1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Batman Begins

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Baloo, May 26, 2006.

  1. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    The Creepy Thin Man he was.

    And the first Charlie's Angels wasn't bad and was great fun . . . the second one was a shitty movie, but still great fun.
  2. Baloo

    Baloo Member

    CA could have been so much better, though, in the hands of a capable director and with a good script - like Batman Begins had. But I will admit I laughed when the three dressed up as nuns to infiltrate the place the thin guy was raised.
  3. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    That was the second one, and it had a terrible script. McG or whatever his name is was just not talented enough to get the movie over the shitty script.

    Funny side note, the convent where the Creepy Thin Man was raised was the Playboy Mansion.
  4. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    That was the first movie, which was decent. And he was hilarious in it.
  5. Baloo

    Baloo Member

    Back to the Joker, I could see Glover as a complete nut job - But then I really want more of crane/scarecrow, and that might be too many crazies. I thought Ra's was awesome - so calm and cold in his villainy. Crane's got to be in the sequel, though. He rocked.
  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Which Ra's? Watanabe or Neeson?

    They have to be careful to limit the number of bad guys in the movies, to avoid the cluttered kitchen-sink syndrome that sank the original Batman series. After the first movie, they attempted to jam two (or more) villains in every episode, and it was a big mistake.
  7. Baloo

    Baloo Member

    watanabe wasn't really Ra's, just a decoy. Neeson was superb.
    Agree about not overloading a movie with villains - two should be the limit, with only one really dominant.
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That's part of why Batman Begins worked. Scarecrow was really only a pawn of Ra's al Ghul. The Joker, done well, is a lot scarier than Crane anyway.
  9. MU_was_not_so_hard

    MU_was_not_so_hard Active Member

    Bought the DVD not too long ago. Very good movie. Liked it a hell of a lot more than any of the Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney ones.
  10. tonysoprano

    tonysoprano Member

    My fav of the Batman movies by far. Very, very dark and there's some great characters out there I'd love to see in the next movie.

    As far as "The Joker" goes ...I like Adrian Brody a lot for that.
  11. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Yeah, it's been done. As badly as they fucked up the rest of the first batch of films, there are plenty of Batman villains who deserve a fair shake.

    Personally, I'd like to see a movie adaptation of the Knightfall/Knight's End storyline, but I don't think it will happen.
  12. suburbanite

    suburbanite Active Member

    I agree that Schumacher sucked, but I didn't particularly care for Burton's 'vision' either. I'm not a comic book fanboy, but he played very fast and loose with canon [last time I checked, the Joker didn't kill Bruce Wayne's father, Selina Kyle didn't rise from the dead to become Catwoman, etc.]. I also thought Keaton was a decent Batman, but a lousy Bruce Wayne.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page