Movies

[BTH]

The best? No, but it's not easy to say who is. One of the best? Yes I think so.

What I meant to say (and I realize now I could have made it clearer) is he's one of the best actors to have emerged in the last decade or so. Well, considering he was in Empire of the Sun which came out two decades ago maybe I should say the last 25-25 years... but you get my point, I hope. I'd argue though that it's only in the last 10 or so years that he's became a household name.

I don't think he really ever became a household name until Batman Begins and he is definitely one of the best working actors but I cannot place him ahead of Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, Russell Crowe and others members of that elite class that I didn't mention. I'd class Bale with Ed Norton, Benicio Del Toro and Leonardo DiCaprio.

[jetsniper]

I don't know, I think you could say American Psycho made him a very well known name. That was the movie everyone attributed to him anyway before he did Batman. Acting has to be personal preference too because I think Bale is easily better then Johnny Depp. I've always found Depp to be overrated, especially recently, by the obsession the younger crowd has with him. Depp is certainly one of the better actors, no doubt about that, but I think his talent tends to get blown out of proportion now and then.

Anyway, debating actors isn't why I came in here so I'll just leave that alone now. As if I wasn't excited enough for The Dark Knight (!!!! TOMORROW!!!) I just found out that Warner Bros. is packaging the first Watchmen trailer with it. Probably the most highly regarded graphic novel of all-time, the trailer looks fantastic.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/07/17/mus...utely-stunning/

Gotta scroll down a tiny bit. It doesn't come out until March so definitely pick up the paperback if it looks interesting. Zack Snyder who did the Dawn Of The Dead remake (loved it) and 300 (another good one. Not as great after repeated viewings though) is directing.

[BTH]

Depp loses credibility points because he has a massive group of obsessive female fans but that doesn't take away from his acting talent. He might be overrated from some of his crazy fans from time to time and many of them literally worship him but there is no current working actor whose resumé is as rounded as Depp's. From Pirates of the Caribbean to Ed Wood and his other quirky Burton roles to the completely different character he plays in Blow, etc... He can just play anything and he basically has.

Bale is a very similar actor and probably has the #2 biggest crowd of female fans but he has never blown me away in any of his performances. I still have to see a lot of his movies but the best I've seen him was in American Psycho and though he was good, I can't say he was amazing.

I think the major difference between them is that Depp always has that presence and is always the star of the show while Bale is talented but can be outshined (outshone) as he as by Russell Crowe in 3:10 to Yuma. It'll be interesting to see who outperforms who in Public Enemies, these two are pretty much rivals, or at least their fan clubs are.

Yeah, I am pretty pumped for both The Dark Knight and Watchmen (I haven't read the graphic novel). TDK is going to make a shitload of money.

[jetsniper]

Yeah, you actually bring up a good point about him never really stealing the show (which is true) and I'm willing to bet basically anything this happens in The Dark Knight. Batman Begins was Bale's movie but TDK is pretty much Heath Ledger's movie. And I think that would've happened even if Heath Ledger hadn't of passed away, everything I've seen looks like Ledger has perfected The Joker. Critics are already saying it'll be a sham if he doesn't get nominated at the Oscars (although I've never put a whole lot of stake in the oscars, it's at least nice to be recognized for your efforts).

And my point isn't really to say Depp is a bad actor because he's not, I agree he's among the best in Hollywood. I think though if you look at the stable of elite actors on a broad scope, it's easy to re-arrange them to suit your own tastes. Me for example, I dislike basically anything Tim Burton has done (Edward Scissorhands is the exception, another childhood favourite) while Christian Bale perfected the Batman character after years of frustrating takes on the character (screw you, Val Kilmer!).

So Bale basically gets brownie points for the Batman movies from me while Depp loses points for all of Tim Burton's movies so Bale gets an edge over Depp for me. However it's perfectly reasonable to see Depp as a better actor but I don't think you can compare their body of work juuuuuust quite yet because Depp has a bit of an advantage in bigger name roles over Bale.

But after three paragraphs, all I've really come up with is that I prefer Bale over Depp. Super long extended version. I think it's almost a given The Dark Knight will have the best opening weekend of the year.

[JLP]

That's cool "Two-Lane" isn't the most popular movie. If it had more Mopar I would be a bigger fan of it lol. I haven't seen "Race with the Devil". Is it worth putting on my list of must views?

well it's peter fonda and warren oates with their wives in a winnebago being chased by satanists so of course it's 'must view' -- seriously it's more a campy than serious cinema but fun with a pizza and a jay for sure.

Also in the road-movie-stalker-car genre is "Duel," now that is a classic.

[KoZed]

Yeah, you actually bring up a good point about him never really stealing the show (which is true) and I'm willing to bet basically anything this happens in The Dark Knight. Batman Begins was Bale's movie but TDK is pretty much Heath Ledger's movie. And I think that would've happened even if Heath Ledger hadn't of passed away, everything I've seen looks like Ledger has perfected The Joker. Critics are already saying it'll be a sham if he doesn't get nominated at the Oscars (although I've never put a whole lot of stake in the oscars, it's at least nice to be recognized for your efforts).

And my point isn't really to say Depp is a bad actor because he's not, I agree he's among the best in Hollywood. I think though if you look at the stable of elite actors on a broad scope, it's easy to re-arrange them to suit your own tastes. Me for example, I dislike basically anything Tim Burton has done (Edward Scissorhands is the exception, another childhood favourite) while Christian Bale perfected the Batman character after years of frustrating takes on the character (screw you, Val Kilmer!).

So Bale basically gets brownie points for the Batman movies from me while Depp loses points for all of Tim Burton's movies so Bale gets an edge over Depp for me. However it's perfectly reasonable to see Depp as a better actor but I don't think you can compare their body of work juuuuuust quite yet because Depp has a bit of an advantage in bigger name roles over Bale.

But after three paragraphs, all I've really come up with is that I prefer Bale over Depp. Super long extended version. I think it's almost a given The Dark Knight will have the best opening weekend of the year.

Loads of people I know are going to the midnight opening tonight. Wished I could have gone too.

Kinda unfair right now to compare Bale & Depp. Depp is 45, 11 yrs older than Bale and belongs to a previous generation IMO, he also got offered a better range of characters than Bale has so far. Bale is born the same year as DiCaprio, and I'd put both in the best of their generation along with Adrian Brody and Joaquin Phoenix (same generation as Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron); like Depp's in the bests of his generation with Seymour Hoffman. However those are two generations younger than the current generation at its peak which is actors in their 50's: Hanks, Penn, Day-Lewis, Whitaker... those guys can carry a movie on their own.

Bale won me over in Equilibrium. That movie just kicked so much ass on zero budget; it was like seeing Bale's audition for Batman.

I put Ledger in the same generation as a whole bunch of actors born in the late 70's/early 80's who all played in some teen flicks in the late 90's. I'm highly anticipating to see Ledger's performance as the Joker because I thought it could be his break out role. He could have got much better roles in bigger movies earlier in his career, like actors from the same generation got.

For example take the same teen movies and alumnis. "10 Things I Hate about You" had Ledger, Stiles, Union, Krumholtz and Keegan. Hegder & Krumholtz are the only two who's career took off after. Hedger got some crappy movies (A Knight's Tale anyone?) but he never really got offered anything big. Stiles looks like she was a flash in the pan. Union's career also fell flat. Krumholtz got some nice supporting roles than landed the big TV gig with Numb3rs which always open movie doors later because it proves he can be a lead male even if he doesnt have the pretty face -- which is the #1 factor in Hollywood -- .

Another teen movie from the same era (and a fave of mine) was "The Faculty". You had the big names in supporting roles (Hayek, Janssen, Patrick, Neuwirth) but the movie's main characters were the kids. Great young cast: Josh Hartnett, Elijah Wood, Brewster, Duvall, Usher, Harris & Hatosy. Hartnett & Wood got the big gigs after that (Pearl Harbor, Blackhawk Down, Sin City for Hartnett, LotR, ESoSM, Sin City for Wood) while Duvall carved a good niche for herself in supporting roles in loads of movies. Usher's musical career took off, Brewster sorta stayed still with only Fast & Furious of note.

Same era teen movie: Disturbing Behavior. James Mardsen got a whole bunch of nice roles (Cyclops in X-Men is a nice gig, got to make out with Famke Janssen, bastard) after that just because of his pretty face but it don't seem it'll go any further. Katie Holmes was still in Dawson's Creek but she got some decent roles (Go, Phone Booth and Batman Begins) but always in small female supporting roles, that's all she can do. The biggest breakout from the bunch is Nick Stahl, who really started turning out good performances after that, landing some nice roles in big movies and now just starting to spread his wings.

Gyllenhaal's from the same generation but never went through the teen flick part. Funnily enough, him and Ledger are probably the best two actors (three if you add Stahl) to come out of the whole lot of them. With the Joker, I think Ledger will heads and shoulders above all the rest for a good time.

[jetsniper]

Couldn't you consider Brokeback Mountain as a breakout role for Ledger? Not only because it earned him nomination but he got a lot of press and attention as well for being in "the gay cowboy movie". I don't know if he would've gotten The Dark Knight without it (and he was actually offered Spider-Man but turned that down). I mean, I realize Oscar noms don't always launch a career (hello Marisa Tomei) but that movie definitely added a whole other layer of buzz to his status in Hollywood.

It's funny you should mention David Krumholtz because he's got one other thing working in his corner and that was his participation in Freaks and Geeks. Mind you it was only one episode but he apparently struck up a good relationship with Judd Apatow. Of course Apatow is turning all of his guys from that show into big stars now. You've got James Franco, Seth Rogen and now Jason Segel looks like he'll be the next one with the success of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I guess Apatow has been trying to do a project with Krumholtz as well but their schedules keep conflicting. I remember hearing Knocked Up was originally supposed to be for David Krumholtz.

I only found out my local theater was having a midnight showing for The Dark Knight this morning. I tried to scramble and see if anyone could make but things didn't work out. I had to go back to my original plan of getting to the theater a couple hours before it opened and seeing the first showing at noon.

Edited July 18, 2008 by jetsniper

[Quebecois]

Just saw TDK...phenomenal....

not sure if it was the instant top 5 movie of all time that i was expecting, but the Joker really delivers and it probably beats out Batman Begins by a hair for best comic book movie that i've seen...

[Doktor Kosmos]

I don't think he really ever became a household name until Batman Begins and he is definitely one of the best working actors but I cannot place him ahead of Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, Russell Crowe and others members of that elite class that I didn't mention. I'd class Bale with Ed Norton, Benicio Del Toro and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Again I can't find the right way to get my point across. I suck.

It's a question of generations I suppose. The elite names you mentioned are a bit older (generally speaking) than guys like Bale, Norton, Leo and Del Toro.

I don't think one should hold it against Depp that he has a lot of schoolgirls as his fans. Last fall I went to a Lars Winnerbäck concert. I have listened to him (I think he's born the same year as me, or perhaps he's a year or two older or younger than me) and his records for a decade now. Well at this concert I was shocked to find hords of 14-year-old girls screaking their lungs out in (stereo-)typical teenybopper manner. Did that make me feel different about the quality of the music I've listened to since these girls were four years old? No-sir-ee. It's not his fault. So don't hold it against him. Doesn't lessen his credibility in my opinion.

All I'll say on the matter of Christian Bale is that he blew me away in The Machinist. I first "discovered" him in American Psycho - The Machinist made me a fan for life.

And I'm not so sure about Ledger. I like him very much in the movies I've seen with him in them, but I can't help thinking people wouldn't think as highly of him if he hadn't left this little blue pebble in the sky. Popular culture is jam-packed with similar examples. It's human and nothing to feel ashamed for IMO. (ADD: I haven't seen Dark Knight though so don't read my post as a comment on Ledger's actual performance in that movie.)

Hope this doesn't make me sound like a condescending prick because I mean it in the nicest way.

I think though if you look at the stable of elite actors on a broad scope, it's easy to re-arrange them to suit your own tastes.

That's a very good point.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Doktor Kosmos

[Doktor Kosmos]

Couldn't you consider Brokeback Mountain as a breakout role for Ledger? Not only because it earned him nomination but he got a lot of press and attention as well for being in "the gay cowboy movie". I don't know if he would've gotten The Dark Knight without it (and he was actually offered Spider-Man but turned that down). I mean, I realize Oscar noms don't always launch a career (hello Marisa Tomei) but that movie definitely added a whole other layer of buzz to his status in Hollywood.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are correct about that.

[BTH]

I don't like separating people by generation because therre are always people in the middle. A 20 year old and a 40 year old are in two separate generations but who's generation is the thirty year old in? And if the gap is every ten years, would a 32 year old be in a different generations from a 29 year old, yet in the same one as a 39 year old? Could he be in the same generation as the 29 year old and the 39 year old while those two are in separate ones?

You cannot officially seperate people into age groups so it becomes very tough. Depp is 45 and Bale is 33 so Depp does have a big advantage but I would still consider them the same generation because they are both in their prime right now. I basically consider everyone who's in their prime to be in this generation, including older guys like Day-Lewis. I would consider guys like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman members of past generations; even if they can still act, they do not really get offered those huge roles that Depp, DDL, Bale, Blanchett, Winslet, DiCaprio, Seymour Hoffman etc make.

[jetsniper]

Again I can't find the right way to get my point across. I suck.

It's a question of generations I suppose. The elite names you mentioned are a bit older (generally speaking) than guys like Bale, Norton, Leo and Del Toro.

I don't think one should hold it against Depp that he has a lot of schoolgirls as his fans. Last fall I went to a Lars Winnerbäck concert. I have listened to him (I think he's born the same year as me, or perhaps he's a year or two older or younger than me) and his records for a decade now. Well at this concert I was shocked to find hords of 14-year-old girls screaking their lungs out in (stereo-)typical teenybopper manner. Did that make me feel different about the quality of the music I've listened to since these girls were four years old? No-sir-ee. It's not his fault. So don't hold it against him. Doesn't lessen his credibility in my opinion.

Well I don't mean to say Depp loses credibility because of his fans because he's never really tried to cater to their tastes and thats something that really bothers me but that is more of music issue, it doesn't happen much in film. However when someone catches on to that kind of group of people then it almost turns into a kind of syndrome and that one persons status gets way, way blown out of proportion. Theres a lot of them who thing he is easily the best actor of all-time and won't hear a word against it. Which doesn't bother me either but then they get irrational when you try to suggest that might not be the case.

All I'll say on the matter of Christian Bale is that he blew me away in The Machinist. I first "discovered" him in American Psycho - The Machinist made me a fan for life.

And I'm not so sure about Ledger. I like him very much in the movies I've seen with him in them, but I can't help thinking people wouldn't think as highly of him if he hadn't left this little blue pebble in the sky. Popular culture is jam-packed with similar examples. It's human and nothing to feel ashamed for IMO. (ADD: I haven't seen Dark Knight though so don't read my post as a comment on Ledger's actual performance in that movie.)

Hope this doesn't make me sound like a condescending prick because I mean it in the nicest way.

Nah, it doesn't, you make a good point. I think his situation is the exact same thing as River Phoenix in the early 90s.

Anyway, I just got back from The Dark Knight and let me tell you, that was one of the best movies I've ever seen. I have a tendency to overrate some movies right after I've seen them (go check my response to The Incredible Hulk. I still think it's one of the better comic book movies made but definitely not the masterpiece I made it out to be) but not this time. TDK was fast, dark, gritty, emotional and gripping. Everything a classic movie needs to be and this one is going to be memorable. My only beef was that

Two-Face was used as a plot device rather then an actual villain. I also had a problem with Gordon dieing but obviously that was fixed up. You could see the twist coming a mile away but it usually happens soon after the death, not for as long as Nolan let it go and I've got to give him credit. He had me wondering for a bit there.

I was bored a couple days ago and ranked all the comic book movies (comic book movies though, not ones based on graphic novels or miniseries or anything) and I think I can place The Dark Knight right at #1 without any indecision or having to change it later.

It was truely a phenomenal film. I'd like to echo Kevin Smith's sentiments when he said it will be a sham if Heath Ledger receives no recognition when it comes to award season. There were 2 or 3 moments where I sat back and though "This is classic Joker" and I never had that with Nicholson.

Alas I only have two thumbs to put up for this movie but if I had more, they'd all be up as well.

[Fanpuck33]

One question about Terminator: If inorganic things like weapons and clothes can't pass through the time portals, why can the Terminators pass through? They're more machine than anything, so why aren't they blocked from passing through them?

[Doktor Kosmos]

I don't like separating people by generation because therre are always people in the middle. A 20 year old and a 40 year old are in two separate generations but who's generation is the thirty year old in? And if the gap is every ten years, would a 32 year old be in a different generations from a 29 year old, yet in the same one as a 39 year old? Could he be in the same generation as the 29 year old and the 39 year old while those two are in separate ones?

You cannot officially seperate people into age groups so it becomes very tough. Depp is 45 and Bale is 33 so Depp does have a big advantage but I would still consider them the same generation because they are both in their prime right now. I basically consider everyone who's in their prime to be in this generation, including older guys like Day-Lewis. I would consider guys like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman members of past generations; even if they can still act, they do not really get offered those huge roles that Depp, DDL, Bale, Blanchett, Winslet, DiCaprio, Seymour Hoffman etc make.

I know, it's not easy, and furthermore, it's totally subjective. I'll offer a possible explanation and you can all decide whether it makes sense to you or not. It seems to me when I think about it that, if we focus on Bale and Depp for a little while longer, age and the year they were born is not necessarily the reason why I don't think of them as being part of the same "generation" (and maybe if my language skills were better I could have made a better choice of words than "generation", but I think that word can still work). Maybe it's got more to do with the first movie they appeared in. And in this particular case perhaps that doesn't help because Bale starred in Empire of the Sun at the age of 14 whereas Depp starred in A Nightmare on Elm Street at the age of 21, a difference of 8 years, and let's not forget that both movies came out in the same decade, i.e. the 1980's. But if we can use "breakthrough movie" as a pointer, I'd argue that that movie for Bale is American Psycho (2000) and for Depp it's, oh say Edward Scissorhands or maybe the TV series 21 Jump Street (which was probably the first I ever saw of Depp). Both of those date back to 1990. That difference is ten years.

Also, I'm a big Tim Burton fan so I feel a need to stick up for him too, if you will be kind enough to indulge me, I may have alluded to this in earlier posts in this thread. How movies are made and how we watch movies has changed and changes constantly. Progress is made (not just speical FX but story telling, directing, acting and so on and so forth as well) and we build on what's been done in the past, both the movie makers and the movie-watching audience. Take any Hitchcock movie for example. It's said (I wasn't there at the time so I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the statement) that Psycho scared people enough to make 'em pass out in the movie theatres back in the 1960's. If the same movie had been mothballed and they took it out of the safe today and started showing it at the movies tomorrow, would people still be as scared by it? I don't think they would, partly because a lot has happened in movie making since 1960-whatever the year was exactly when the movie premiered. It's like trying to compare Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky and Cindy Captain of the Diving Team Corsy.

Then again, who cares? I say fukk it. It's all subjective anyhow and by no means do I think my opinion should count higher than anyone else's either as to who's the better actor. And if I just look at it from a different perspective your opinion makes just as much sense as mine, probably moreso in fact.

One question about Terminator: If inorganic things like weapons and clothes can't pass through the time portals, why can the Terminators pass through? They're more machine than anything, so why aren't they blocked from passing through them?

If I remember correctly, either Michael Bien tells Linda Hamilton this in Part 1 or Arnold tells Edward Furlong in Part 2. The T-101 (sometimes refered to as T-800, i.e. Arnold) can pass through despite the metal skeleton because it is covered with living tissue, muscles and such. I'm not sure about the T-1000 (Robert Patrick) and T-X (the über-hot Kristanna Loken).

ADD:

Could he be in the same generation as the 29 year old and the 39 year old while those two are in separate ones?

Yes.

Seriously, I hanve't had this much fun on any of the four or five message boards I post at in a long, long time. Let me take the time to thank you guys for that. I remember ealier in this thread we were discussing something and to me it felt like people were getting ready to take out their guns and start shooting up the place - this has been an excellent discussion in my opinion and I hope it continues.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Doktor Kosmos

[KoZed]

I don't like separating people by generation because therre are always people in the middle. A 20 year old and a 40 year old are in two separate generations but who's generation is the thirty year old in? And if the gap is every ten years, would a 32 year old be in a different generations from a 29 year old, yet in the same one as a 39 year old? Could he be in the same generation as the 29 year old and the 39 year old while those two are in separate ones?

No it's not that subjective and it does make a hell of a difference. As for what you describe as "tweeners" it just depends on the roles they get.

Hollywood's roles are usually very closely associated with age (asking aging actresses), so an actor's range of available roles are tightly tied to his age; further more 1 year in Hollywood can mean 1 to 3 films. So 10 years can mean up to 15-25 movies of difference. That's huge.

You cannot officially seperate people into age groups so it becomes very tough. Depp is 45 and Bale is 33 so Depp does have a big advantage but I would still consider them the same generation because they are both in their prime right now. I basically consider everyone who's in their prime to be in this generation, including older guys like Day-Lewis. I would consider guys like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman members of past generations; even if they can still act, they do not really get offered those huge roles that Depp, DDL, Bale, Blanchett, Winslet, DiCaprio, Seymour Hoffman etc make.

Being "in your prime" doesnt make you part of the same generation. Tommy Lee Jones still in his prime, carried No Country for Old Men almost all on his own and he's 62. Nicholson's 71 and was top notch in About Schmidt. They still get offered big roles (Hanks in Da Vinci Code, Washington in American Gangster) but those guys have nothing left to prove and can pick what they want or more likely produce rather than act.

[Doktor Kosmos]

I watched Batman Begins again last night, hadn't seen it in a while. I really like Bale as Bruce Wayne. I can't think of a better Bruce Wayne off the top of my head. I always thought Michael Keaton was, I don't know, not cool enough to pull off Batman. And George Clooney and Val Kilmer stunk up the place. So saying Bale is the best might not be saying much. But you know what I mean.

I think the supporting cast did a very good job as well. I'm no fan of Miss Scientology of the Year but I think even she was pretty good, or at least good enough to not ruin anything. I've always been a Michael Caine fan and his efforts in the movie gave me no reason to change my opinion of him. I also like Morgan Freeman. The problem with him is that much like too many Hollywood actors he will partake in way too many shitty movies, which isn't a plus. But I think he was good in Batman Begins. And I thoroughly enjoyed Gary Oldman, and even Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson for that matter. It felt nice seeing those three in what I think are unusual parts for them. Oldman's usually the villain, as is Hauer (he's sort of like a European Jon Voight), and Neeson is usually a good guy. So that was nice. Hauer was more toned down than usual I think.

There are a few things I feel could have been better but right now, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I think could have been done much better was the setting up of the sequal(s?). Gordon (I think it was Gordon) showing Batman the file on the Joker felt like something thrown in in a haste at the end, I didn't like how they handled that.

[Doktor Kosmos]

I'm watching and old Michael Moore documentary. Two thumbs up.

[JoeLassister]

I think that, as an actor, once you have lived the same experiences in life ( let's just say high school, partys, dating, sex, be a parent, death, any other important life events), then actors are all mixed up in the same category.

Now it is obvious that at 20-25, there is a strong chance that you are not yet able to express the same level of pain if your mother dies in that scene if your own mother still alive in the real life. There is no way an actress can be THAT good in a love/sex scene if she's still a virgin...

What makes a distinction between actors, IMO, is 1. as you said guys their age (based on the needs of the movie) and 2. their ability to play, their acting skills.

[jetsniper]

I watched Batman Begins again last night, hadn't seen it in a while. I really like Bale as Bruce Wayne. I can't think of a better Bruce Wayne off the top of my head. I always thought Michael Keaton was, I don't know, not cool enough to pull off Batman. And George Clooney and Val Kilmer stunk up the place. So saying Bale is the best might not be saying much. But you know what I mean.

I think the supporting cast did a very good job as well. I'm no fan of Miss Scientology of the Year but I think even she was pretty good, or at least good enough to not ruin anything. I've always been a Michael Caine fan and his efforts in the movie gave me no reason to change my opinion of him. I also like Morgan Freeman. The problem with him is that much like too many Hollywood actors he will partake in way too many shitty movies, which isn't a plus. But I think he was good in Batman Begins. And I thoroughly enjoyed Gary Oldman, and even Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson for that matter. It felt nice seeing those three in what I think are unusual parts for them. Oldman's usually the villain, as is Hauer (he's sort of like a European Jon Voight), and Neeson is usually a good guy. So that was nice. Hauer was more toned down than usual I think.

There are a few things I feel could have been better but right now, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I think could have been done much better was the setting up of the sequal(s?). Gordon (I think it was Gordon) showing Batman the file on the Joker felt like something thrown in in a haste at the end, I didn't like how they handled that.

It wasn't in the comics but I really liked Liam Neeson's turn as Ra's. If they were going to cover the comics then Watanabe was perfectly acceptable as the character because thats how he was. Then back in Gotham you've got The Scarecrow running his own show so you never really give Ra's Al Ghul a second thought and then bam, there he is. I thought it all came together very nicely and at the time was very unique for a comic book movie. I expect some of the future comic book movies to be copycats of these last two Batman films now. Not only are they rolling in the cash but they're extremley well done. Like I said, The Dark Knight and Batman Begins hold the 1 and 2 spots on my comic movie list. Whats amazing about that is I'm a Marvel fanboy and a DC hater, so to have 2 DC movies at the top is a little odd. Theres really nothing to hate about Batman though, his rogue gallery is probably more recognizable by the general public then any other superhero out there.

I agree with you on the other Batmans too, I was talking about that with my friend while we were waiting for the theater to open yesterday. Michael Keaton probably came closest but Batman likes to be a hardass and invoke fear in his enemies, he likes to use it to his advantage. I've noticed Christian Bale is the only one of them to put on a completely different persona when he's wearing the suit. Then at the other end of the spectrum you've got George Clooney where it wasn't Batman but it was George Clooney in a Batman suit (I hope you get what I mean by that).

Val Kilmer is usually a snorefest but I'd definitely be willing to let Jim Carrey come in for the third movie and do The Riddler again. I think he'd able to fit the dark and gritty tone of the movie. Fans are talking now about re-casting The Joker and having him back but after seeing Heath's performance yesterday, I'm going to be extremely mad if they do that. No one else should touch The Joker now.

I'm watching and old Michael Moore documentary. Two thumbs up.

Oh man, we had to watch Canadian Bacon in social class a few times. I love that movie, it makes me wish John Candy was still with us.

[Doktor Kosmos]

I really liked Liam Neeson's turn as Ra's. If they were going to cover the comics then Watanabe was perfectly acceptable as the character because thats how he was. Then back in Gotham you've got The Scarecrow running his own show so you never really give Ra's Al Ghul a second thought and then bam, there he is. I thought it all came together very nicely

Couldn't agree more.

I agree with you on the other Batmans too, I was talking about that with my friend while we were waiting for the theater to open yesterday. Michael Keaton probably came closest but Batman likes to be a hardass and invoke fear in his enemies, he likes to use it to his advantage. I've noticed Christian Bale is the only one of them to put on a completely different persona when he's wearing the suit. Then at the other end of the spectrum you've got George Clooney where it wasn't Batman but it was George Clooney in a Batman suit (I hope you get what I mean by that).

I completely get what you're saying. Now I like George Clooney, but his Batman is not among his good movies (like the stuff he's done with the Coens and Syriana, for example). Keaton was decent, he did his best, I just think he's not perfect for the part. I'd love to watch the "original" again though, I haven't seen it in quite a while.

Val Kilmer is usually a snorefest but I'd definitely be willing to let Jim Carrey come in for the third movie and do The Riddler again. I think he'd able to fit the dark and gritty tone of the movie. Fans are talking now about re-casting The Joker and having him back but after seeing Heath's performance yesterday, I'm going to be extremely mad if they do that. No one else should touch The Joker now.

If they know what's good for 'em they won't cast another actor to play the Joker. I don't know what happens since I haven't seen TDN yet (not sure it's premiered in Sweden yet), but I think they're better off not using that character anymore, especially if what everyone's saying about Ledger's performance is true. That'd only be shooting yourself in the foot.

I haven't thought about The Riddler and Jim Carrey, but I'm sure he'd do a better job this time around. Feels like he's done more than just comedies now, compared to the Jim Carrey of 1995, the Jim Carrey of 2008 has a much greater range as an actor.

I'm not a huge comic book moive buff and certainly no expert on the subject, but I think that something can be said about more recent comic book movies - they're not as over-the-top, not as cartoonish as the ones made in the 90's. I really, REALLY like the darker tone. The new comic book movies wouldn't be the same without that aspect.

Oh man, we had to watch Canadian Bacon in social class a few times. I love that movie, it makes me wish John Candy was still with us.

It's really funny here and there, not so funny in other parts. It will give me a good supply of material to use though, there's this really nice and funny Canadian guy on another board, we have this little contest where we try to make fun of each other on the basis that he's a Canadian and I'm Swedish. He calls me IKEA apologist and I call him maple syrup junkie, he calls me meatball man and I call him Don Chery wannabe. There's some really good stuff in Canadian Bacon that I can use. Like Dan Aykroyd's mountie for example.

The movie is much more a case of making fun at the expense of the US than Canada though.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Doktor Kosmos

[Quebecois]

Val Kilmer is usually a snorefest but I'd definitely be willing to let Jim Carrey come in for the third movie and do The Riddler again. I think he'd able to fit the dark and gritty tone of the movie. Fans are talking now about re-casting The Joker and having him back but after seeing Heath's performance yesterday, I'm going to be extremely mad if they do that. No one else should touch The Joker now.

Is it confirmed that we're getting Riddler for the next movie? That's what I was hoping for...

[jetsniper]

I completely get what you're saying. Now I like George Clooney, but his Batman is not among his good movies (like the stuff he's done with the Coens and Syriana, for example). Keaton was decent, he did his best, I just think he's not perfect for the part. I'd love to watch the "original" again though, I haven't seen it in quite a while.

I think every Batman movie was on last night. I've seen the other three recently but hadn't seen the first one in a while so I watched for a little bit. It's not a bad movie per se but I think it was a little overrated just because the amount of decent comic book movies that were out at the time was basically zilch. I think it really only had Superman I and II to compete with. Burton made a few changes to Batman's origin that I felt was unecessary and to beat a dead horse, I don't like Jack Nicholson's Joker at all. It's an OK movie, out of curiousity I just checked my little list and I had Batman at #16. Although looking ahead of it, theres probably a couple I'd put it ahead of now so it's probably more like #13.

And to George Clooney's credit, he has admitted he was a terrible choice to play Batman.

If they know what's good for 'em they won't cast another actor to play the Joker. I don't know what happens since I haven't seen TDN yet (not sure it's premiered in Sweden yet), but I think they're better off not using that character anymore, especially if what everyone's saying about Ledger's performance is true. That'd only be shooting yourself in the foot.

Agreed, I've seen lots of people wanting Johnny Depp re-cast in the role (the man gets mentioned for every role on the internet) but I just don't see who anyone can take over from Heath Ledger. He was just that good.

I haven't thought about The Riddler and Jim Carrey, but I'm sure he'd do a better job this time around. Feels like he's done more than just comedies now, compared to the Jim Carrey of 1995, the Jim Carrey of 2008 has a much greater range as an actor.

Even in Batman Forever, Jim Carrey wasn't terrible. He was certainly the highlight of the movie but thats not exactly much of a compliment. I think you're right though, his talent as an actor has improved greatly since the last one and like I said before, would fit the tone well.

I'm not a huge comic book movie buff and certainly no expert on the subject, but I think that something can be said about more recent comic book movies - they're not as over-the-top, not as cartoonish as the ones made in the 90's. I really, REALLY like the darker tone. The new comic book movies wouldn't be the same without that aspect.

Agreed 100%. The fact comic book movies are starting to be taken a little more seriously these days I think owes a lot to Bryan Singer's X-Men films and also Spider-Man in 2002. While Spider-Man isn't the best of the trilogy (thought the sequel was much better. I think someone like Ebert said it should've been nominated for Best Picture) it certainly started the current trend.

2008 has probably been the best year for comic book movies. Iron Man and The Dark Knight are both being put in the elite category and Incredible Hulk was a pretty good action flick as well. Theres still one more to go with Punisher: War Zone out in December. I think it's a reboot because the sequel to the 2004 movie went through development hell but I could be wrong. Tom Jane dropped out (dissapointed a lot of fans, he was good) so I think that was when Marvel said screw it, we're starting over. Ray Stevenson is the new one but the only movie I've seen with him is King Arthur so I can't really judge how he'll do.

Is it confirmed that we're getting Riddler for the next movie? That's what I was hoping for...

No, it's not confirmed yet but The Riddler is definitely popping up the most as a suggestion for the next movie, especially with the David Hyde Pierce rumor. Another one I've seen a lot of is Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing The Penguin. I wouldn't be for that, not because I dislike Hoffman but because I dislike the Penguin. He's not exactly one of Batman's better villains.

Personally I think Mad Hatter or Black Mask would fit these current movies well. However Nolan has said he's not even sure if he wants to direct a third movie yet.

[Doktor Kosmos]

Agreed 100%. The fact comic book movies are starting to be taken a little more seriously these days I think owes a lot to Bryan Singer's X-Men films and also Spider-Man in 2002. While Spider-Man isn't the best of the trilogy (thought the sequel was much better. I think someone like Ebert said it should've been nominated for Best Picture) it certainly started the current trend.

Since I'm a Burton fan I'm going to argue that Burton has had a hand in getting the genre to move in that direction. Batman is different from the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, and different from a movie like Dick Tracy, which came out about the same time (give or take a year or so) as Burton's Batman movie, if I remember correctly.

[Doktor Kosmos]

About Jack Nicholson BTW. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie in a while, but in retrospect, maybe Nicholson did over-do it, did go over the top. I still think he was great though, stole the show for sure. You also have to remember that Prince made the music for the film, and I for one love Prince (been listening to him a lot this past week) and his Batman soundtrack is among the best soundtracks of all time IMO. But you can't accuse Prince of being subtle. And maybe the same thing can be said for more aspects of that movie.

[Trizzak]

Another one I've seen a lot of is Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing The Penguin. I wouldn't be for that, not because I dislike Hoffman but because I dislike the Penguin. He's not exactly one of Batman's better villains.

Nolan has gone on record saying he dislikes The Penguin character calling it too far-fetched. I doubt we see the Penguin in the Batman reboot.