loib said:
Wow, that's a lot of viewings! Can't say I've seen it that much, but I saw it twice in the thearters and will watch it a few times I'm sure on DVD. How are the special features, etc. on the DVD?
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
Wow, that's a lot of viewings! Can't say I've seen it that much, but I saw it twice in the thearters and will watch it a few times I'm sure on DVD. How are the special features, etc. on the DVD?
Well, I hate to spoil the love-fest, but I hated it.
I really... hated it. I regret the $9.50 I spent... I regret the time I wasted sitting in front of that crap-fest.
The only good thing about the film were the peanut m&m's I payed $3.00 for.
This movie sucked worse than Broken Flowers.
I would recommend that anyone who missed it in the theatres, not waste their time/money on the dvd rental.
I really... hated it. I regret the $9.50 I spent... I regret the time I wasted sitting in front of that crap-fest.
The only good thing about the film were the peanut m&m's I payed $3.00 for.
This movie sucked worse than Broken Flowers.
I would recommend that anyone who missed it in the theatres, not waste their time/money on the dvd rental.
cr2sh said:
Hey, no worries, not everyone can like it.
You seem to have strong feelings aginst it though, could you provide us with some reasoning and examples to back-up your stance? Just curious why you thought it was so bad.
Lacero said:You probably came in with the wrong expectations. That's why I think Van Damme movies are so good. I'm expecting mindless action, and that's what I got.
Does he even still make movies? I haven't heard that name in ages...
~Shard~ said:Hey, no worries, not everyone can like it.
You seem to have strong feelings aginst it though, could you provide us with some reasoning and examples to back-up your stance? Just curious why you thought it was so bad.
I've said in this thread a few times that the fight scenes were too closely shot. Every time a fight broke out, its like the director went into some sort of macro mode. You couldn't see anything. You couldn't tell what was going on. I'd sit back in my chair, and just wonder.. what the **** is happening?
There are plot holes everywhere... it's just a ridiculous film that everyone seems to think is fantastic. I don't understand why anyone is so taken with it... god, if I hadn't seen it MONTHS ago, I'd go on and on.
I'm not going to watch it again though. It sucked,nd I have to believe you guys will see the error of your ways one day and realize it sucked.
About that, I think the quick cut / macro mode works.cr2sh said:
I think that was the point. We are supposed to be seeing it from the point of view of the thugs, so it happens in a flash. If the director made the decision to make every kick and punch visible, it would look corny. The focus would be away from the story and on the action. Maybe add some slow motion, ala John Woo style?
This sort of technique reminds me of how Steven Spielberg deliberately shot all the scenes in E.T. from a low angle - the same height as from a child's perspective. I would suggest to anyone to re-watch E.T. or rent it and watch how they shoot a lot of the scenes. Always from the point of view of the children. So this sort of technique was used wisely by Chris Nolan, I believe.
OH yea, the fight scenes! I kinda agree with cr2sh on the fight scenes, or scene for me. I only noticed the whole macro thing in the first fight scene, where he fights off those 6 guys. But granted, I started to watch the movie with some prejeduce. I didn't think the movie was going to be good and plus i had work to do so i wanted it to be over. I noticed the macro, as you stated, thing heavily on just that one scene. now that i think about it, there was more of it later in the movie but i honestly didnt notice. I am only noticing now, as i type and think about the movie.
Lacero said:About that, I think the quick cut / macro mode works.
I think that was the point. We are supposed to be seeing it from the point of view of the thugs, so it happens in a flash. If the director made the decision to make every kick and punch visible, it would look corny. The focus would be away from the story and on the action. Maybe add some slow motion, ala John Woo style?
This sort of technique reminds me of how Steven Spielberg deliberately shot all the scenes in E.T. from a low angle - the same height as from a child's perspective. I would suggest to anyone to re-watch E.T. or rent it and watch how they shoot a lot of the scenes. Always from the point of view of the children. So this sort of technique was used wisely by Chris Nolan, I believe.
Took the words out of my mouth. The fight scenes worked for me as well. I think that was the whole point of having Batman being ninja-like and stealthy - you weren't supposed to be able to follow what was going on, just like his foes. But of course, this doesn't work for everyone, so fair enough if some people didn't like this style.
Good example with ET as well. I think Nolan did an amazing job with the direction. Hmm, now I'm getting an urge to wtach Memento again...
cr2sh said:I've said in this thread a few times that the fight scenes were too closely shot. Every time a fight broke out, its like the director went into some sort of macro mode. You couldn't see anything. You couldn't tell what was going on. I'd sit back in my chair, and just wonder.. what the **** is happening?
There are plot holes everywhere... it's just a ridiculous film that everyone seems to think is fantastic. I don't understand why anyone is so taken with it... god, if I hadn't seen it MONTHS ago, I'd go on and on.
I'm not going to watch it again though. It sucked,nd I have to believe you guys will see the error of your ways one day and realize it sucked.
Fair enough, thanks for elaborating.
~Shard~ said:Fair enough, thanks for elaborating.
I think it's easy to say things like "it's brilliant because you can't see anything! It was meant to be ninja like!" but this is a movie and I'm not going to watch **** I can't see. The fight scenes are unwatchable. Unenjoyable.
Also, the one-liners in the film. Regarding the batmobile and just tons of other stupid ****. The movie just plays to this teenager audience and it's complete crap. If it's serious, fine.. deep and distrubed.. awesome, but don't play to this one liner ass-clown nonsense.
cr2sh said:
Again, fair enough, I see your point. Sometimes though what you don't see is more powerful than what you do see. Many movies have utilized this philosophy before with great success, especially Alien, for instance. But, perhaps you feel this is not one of those cases.
And, perhaps you simply feel that since a movie is supposed to be primarily a visual experience, the visual component is paramout. Once again, fair enough.
they've announced who the joker is going to be this time around.....
for those too lazy to click the link and read: it's heath ledger
hmmm interesting choice. can't imagine it'll live up to jack's performance....
for those too lazy to click the link and read: it's heath ledger
hmmm interesting choice. can't imagine it'll live up to jack's performance....
jelloshotsrule said:
A very strange choice, I'd have thought; very much cast against type.
Still, I actually like Ledger as an actor, maybe he might surprise us.
I'm very much looking forward to this film and it's nice to see that the Director will be the same. Superman suffered from various talent walking in and out during the many stages of production.
Still, Batman Begins was (IMHO) a superb film...I'll certainly see the next.
Still, Batman Begins was (IMHO) a superb film...I'll certainly see the next.
jelloshotsrule said:
And Jack Nicholson had some very large shoes to fill in that role as well. Caesar Romero was a great Joker, even if a little campy.
Heath Ledger has talent and I can see him with the maniacal grin.
I can see The Dark Knight back story now...
Young Jack Napier and Bruce Wayne herding sheep in the wide open spaces of Gotham City's mountainside...
...would make for a compelling plot line.
Young Jack Napier and Bruce Wayne herding sheep in the wide open spaces of Gotham City's mountainside...
...would make for a compelling plot line.
yeah that is a wee bit of an odd choice. but hey. you never know. maybe he'll come through. and if he doesn't I will personally castrate him for ruining the movie.
I swear. if the second one isnt as awe-inspiring and awesome as the first. i am going on a rampage
WHO'S WITH ME>?!
I swear. if the second one isnt as awe-inspiring and awesome as the first. i am going on a rampage
WHO'S WITH ME>?!
I'm disapointed with the choice for the new Joker. I read earlier this year that Crispin Glover was in the running for the role but I guess it didin't happen.
erickkoch said:I'm disapointed with the choice for the new Joker. I read earlier this year that Crispin Glover was in the running for the role but I guess it didin't happen.
I'm disappointed too, Heath Ledger's a tosser.
Robin Williams would have been good.