wildyams

How's the X-Files coming along? :lol

I agree with you on the CG element, however I don't necessarily agree that Jackson's execution was necessarily all that. I know they had quite a workload, but a lot if it didn't hold up in my book. I really don't think it will stand the test of time either. I'm sure this won't hold water to a lot of LOTR fans, but it's true. It was reminiscent of Spiderman. But given the scope of these movies, and therefore the budget, that's why directors have to rely on CG. It's much cheaper than the alternative. The true task is then finding effects houses that can pull off the trick.

"They do a very commendable job though, but you can't help but feel that the movie might have been more enjoyable if they'd diverged a bit from the whole "Batman" aspect of it. "

Isn't that the point of the story?

So what are your thoughts on "Sin City?"

To quote Beetlejuice, "Who me?"

It was an interesting experiment that didn't quite work as a film.

Well no movie has yet perfectly done all effects, but I meant that like Peter Jackson, Nolan seemed to be trying to go with whatever would look best, rather than just saying "do it all in CG."

As for diverging from the "Batman" aspect of it, naturally then it wouldn't be a Batman movie, so I know that they have to stick to all that (his costume, car, bat-signal and whatnot). I just meant that when, say, compared to Unbreakable which didn't have to adhere to making sure the hero eventually donned a cape and costume or whatever, for me it actually somewhat took away from what the story had been building to. Of course without that stuff it wouldn't be a Batman movie, but that's just how I felt. Just like how if James Bond didn't get his requisite gadgets from Q, his spiffed up car and have some hot girl with a sexual-sounding name who is either his adversary or partner (or both) then it really wouldn't be a Bond movie; but that doesn't mean that if they broke away from that it would necessarily be a bad thing, does it? I dunno, personal preference I suppose. I still really dug the movie though, and may even go see it again tonight with Riggs :smile

Sin City looked pretty good, but was hella boring. Really it wasn't that original, trying to make a comic book movie look as much like the comic book as possible (as I said, that was what Tim Burton seemed to be going for back in '89). The original part was the new technology and methods that were used to get the look that they did. Too bad the story about what was happening wasn't too engaging; or at least, for me it wasn't.

Just thought I'd throw in J-Krue's unsolicited two cents.

First half of movie - wicked awesome. Origin story, Bruce losing himself, training, good ol' Liam Neeson doing that mentor role he's perfected in the last few years, training in the mountains, great stuff. The first Batman movie to let us breathe a bit outside of Gotham City.

Second half of movie - not so awesome. As Will mentioned there was a realism through much of the movie not found in many comic book adaptations, and I recall Nolan saying awhile back he wanted this to be a gritty crime story, only with Batman in the lead instead of the typical detective. But the plot elements in the second half I found to be so silly, absurd and "comic book" that it just didn't seem to work (for me) in concert with the previous realism of the story.

I don't want to spoil the movie's "evil master plan," but suffice it to say that it was at least 2 steps too contrived and also, if you think about it, kind of the same "evil plot" hatched in Burton's Batman. It was during all this goofiness in the second act that I felt the movie had drifted off course from being a great "character study with action" to being simply a comic book movie, albeit with far better dialogue and acting. I hate to say it, but the scheme Batman was up against even reminded me a tad of the contrived bit in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" where they did something as silly as exploding a bomb in a city to keep the rest of the city from exploding. Or something nonsensical like that.

My only other complaint is that with such amazing actors (Oldman, Freeman, Caine, etc.) making so much out of minor supporting roles, I can't understand why they cast such a lightweight as Katie Holmes opposite Christian Bale. She looks like she could conceivably be half his age, and in no way is convincing as a tough-as-nails D.A. in a crime-filled metropolis.

However, I agree that the dialogue, performances, the look and tone of the film were clearly crafted with great care. And I completely agree re: the refreshing lack of (noticeable) CG.

Even though I had mixed feelings about the movie, I did admire what it was attempting and I'm really looking forward to seeing it again so I can soak up a little more and perhaps catch things I missed.

P.S. I think Vince Vaughn would be a neat choice for the Joker. Or Paul Walker.

I've never really liked black people. Not real fond of Mexicans either.

Can anyone tell me if I've ever worked with Pam Dawber? That piece had legs like Florida, bent and stormy.

Okay, I'm going to have to for the moment diverge from "Pam Dawber" (sorry) just to throw in a few thoughts about the Batman movie.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I love Christoper Nolan's movies "Memento" and "Following", and am totally jazzed that he's a Hollywood success and Christian Bale, too. I think I'm going to have the same feeling about him I do about Sam Raimi. That his big-budget movies are better than average (if, say 'average' is Michael Bay), but they have a real temporary 'cashing in' feeling to me. They're not even bad enough to be fun to watch. Like, say, "Con Air" has that in spades. I'm not really dissing them, hey, people get all excited and throw money at talented, creative directors. How can that be bad? I'll continue to mainly look forward to the smaller movies these guys make where they have a decent budget and total creative control (e.g., "A Simple Plan", "The Gift").

But, you guys are being too easy on this movie. Much of it was arse. As J. Krue said, the big chase/action sequence ending was truly monotonous. The first warning sign I can remember that this movie wasn't going to make me a happy camper was when Alfred asked Bruce "Why bats?" "Because they scared me." Please. You mean after all those years Alfred never heard a tearful confession at any point from Bruce? He never said what he'd started to say about bats scaring him BECAUSE HIS FATHER RESCUED HIM FROM A CAVERN FULL OF BATS THAT FLEW AT HIM? Sorry to use all caps. So, there was that warning flag of lazy scribbling. Again, what do I know? But that's what it seemed like to me.

The whole ending was a parade of characters popping up explaining to the audience why we need to care that he stop some goofy vaporizing weapon from reaching the center of the Wayne building, where all the pipes are connected blah blah blah. Meanwhile, scary, groovy shit is going down all over town, where everybody (including bats, including rats, including horses) are hallucinating demons. Where were all the bats at the end, by the way? I wanted to see them fly into the fog and then see what bats are afraid of. Where was that?

Anyway, I feel kind of bad for being the negative guy here. I feel.... terrible. :thumbsdown

Bats are afraid of Ned Beatty. They couldn't afford him on the shoe-string budget they were working with. It was originally scripted that the bats flew into town, sucked up the gas, and started seeing Otis everywhere on everything. Then there's the screeching and the flitting and ultimately Burt Reynolds puts one arrow through all three thousand of them. One shot. Then his toupee falls off, his pants fall down, and he runs away crying.

If only they'd had the money. :nono

I eat pussies like Robert Vaughn for breakfast and right now I'm eating some soup!

:angry