian Bolland did a one-shot called The Killing Joke that took the things about the Joker that had been played for humor before and brought out the grotesque horror behind them.  This was a book set in a fun house that was anything but fun.  The filmmakers used a couple of elements from this book (particularly the Joker remembering his origins differently at different times), but more than that, seemed to get the Joker's character largely from The Killing Joke.

I liked the first two Batman movies (I actually liked the second better than the first because I was reading Hawthorne at the time and there were similar themes), but the third descended into complete camp.

Batman Begins was an attempt to get Batman back the way he should have been all along; The Dark Knight completes the journey.

I have The Killing Joke.

It's one of the few books I've kept.  I only got back into comics for a few years, then took a look at the expense and got back out.

Several people have said they don't understand why The Killing Joke's been cited as an influence on this movie, but I can see it in the Joker's character as much as anything.

Does watching superhero movies make you as much of a nerd as those that collect or have collected comics?

You're okay if you quit buying comics before age 30 and have only seen one superhero movie this summer.    If I catch Ironman at the discount movie place this week, I'll rephrase that.

Quote from: marc on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:11:49
You're okay if you quit buying comics before age 30 and have only seen one superhero movie this summer.    If I catch Ironman at the discount movie place this week, I'll rephrase that.

Do you have to get rid of your comics that you quit buying before you were 30?  And what if you are under the age of 30 to begin with?

You have to get rid of at least 75% of them, but you can keep a few for sentimental purposes.  As to being under thirty, that's case by case.  If you happen to be an engineer, the answer is yes, you are a nerd. 

Quote from: marc on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:21:49
You have to get rid of at least 75% of them, but you can keep a few for sentimental purposes.  As to being under thirty, that's case by case.  If you happen to be an engineer, the anser is yes, you are a nerd. 

I still have 100% of them, yes, I am an engineer, and I also have 26 out of the 28 seasons of Star Trek shows.

Quote from: Gary on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:16:24
Do you have to get rid of your comics that you quit buying before you were 30?  And what if you are under the age of 30 to begin with?

Most of us were under the age of thirty to begin with. 

Quote from: mike on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 14:52:58

Quote from: Gary on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:16:24
Do you have to get rid of your comics that you quit buying before you were 30? And what if you are under the age of 30 to begin with?

Most of us were under the age of thirty to begin with. 

That was in the before time for most of you.

Yes...deep down I guess I am a nerd. I still have my comics.

I'm more of an Archie and Jughead type guy. Or maybe I should say Betty and Veronica type guy!

Quote from: marc on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:11:49
You're okay if you quit buying comics before age 30 and have only seen one superhero movie this summer.    If I catch Ironman at the discount movie place this week, I'll rephrase that.

In My Opinion. Iron Man was the best movie released this summer. Better that Indiana, Bats, Hulk, and Hancock.

There was an Indiana Jones movie this summer?



Oh, that's right...  there was, wasn't there.  Easy one to forget.  

Quote from: Weeble on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 21:44:22

Quote from: marc on Sun Jul 27, 2008 - 13:11:49
You're okay if you quit buying comics before age 30 and have only seen one superhero movie this summer.    If I catch Ironman at the discount movie place this week, I'll rephrase that.

In My Opinion. Iron Man was the best movie released this summer. Better that Indiana, Bats, Hulk, and Hancock.

I agree.