Siskel & Ebert review of B89 and Returns

Started by batass4880, Mon, 6 Oct 2008, 18:39

Previous topic - Next topic

Mon, 6 Oct 2008, 20:35 #1 Last Edit: Mon, 6 Oct 2008, 23:45 by Batman
Siskel & Ebert are overrated.
Then again, I don't care for critics in general.

I enjoyed watching these, they had great nostalgic value to them.


I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.

This is way I hate critics. For once Siskel is right, but Ebert is totally wrong, he missed the point completely and he doesnt know what he is talking about. Vicki Vale didnt realise Bruce Wayne was Batman in the Batcave, she knew when Knox showed her the newspaper of Thomas Wayne being murdered and he said What do you suppose something like this does to a kid? Thats when the penny dropped. Ebert was so out of touch with this movie. How he ever became a critic I do not know. He says he seen Keatons character played like that before? But sure Keatons Bruce Wayne went against type casting for this type of movie. Of course Batman is hostile and violent, thats why he is Batman! And it ISNT for kids! That is what Batman is all about. If he wants nicey nicey and an uplifting story line he should stick to Superman. Batman is supposed to be dark and disturbing, thats why we love it. Maybe Ebert should stick to watching kids movies like Home Alone and 101 Dialmations!

Tue, 7 Oct 2008, 21:14 #4 Last Edit: Sat, 29 Nov 2008, 05:23 by batass4880
Quote from: Joker81 on Tue,  7 Oct  2008, 19:15
This is way I hate critics. For once Siskel is right, but Ebert is totally wrong, he missed the point completely and he doesnt know what he is talking about. Vicki Vale didnt realise Bruce Wayne was Batman in the Batcave, she knew when Knox showed her the newspaper of Thomas Wayne being murdered and he said What do you suppose something like this does to a kid? Thats when the penny dropped. Ebert was so out of touch with this movie. How he ever became a critic I do not know. He says he seen Keatons character played like that before? But sure Keatons Bruce Wayne went against type casting for this type of movie. Of course Batman is hostile and violent, thats why he is Batman! And it ISNT for kids! That is what Batman is all about. If he wants nicey nicey and an uplifting story line he should stick to Superman. Batman is supposed to be dark and disturbing, thats why we love it. Maybe Ebert should stick to watching kids movies like Home Alone and 101 Dialmations!
Right on man! Ebert gave B89 and Returns 2/4 stars in his newspaper reviews and gave B&R the same rating! Yet when he was on Jay Leno when BB was out, he praised Begins for the same things he disliked about B89--the overly dark and disturbing nature of the film, the violence and hostility of the characters, etc. I don't get it.

I never thought about the part when Vicki stormed out of the archive room of the Globe. That makes a lot of sense. After all of these years I never picked up on that!  :)

Cheers mate! lol  ;D

Its good to share my views with people who love this movie like me, and not only that but agree with me! lol

Yeah, he also said BB was the Darkest! He was wrong again. It seems to me he just wasn't a Burton Fan.

Ps, good comments by the way!  :)

Siskel was about to slap Ebert.lol. Ebert would hardly allow Siskel to talk. Batman (89) is a very excellent film. But there are certain elements that don't work within the film, that much I can agree on. Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton's performances are very enjoyable to watch which is why I think I like the film so much.
"Jack is dead my friend. You can call me, Joker. And, as you can see, I'm a lot happier."

How can someone say that another persons opinion is wrong, its not wrong at all. Everyone has their own opinion and they have a right to it, just because a critic dosent like one of my favorite films does not mean it makes me like is less.


I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.

Quote from: Joker89 on Wed,  8 Oct  2008, 22:50
Siskel was about to slap Ebert.lol. Ebert would hardly allow Siskel to talk. Batman (89) is a very excellent film. But there are certain elements that don't work within the film, that much I can agree on. Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton's performances are very enjoyable to watch which is why I think I like the film so much.

When I was younger it used to be Jack Nicholsons performance I loved. But when I got older, I realised it wasnt just Nicholson I loved. It was everything that was 'Batman'. It was the sets, props, costumes, Gotham City, the music! When I was a kid I used to put that soundtrack on my earphones in bed and watch out at the night sky! I loved it.

What I like about Batman is that universe we are brought into when I watch it. The dark and moody atmosphere. That is something TDK can not do for me.

Quote from: Joker81 on Thu,  9 Oct  2008, 21:00
Quote from: Joker89 on Wed,  8 Oct  2008, 22:50
Siskel was about to slap Ebert.lol. Ebert would hardly allow Siskel to talk. Batman (89) is a very excellent film. But there are certain elements that don't work within the film, that much I can agree on. Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton's performances are very enjoyable to watch which is why I think I like the film so much.

When I was younger it used to be Jack Nicholsons performance I loved. But when I got older, I realised it wasnt just Nicholson I loved. It was everything that was 'Batman'. It was the sets, props, costumes, Gotham City, the music! When I was a kid I used to put that soundtrack on my earphones in bed and watch out at the night sky! I loved it.

What I like about Batman is that universe we are brought into when I watch it. The dark and moody atmosphere. That is something TDK can not do for me.

I feel very sorry for you, you a a very rare one!


I have given a name to my pain, and it is BATMAN.