Yea, well, the title says it all, sure it aint the best, but I think its watchable, its not as bad as everyone makes it out to be, I would take this over Nolan's two any day, much like I said in the BF thread.
And hey, its a Batman film, as Batman fans we should atleast be able to watch this and respect the theme and tone its been given.
It's a hard sell..that's for sure.
Some of the performances make me gag...the leaps in logic make me cringe...and the Batman Forever credit card makes me groan...however....
...it's great for kids. Only Schumacher's efforts can be able to claim to hold the attention of a 5 year old in my book - the rest are either too adult orientated or intense. For that reason alone I give it value...it wasn't made for me.
Well, at least it was honest.
It is everything Forever was, but pretended not to be.
^ Good point
We now have the luxury of hindsight, so I also don't "hate" it. We stopped hating it when Begins came out. I don't know if "respect" is the right word, but it's entertaining and fun in its own way. And for some of us it's also nostalgic.
I actual like it. The film has some good moments . But alot bad moments too.
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat, 5 Jun 2010, 23:19
And for some of us it's also nostalgic.
i agree with this. all the burton/schumacher movies are like that. remember all the marketing and all the toys and all that stuff and you can almost forget some of the bad puns lol.
i like batman and robin. i'm one of those people that thinks its cool that there are 20 different kinds of batman and not one pure true version and so i look at this movie as a fun one to watch with some friends or even alone when you want something to smile at. i think it serves that purpose really really good.
I didn't know what I was getting into with Forever, I did with B&R, that helped me enjoy it more; I could turn off my "What a Batman Film Should Be" mentality and just enjoy it for what it was; STUPID escapism.
Quote from: gordonblu on Mon, 26 Jul 2010, 19:15
I didn't know what I was getting into with Forever, I did with B&R, that helped me enjoy it more; I could turn off my "What a Batman Film Should Be" mentality and just enjoy it for what it was; STUPID escapism.
I'm not a massive fan of either Forever or B&R, but I must admit that I was less dissappointed with B&R when I first saw it since like you I knew what to expect. Plus IMO, the gap in quality between Forever and B&R is not as great as the drop-off between Returns and Forever.
With time I have gradually grown to enjoy the Schumacher films on a certain level, but honestly, both fall way way short of the Burton and Nolan Batman films.
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 26 Jul 2010, 13:39
i'm one of those people that thinks its cool that there are 20 different kinds of batman and not one pure true version
That is true, however when the one constant in Batman's very being is the murder of his parents, the goofy Batman who wears a bright blue suit doesn't wash with me. It makes a whole lot of sense for Batman to be a grim loner, and in my book, that's the true version. The City that gave birth to his murderer is not going to be a cheerful place.
But even so, kiddie winks need an entry point and it is all open to interpretation. I think that the two versions are often pushed to the extreme, and we need to find a balance between the two. Grounded fantasy.
Sort of off the subject, but does anyone beside me want to see what Keaton would have looked like in the traditional blue and grey tights? I know it wouldn't be as cool, but someone mentioned how terrible it would be and it piqued my interest.
All I can say is that for how bad it may be, it does not deserve the credit (or lack thereof perhaps) of being on any top 10 worst lists or anything like that. It's not a very good movie but I can think of plenty of worse comic film attempts.
I'd watch it over Ghost Rider or X-3 any day of the week, even over and over.
Ghost Rider, Catwoman, X3, Fantastic Four (first one w/Alba), Howard the Duck...
Actually the second half of Howard is pretty entertaining; just the first half sucks IMHO.
Oh yeah, Catwoman, how could I forget. Who takes on the perfume and beauty industry as a villain? I mean come on!
Quote from: gordonblu on Wed, 4 Aug 2010, 02:51
Ghost Rider, Catwoman, X3, Fantastic Four (first one w/Alba), Howard the Duck...
I've never understood why X3 is so disliked. I actually thought that in terms of the action sequences it was much better directed than Singer's X-Men films.
Quote from: Batmoney on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, 19:14
Oh yeah, Catwoman, how could I forget. Who takes on the perfume and beauty industry as a villain? I mean come on!
i would...
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, 20:05
I've never understood why X3 is so disliked. I actually thought that in terms of the action sequences it was much better directed than Singer's X-Men films.
The plot is all right but the execution is bad, the acting is bad, they cut off one character half-way and have another character fulfill his role, which all adds up to it being more of a flop instead of a hit.
I love John Powell's score though.
Quote from: gordonblu on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, 23:21
The plot is all right but the execution is bad, the acting is bad, they cut off one character half-way and have another character fulfill his role, which all adds up to it being more of a flop instead of a hit.
I love John Powell's score though.
I didn't think the acting was any better or worse than the first two films to be honest...alright, apart from Vinnie Jones, but everyone else did a good job IMO particularly one of the new additions, Kelsey Grammer as The Beast. Admittedly, I didn't like the way the film disposed of Cyclops, but he wasn't particularly well used in either of the first two films either, and at least the makers of X-3 showed some courage in killing off major characters.
I guess I don't have particularly negative feelings about X-3 because unlike most people I wasn't all that taken with the first two X-Men fiilms. It wasn't that they were bad, and in fact in some areas, like the casting of Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart as former friends turned enemies it was positively inspired. It's just that it was clear that Singer wasn't really a big fan of the comic-books; after all he even stated in an interview before the film's release that comics were 'inferior' forms of literature (which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who made three comic-books films in a row during the last decade).
Which arguably explains why the X-Men films are amongst the least faithful of all the big comic-book movie adaptations, and it's also unfortunate that Singer and the studio presumably buckled under fan-boy pressure to ramp up Wolverine's role to the detriment of almost every other character, in a not roo dissimilar fashion as to how Sam Raimi allowed the inclusion of Vnom in Spider-Man 3 to overshadow his otherwise excfellent work on the movies.
I guess that's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to X-Men:First Class; no Wolverine. It's only a pity that it's not a proper reboot but a prequel, since I'd love to have seen the original team, including Angel and Ice-Man as contempories of Cyclops, Jean Grey and The Beast; but it seems that Fox is determined to slavishly follow the vision of a man who wasn't even a fan of comic-books let alone the X-Men comic-books.
x3 sucked in my opinion. brett ranter thinks he's hot sh*t and can do what he wants and that's what he did.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 6 Aug 2010, 02:58
I didn't think the acting was any better or worse than the first two films to be honest...alright, apart from Vinnie Jones, but everyone else did a good job IMO particularly one of the new additions, Kelsey Grammer as The Beast. Admittedly, I didn't like the way the film disposed of Cyclops, but he wasn't particularly well used in either of the first two films either, and at least the makers of X-3 showed some courage in killing off major characters.
I guess I don't have particularly negative feelings about X-3 because unlike most people I wasn't all that taken with the first two X-Men fiilms. It wasn't that they were bad, and in fact in some areas, like the casting of Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart as former friends turned enemies it was positively inspired. It's just that it was clear that Singer wasn't really a big fan of the comic-books; after all he even stated in an interview before the film's release that comics were 'inferior' forms of literature (which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who made three comic-books films in a row during the last decade).
Which arguably explains why the X-Men films are amongst the least faithful of all the big comic-book movie adaptations, and it's also unfortunate that Singer and the studio presumably buckled under fan-boy pressure to ramp up Wolverine's role to the detriment of almost every other character, in a not roo dissimilar fashion as to how Sam Raimi allowed the inclusion of Vnom in Spider-Man 3 to overshadow his otherwise excfellent work on the movies.
I guess that's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to X-Men:First Class; no Wolverine. It's only a pity that it's not a proper reboot but a prequel, since I'd love to have seen the original team, including Angel and Ice-Man as contempories of Cyclops, Jean Grey and The Beast; but it seems that Fox is determined to slavishly follow the vision of a man who wasn't even a fan of comic-books let alone the X-Men comic-books.
even if you didn't like Singer's films, the drop off in quality is still fairly noticeable. Singer at least tried to make sure his characters felt real, while Ratner turned them into cheesy comic book characters.
I am excited for First Class as well. I liked James Marsden as Cyclops, but felt the scripts didn't support him. X-Men FC SHOULD give Cykes the credit he's due; pity Marsden can't play him again.
edit 8/21/10 Just read X-men First Class will NOT feature Cyclops or Jean. >:(
I like it. It's not the worst of anything (except maybe in the Batman line, but there's some stiff competition). I guess audiences found the new, '60s-inspired theme a bit hard to take in... but those were the same people who drove WB to stray from Burton's vision.
Either way, the result was entertaining. Batgirl wasn't really needed, and I didn't find Poison Ivy or Bane too interesting, but Mr. Freeze was. The humor and forced dialouge brought down any attempts at a serious moment, but Arnold really made a good derranged doctor. Had all the humor been taken out, he would be an interesting villian, like that part where he talks about how Batman's emotions make him weak. It does lead up to a satisfying conclusion, though.
Again, this is probably my least favorite Batman, but I like all of them. This one does have its place in history, and people just hate it for the heck of it.