Joker......
How about Richard E Grant as the Joker.....?
He can do the manic grin down to a T.........
How about Richard E Grant as the Joker.....?
He can do the manic grin down to a T.........
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Official Batman Begins Thread.
- Thread starter loib
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mikebatho said:
Great choice, especially with his performance in Withnail & I in mind. He would certainly fit into the British cast. Having said that, the Joker in the sequel should be the same age as Batman like he seems to be in all the comics except the adaptations of films.
Harvey Two-Face should be played by Hayden Christensen. He did good and evil in his last part and everyone saw that.
I just saw it today, the first Batman movie I've ever seen, and as I walked out of the theater I said to my friend, "Easily the best movie of 2005."
Everything was done the right way, nothing cheesy or crappy there. And all these twists that were unexpected made the movie so much better.
The only strange thing was the beginning with the scene transitions, that were almost non existant. We see grown up Bruce Waine or whatever with a beard, then as a kid, then without a beard, then as a kid, then in Gotham. Kind of strange transitions to me, but hey, I'm seeing it again, I'll pay more attention to that.
THE DOTDOTDOT RATING: A+
Everything was done the right way, nothing cheesy or crappy there. And all these twists that were unexpected made the movie so much better.
The only strange thing was the beginning with the scene transitions, that were almost non existant. We see grown up Bruce Waine or whatever with a beard, then as a kid, then without a beard, then as a kid, then in Gotham. Kind of strange transitions to me, but hey, I'm seeing it again, I'll pay more attention to that.
THE DOTDOTDOT RATING: A+
dornoforpyros said:
Actually, Batman was always a ninja - it's just that this is the first movie to finally portray this side of him. If you liked that aspect of the movie, pick up one of the hundreds of Dark Knight comics to find out more, as this is nothing new!
xsedrinam said:
It was the same experience for me - I went opening night and there was a lot of applause at the end, well deserved I might add. Myself and my friends stayed right until the very end as well, watching all the credits and soaking in as much of the experience before we had to leave. Then I saw it again 2 nights later and enjoyed it even more.
clayj said:
I have to agree as well. Although his performance in ROTS was relatively better than his performance in ATOC, it was still pretty horrible. In my opinion he can't act. Of course, we could get into a big debate on how even good actors can't turn crap dialogue into a good performance, it's not his fault, yadda yadda, but let's not get OT, that belongs in another thread. Instead, let's continue discussing the excellent movie (dialogue, acting and all) of Batman Begins.
Clive Owen would be good... or maybe Jude Law.Sol said:
Hell, even one of the Fandango puppets would be better than Hayden Christensen.
clayj said:Hell, even one of the Fandango puppets would be better than Hayden Christensen.
Come on, tell us how you really feel about HC.
Would someone please explain why a weaponized water vaporizer didn't vaporize the 50% or so of water in the human body?
Point well made - I was thinking the same thing in the scene where they introduce the weapon being hyjacked and turned on. I was expecting something very nasty to happen to the hijackers..... but then nothing.ChrisBrightwell said:
Now thats normally a huge problem to me as I'm not the most forgiving of people for such mistakes..... but I got over it in seconds and got back to enjoying the film! T'was awesome, simply awesome, definately the film which has done most justice to the Dark Knight.
Will be seeing it again on Sunday with a decent seat - when I saw it last week a friend who was late resulted in us sitting in the very front row as there was no-where else left to go!
Well this is definately worth making a second post for......
Nolan has approached SEAN PENN to play the Joker. That would be scary. On so many levels. And cool. Just a rumour at the mo, but still.....
Other names in the frame for the role are: Crispin Glover, Lachy Hulme, Tim Roth and Adrien Brody.
The full article is at my fav movie website: JoBlo.com
Nolan has approached SEAN PENN to play the Joker. That would be scary. On so many levels. And cool. Just a rumour at the mo, but still.....
Other names in the frame for the role are: Crispin Glover, Lachy Hulme, Tim Roth and Adrien Brody.
The full article is at my fav movie website: JoBlo.com
Piarco75 said:
Although Penn wouldn't have been the first name to pop into mind when thinking about casting for the Joker, I think he could do an excellent job - he is an amazing actor and it would be interesting to see how he would take on the role.
The Assassination of Richard Nixon was yet another good performance from him. He could do the sociopathic nature of The Joker very very well......
Its a good sign that the franchise is revitalised (and then some!) if its attracting such quality actors - not just big names, but Oscar worth actors.....
Its a good sign that the franchise is revitalised (and then some!) if its attracting such quality actors - not just big names, but Oscar worth actors.....
I'm sorry but this film only confirms that people will swallow any crap and call it great.
The pacing was god awful in the beginning. No establishment. Just a bunch of shots pasted together with superficiality and exposition. Bruce's parents are annoying WASP angels who spew out 2c Hallmark card quotes (which have become popular in comic books nowadays).
As far as the REALISM is concernced (because films have to be REAL...ooo! REAL!...let's make this REAL! - "This film was great!" - "Why?" - "Because it's so REAL! It's realism was REAL! Ahh!"), why the hell did they choose a plot revolving around a prop from the Star Wars prequels that evaporate water? If I want realism I'll go watch a Dogme 95 film. Hey...wait, maybe that's what they should do to the next Batman movie! Where's Lars Van Trier when you need him?
Gotham City was boring...an extended CG cut and paste version of Columbus or Kansas City. Oh wait! I forgot! This is the REAL Batman! The REAL batman who can drive a Humvee Batmoblie on top of rooftops!
Oh well, if there's one good thing that will come out of this film, it's the new official Batman Returns Drinking game! A shot for every time they say "Fear" or "Afraid".
Speaking of which? Was Bruce Wayne anguished by the loss of his parents and was afraid of bats? I don't think that came out clear enough in the dialogue....
The pacing was god awful in the beginning. No establishment. Just a bunch of shots pasted together with superficiality and exposition. Bruce's parents are annoying WASP angels who spew out 2c Hallmark card quotes (which have become popular in comic books nowadays).
As far as the REALISM is concernced (because films have to be REAL...ooo! REAL!...let's make this REAL! - "This film was great!" - "Why?" - "Because it's so REAL! It's realism was REAL! Ahh!"), why the hell did they choose a plot revolving around a prop from the Star Wars prequels that evaporate water? If I want realism I'll go watch a Dogme 95 film. Hey...wait, maybe that's what they should do to the next Batman movie! Where's Lars Van Trier when you need him?
Gotham City was boring...an extended CG cut and paste version of Columbus or Kansas City. Oh wait! I forgot! This is the REAL Batman! The REAL batman who can drive a Humvee Batmoblie on top of rooftops!
Oh well, if there's one good thing that will come out of this film, it's the new official Batman Returns Drinking game! A shot for every time they say "Fear" or "Afraid".
Speaking of which? Was Bruce Wayne anguished by the loss of his parents and was afraid of bats? I don't think that came out clear enough in the dialogue....
Mavimao said:
First of all, by insulting the people who liked this movie (people who swallow crap and call it great) and their preferences, you tarnish your own review of the film. If you did not like the movie, simply state it so with rational reasons behind your opinions and criticisms, there is no need for this kind of an inflammatory comment.
Second of all, (an admitted rant on my part!), simply prefacing a statement with Im sorry but does not justify the statement which follows, magically making it acceptable. This is no different than when people say No offense but and then proceed to make an offensive comment. That type of a comment is unnecessary.
Obviously everyone has their personal likes and dislikes, and no one will like everything that everyone else likes (thats what makes this world an interesting place after all!
) but you do not need to slight people in such a manner just because your opinion differs from theirs. Between implying that fans of this movie are obliviously naïve (swallowing crap and calling it great) and then your sarcastic tone and repeated use of REAL, you have decreased the likelihood that people will take your review seriously.To specifically comment on your dislike of fear in the movie, this was the central underlying theme of the entire movie, and was captured quite potently and executed extremely well by Nolan in my opinion. If you didnt like the theme of the movie thats perfectly fine of course, however you almost imply that it is some unnecessary contrivance when in reality it is not. This is no different than a person saying he didnt like ambition in Macbeth or "indecisiveness" in Hamlet it is what makes the story what it is, plain and simple. But if you didnt like it, hey, thats fine, I have no issues with that!
Again, sorry you didnt like the movie, not everyone will of course, but all I am suggesting could have conveyed your impressions with a little more tact. You do not see any positive reviews here sating that, If anyone hates this movie theyre stupid. Just something to think about.
Saw this a couple of nights ago and loved it (thought I might, when I read Bale was going to be Batman!), and certainly going to see it again.
I really liked the fact that none of the actors dominated the film by hamming it up, all of them were nicely understated. I was very curious how fellow Corkonian Cilian Murphy would cope in that role, I thought he might be too 'wooden' (appropriate for a scarecrow I guess!), but I thought he was quite good.
I have to admit, I found the fight scenes a bit frustrating, though having read this thread I can see why some would enjoy them for that reason. It's just a lot of movies have fight scenes comprised of lots of chaotic action shots simply because they can't direct a quality fight scene! I think it's important to be able to identify with the hero of a film - and it can be difficult to do that if you can't see him or what he's doing!
Didn't stop me loving this film though! What a great cast.
I really liked the fact that none of the actors dominated the film by hamming it up, all of them were nicely understated. I was very curious how fellow Corkonian Cilian Murphy would cope in that role, I thought he might be too 'wooden' (appropriate for a scarecrow I guess!), but I thought he was quite good.
I have to admit, I found the fight scenes a bit frustrating, though having read this thread I can see why some would enjoy them for that reason. It's just a lot of movies have fight scenes comprised of lots of chaotic action shots simply because they can't direct a quality fight scene! I think it's important to be able to identify with the hero of a film - and it can be difficult to do that if you can't see him or what he's doing!
Didn't stop me loving this film though! What a great cast.
Well, I think that they used the quick shots of everything because Batman was trained as a ninja, not to be seen. That style of scene is used to emphasize the fact that he is hidden and mysterious.whooleytoo said: