list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Batman on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Batman/2476/default.aspx Title: Batman
Year: 1989
Director: Tim Burton
Plot: Behind the black cowl, Gotham City superhero Batman is really millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), who turned to crimefighting after his parents were brutally murdered before his eyes. The only person to share Wayne's secret is faithful butler Alfred (Michael Gough). The principal villain in Batman is The Joker (Jack Nicholson) who'd been mob torpedo Jack Napier before he was horribly disfigured in a vat of acid. The Joker's plan to destroy Batman and gain control of Gotham City is manifold. First he distributes a line of booby-trapped cosmetics, then he goes on a destruction spree in the Gotham Art Museum while the music of Prince blasts away in the background, and finally he orchestrates an all-out campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Gothamites, hoping to turn them against the Cowled One. Meanwhile, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) becomes the love of Batman's life-which of course plays right into the Joker's hands. Photographed by Roger Pratt, designed by Anton Furst, and scored by Tim Burton's favorite composer Danny Elfman, Batman was a monstrous box-office hit, making $100 million in the first ten days of release--$82,800,000 in North America alone. Incidentally, Billy Dee Williams' comparatively small role as DA Harvey Dent was originally designed to set up the sequel, wherein Dent was to convert into master criminal Two-Face; but by the time the producers got around to that character in 1995's Batman Forever, Two-Face was played by Tommy Lee Jones. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 154
Number of Lists: 106
Number of blog posts: 22
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:02:58 GMTBatman1989Tim BurtonBehind the black cowl, Gotham City superhero Batman is really millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (<a href="/players/P____37277/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Keaton</a>), who turned to crimefighting after his parents were brutally murdered before his eyes. The only person to share Wayne's secret is faithful butler Alfred (<a href="/players/P____27964/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Gough</a>). The principal villain in Batman is The Joker (<a href="/players/P___104455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Nicholson</a>) who'd been mob torpedo Jack Napier before he was horribly disfigured in a vat of acid. The Joker's plan to destroy Batman and gain control of Gotham City is manifold. First he distributes a line of booby-trapped cosmetics, then he goes on a destruction spree in the Gotham Art Museum while the music of <a href="/players/P___107105/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Prince</a> blasts away in the background, and finally he orchestrates an all-out campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Gothamites, hoping to turn them against the Cowled One. Meanwhile, reporter Vicki Vale (<a href="/players/P_____4427/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kim Basinger</a>) becomes the love of Batman's life-which of course plays right into the Joker's hands. Photographed by Roger Pratt, designed by <a href="/players/P____90778/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anton Furst</a>, and scored by <a href="/players/P____83666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Burton</a>'s favorite composer <a href="/players/P____88821/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Danny Elfman</a>, Batman was a monstrous box-office hit, making $100 million in the first ten days of release--$82,800,000 in North America alone. Incidentally, <a href="/players/P____76383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Dee Williams</a>' comparatively small role as DA Harvey Dent was originally designed to set up the sequel, wherein Dent was to convert into master criminal Two-Face; but by the time the producers got around to <I>that</I> character in 1995's <a href=/films/92157/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Batman Forever</a>, Two-Face was played by <a href="/players/P____36238/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tommy Lee Jones</a>. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide154Tag Target (>10)1062253http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u35754cheeb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Batman/2476/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_May_4_Express_Yourself/625/42028/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 5/4/2009 10:05:53 PM
Body: Yet another theme that I've been wanting to do for a while now. I'd like to talk this week about expressionistic film. I think maybe we should try to define it first. I'm probably not the best person for this, I think you could pretty accurately call expressionism an art movement, started in Germany in the early 20th century in which reality (the world) is distorted in order to reflect emotion..... Still with me? Its pretty easy to understand once examples are used so let's start that. As I said earlier, this art form was started in Germany so naturally, early German films are great examples. Think of the buildings and backdrops of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Metropolis. In the former, the buildings were all standing twisted and sideways to display a chaotic and unnerving feel. While in the ladder, the city was very much larger than life and completely oppressive. Later, many German directors like Billy Wilder and Fritz Lang moved to the states and continued their expressionistic style in the film noir vein with films like Double Indemnity and The Big Heat respectively. Film noir is really defined as an expressionistic film movement as a whole. Filmmakers used smoke and fog in the shots to lend more of an unsettling and suspicious feel to the films. ** from Double Indemnity - notice venetian blind shadow give the "behind bars" look ** Director Tim Burton has somewhat rehashed and revamped expressionism in modern films. His sets for Gotham in Batman and Batman Returns are throwbacks to the earlier looks of the German films. Edward Scissorhands' costume and set are both very exaggerated in their look to add a stark contrast to the character backdrop relationship. There is one more film I'd like to mention that fits this catagory to a T. But, I will wait until later in the hopes that someone else mentions it first. I will only say that its a film that came out within the past 15 years and its an obvious homage to one of the early German films. I really would like to see someone else mention it before I do. So there you have it. I absolutely love this theme and I hope I've given y'all something at least to think about.
]]>Tue, 05 May 2009 02:05:53 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme5/4/2009 10:05:53 PMYet another theme that I've been wanting to do for a while now. I'd like to talk this week about expressionistic film. I think maybe we should try to define it first. I'm probably not the best person for this, I think you could pretty accurately call expressionism an art movement, started in Germany in the early 20th century in which reality (the world) is distorted in order to reflect emotion..... Still with me? Its pretty easy to understand once examples are used so let's start that. As I said earlier, this art form was started in Germany so naturally, early German films are great examples. Think of the buildings and backdrops of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Metropolis. In the former, the buildings were all standing twisted and sideways to display a chaotic and unnerving feel. While in the ladder, the city was very much larger than life and completely oppressive. Later, many German directors like Billy Wilder and Fritz Lang moved to the states and continued their expressionistic style in the film noir vein with films like Double Indemnity and The Big Heat respectively. Film noir is really defined as an expressionistic film movement as a whole. Filmmakers used smoke and fog in the shots to lend more of an unsettling and suspicious feel to the films. ** from Double Indemnity - notice venetian blind shadow give the "behind bars" look ** Director Tim Burton has somewhat rehashed and revamped expressionism in modern films. His sets for Gotham in Batman and Batman Returns are throwbacks to the earlier looks of the German films. Edward Scissorhands' costume and set are both very exaggerated in their look to add a stark contrast to the character backdrop relationship. There is one more film I'd like to mention that fits this catagory to a T. But, I will wait until later in the hopes that someone else mentions it first. I will only say that its a film that came out within the past 15 years and its an obvious homage to one of the early German films. I really would like to see someone else mention it before I do. So there you have it. I absolutely love this theme and I hope I've given y'all something at least to think about. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/29/41853.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2009 9:35:00 AM
Body: "Gotham City" is under the insane criminal grip of its most dangerous criminal, "Jack Napier", better known to the Gothamites as "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson). And there is only one man who can stop him -- the world's greatest detective, "The Batman" (Michael Keaton). Director Tim Burton brings to the silver screen the first correct adaptation of the popular comic book character created by Bob Kane back in 1939. This "Batman" is as dark as the city he protects. The first thing you notice with this movie is the dark scenery. The use of dark colors and shadows are used wonderfully, especially in the final fight in the movie. As good as the visuals of this movie is, the acting is their equal. Michael Keaton is wonderful as "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman". His version of "Wayne" is friendly as his "Batman" is mysterious. It is a great performance for his first dramatic role. Kim Basinger and Robert Wuhl (to a lesser degree) are fine in their roles. The only problems I had with their performances were that Wuhl was trying too hard to be comic relief, and Basinger screamed way too much. Then there is the amazing performance by Nicholson. His performance is what "Joker" should be -- comical, yet maniacal without any care for mankind. Those in lesser roles are also great, but only Billy Dee Williams and Jack Palance should have had more screen time than they had. If you are looking for a movie with good acting, as well as wonderful visuals, then "Batman" has to be on your "Must See" list.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:35:00 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/29/2009 9:35:00 AM"Gotham City" is under the insane criminal grip of its most dangerous criminal, "Jack Napier", better known to the Gothamites as "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson). And there is only one man who can stop him -- the world's greatest detective, "The Batman" (Michael Keaton). Director Tim Burton brings to the silver screen the first correct adaptation of the popular comic book character created by Bob Kane back in 1939. This "Batman" is as dark as the city he protects. The first thing you notice with this movie is the dark scenery. The use of dark colors and shadows are used wonderfully, especially in the final fight in the movie. As good as the visuals of this movie is, the acting is their equal. Michael Keaton is wonderful as "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman". His version of "Wayne" is friendly as his "Batman" is mysterious. It is a great performance for his first dramatic role. Kim Basinger and Robert Wuhl (to a lesser degree) are fine in their roles. The only problems I had with their performances were that Wuhl was trying too hard to be comic relief, and Basinger screamed way too much. Then there is the amazing performance by Nicholson. His performance is what "Joker" should be -- comical, yet maniacal without any care for mankind. Those in lesser roles are also great, but only Billy Dee Williams and Jack Palance should have had more screen time than they had. If you are looking for a movie with good acting, as well as wonderful visuals, then "Batman" has to be on your "Must See" list. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_10_Scene_Stealers/190/37066/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 11/7/2008 2:48:03 PM
Body: Some of these movies are better than others, but they all share one thing in common: whenever the following actors leave the screen, you wish they'd come right back. 10. Kurt Russell: Stuntman Mike in Death Proof 9. Mickey Rourke: Marv in Sin City 8. Gene Wilder: Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 7. Bill Murray: Carl Speckler in Caddyshack 6. Jack Nicholson: the Joker in Batman 5. Brad Pitt: Chad Feldheimer in Burn After Reading 4. Daniel Day-Lewis: Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York 3. Heath Ledger: the Joker in The Dark Knight 2. Anthony Hopkins: Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs 1. Harrison Ford: Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:48:03 GMTSkyPilotTop 511/7/2008 2:48:03 PMSome of these movies are better than others, but they all share one thing in common: whenever the following actors leave the screen, you wish they'd come right back. 10. Kurt Russell: Stuntman Mike in Death Proof 9. Mickey Rourke: Marv in Sin City 8. Gene Wilder: Willy Wonka in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory 7. Bill Murray: Carl Speckler in Caddyshack 6. Jack Nicholson: the Joker in Batman 5. Brad Pitt: Chad Feldheimer in Burn After Reading 4. Daniel Day-Lewis: Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York 3. Heath Ledger: the Joker in The Dark Knight 2. Anthony Hopkins: Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs 1. Harrison Ford: Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2008/11/3/36895.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 11/3/2008 10:20:15 AM
Body: Let's look at the facts here: Tim Burton, fresh off the giddy originality of Beetlejuice, helms this big-budget version of Batman with his signature style fully intact. Danny Elfman, whose score for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure thrilled audiences with its fresh new sound and fit Burton's vision to a tee. Michael Keaton, also from Beetlejuice, was Burton's then "it" guy, and of course, you've got Jack Nicholson whose persona goes without saying. Just as much as people were anticipating The Dark Knight a few months ago, that was the fervor surrounding 1989's Batman - around the same time, the old 60's television series was airing on Nick At Nite, so everyone knew how campy Batman could be. Conversely, DC comics released Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns", Jim Starlin's "A Death In The Family", and most importantly to ME, Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke", and they took the series into new, darker territory. Then news came of the film version being dark and "serious", and people flipped. I've probably seen this film 50 times if not more, and it never gets old. Sure, you could argue that the Christopher Nolan Batman is more "realistic", and that Heath Ledger's Joker is more "villainous", but why go there? It's like comparing apples to oranges - there's no point. They're BOTH good and they BOTH come from visionary directors who slathered the films with their signature styles. Heck, for me personally, I might even like this one the best.
]]>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:20:15 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog11/3/2008 10:20:15 AMLet's look at the facts here: Tim Burton, fresh off the giddy originality of Beetlejuice, helms this big-budget version of Batman with his signature style fully intact. Danny Elfman, whose score for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure thrilled audiences with its fresh new sound and fit Burton's vision to a tee. Michael Keaton, also from Beetlejuice, was Burton's then "it" guy, and of course, you've got Jack Nicholson whose persona goes without saying. Just as much as people were anticipating The Dark Knight a few months ago, that was the fervor surrounding 1989's Batman - around the same time, the old 60's television series was airing on Nick At Nite, so everyone knew how campy Batman could be. Conversely, DC comics released Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns", Jim Starlin's "A Death In The Family", and most importantly to ME, Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke", and they took the series into new, darker territory. Then news came of the film version being dark and "serious", and people flipped. I've probably seen this film 50 times if not more, and it never gets old. Sure, you could argue that the Christopher Nolan Batman is more "realistic", and that Heath Ledger's Joker is more "villainous", but why go there? It's like comparing apples to oranges - there's no point. They're BOTH good and they BOTH come from visionary directors who slathered the films with their signature styles. Heck, for me personally, I might even like this one the best. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/28/33192.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM
Body: The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/28/2008 6:00:54 PM The third part in Universal’s rebooted Mummy franchise takes the series in a new direction. Rather than set in Egypt and dealing again with the same old villain, Imhotep, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor brings us to China and gives us a different sort of preserved corpse baddie. And it looks like the change could actually add some freshness to the franchise. Of course, history would hint that such a move for the Mummy movies is a bad idea. While it seems beneficial in theory to redirect the focus of a series with the third installment, especially if the first sequel was too much a repetition of the original (a la The Mummy Returns), in practice many threequels mistakenly alter things for the worse. These aren’t necessarily the worst threequels ever made (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand); they’re just some movies that took their series in a completely wrong turn. Halloween III: Season of the Witch - Now viewed as an unfortunate detour in a long series involving the slasher Michael Myers, this misstep can apparently be blamed on John Carpenter and co-writer/producer Debra Hill, who agreed to a second sequel to Halloween only if it didn’t involve Myers. But what was the point? Sure, a franchise can work with unrelated sequels, but after two movies dealing with the same villain, it seems odd to switch it up so late in the game. Still, if this wasn’t such a terrible movie in general, it’s possible Halloween III could have worked as an intended beginning to an anthology franchise. Batman Forever - I typically like to consider Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies a separate series from Tim Burton’s, but the few returning cast members (Michael Gough, Pat Hingle) are evidence that this is indeed a threequel to the 1989 Batman. Not that you’d otherwise know it from the complete change in tone from dark to candy colored (never mind the recast Batman/Bruce Wayne). Hopefully Christopher Nolan will continue with the latest run so someone like Shawn Levy doesn’t take over and make the caped crusader silly again. Another Thin Man - Honestly, I could watch all of the Thin Man movies over and over until I die (Nora Charles is the most perfect woman ever written into creation), but this third installment of the alcohol-happy detective series commits one of the cardinal sins of sequels: it introduces a child. What fun is a couple of bickering, drunken lovers who also solve murders with a baby along for the ride? Even if the kid does end up being played by a very young Dean Stockwell by the fifth installment. The Mummy movies committed the same annoyance/error with the second movie (for Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the son is now thankfully an adult). Look Who’s Talking Now - While the Thin Man movies were good enough with a cute dog and didn’t need to add in a cute kid, the Look Who’s Talking movies were inversely just fine with cute, talking babies and didn’t need to add in talking animals. Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - Yet another threequel guilty of having a kid add-on. But it also commits the other annoying sin of relocating the franchise to a new setting. The rural meets urban fish out of water stuff doesn’t work nearly as much in L.A. as it does in NYC. Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 - No threequel is going to be good if the main star drops out of the series and the sidekick attempts to take the place of the leading man. Well, maybe it would be okay if Iron Man 3 starred Terrence Howard only as War Machine, and maybe this movie would have actually worked if Jerry Reed stayed in the big rig and it was titled Smokey and the Trucker. But as it went down, the substitution just made us miss Burt Reynolds more. Home Alone 3 - As far as replacements go, I don’t know what is worse, changing up the whole character and family, as was done with Home Alone 3, which basically just repeated the storyline of the original movie, or the made-for-TV Home Alone 4, which recast characters from the first two movies. Either way, Fox should have just continued the series with Macauley Culkin, despite the fact that he was growing way out of his cute years by the end of the second movie. Home Alone 3 should have brought John Hughes back to focusing on high school kids and made it like a mix of Home Alone and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which a teenage Kevin throws a wild house party when accidentally left home alone. Again. Ghostbusters: The Video Game - I know that video games are surpassing the movies in terms of favored entertainment, but I’m pretty bummed that the third Ghostbusters movie has become a video game rather than an actual threequel. Superman III - Some of us may have a soft spot for both Richard Pryor’s appearance and the selfish Superman, but otherwise this threequel suffers dearly from having such lame villains. Especially after the awesomeness of General Zod and friends in part II. The wrong turn, though, is not just lame villains but the complete lack of Lex Luthor, a necessity for Superman movies for those of us who never read the comics and can’t get behind a pseudo Luthor like Robert Vaughn’s “Ross Webster”. Actually, I guess it’s not so much the lack of Luthor as it is the blatant substitution for him, as well as for the diminished use of Lois Lane. The franchise didn’t exactly get back on course by bringing Gene Hackman’s Luthor in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Friday the 13th Part 3 - It’s perfectly debatable whether or not this slasher series took a misstep when it gave Jason a hockey mask and made him an icon. Like a number of other horror franchises, this one became less scary and more amusing beginning with the third installment. Entertaining, sure, but a wrong turn for some horror franchises. It certainly didn’t help matters having that laugh track: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/7/27/33143.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 7/27/2008 5:25:07 PM
Body: It's been three years now since Batman Begins was released and to say that anticipation for The Dark Knight was high would be an understatement. I cannot remember a film other than The Phantom Menace for which anticipation has been so high. Fortunately this film delivers on most of that expectation and is, in my opinion, the best Batman film to date. Spoilers follow When Tim Burton returned to the Batman franchise to shoot Batman Returns, he imposed a darker style on the film than in his first effort. Nolan follows the same path, albeit to more acclaim, as he shows us a world threatened by anarchism and the breakdown of order. This world is less stylised than the Gotham of previous films - this feels much more like a modern, Western city. The banks look real, the buildings look real and as a result the violence that hits this city feels more immediate and disturbing. Opposite Christian Bale's Batman is the excellent Heath Ledger who deserves the critical acclaim his performance received. I am not ready to say that he wipes the floor with Bale's more subtle and mannered portrayal of Wayne/Batman but you find yourself on the edge of your seat whenever he appears on screen. This Joker is unhinged and anarchistic. He toys with that audience as much as he does with Batman, feeding us conflicting stories of his origin and what he wants. By the end we know that all he desires is chaos and to shake our confidence in our neighbours. He wants to twist those characters around him and manipulate them emotionally. He succeeds in doing this with the vulnerable Dent, Gotham's new district attorney whose biggest flaw is believing his own hype. The Joker, in one of the movie's best scenes, convinces him in the power of chaos and turns him into a loose, unpredictable weapon. What I loved about that scene is that the Joker gives Dent power. All through the movie there is this recurring pattern of the Joker urging people to kill him, almost as if he wants to be put out of his misery. He is not a criminal - Eric Roberts' mafia boss and their ilk are clearly flagged up as the criminals. No, this Joker is simply unhinged and psychopathic. There were several scenes that I found myself closing my eyes during, unsure about just how brutal they were going to be. I wanted to watch but found this Joker so complete a characterisation that I found myself feeling uneasy. Aaron Eckhart's Two Face conversely is a character whose story is raced through far too quickly for us to appreciate him. To call him the second villain on the piece is misleading. He is no more, nor no less than the Joker's weapon. The bomb he has planted that is about to go off (incidentally, I love that when he is turning Dent into that weapon he is wearing an "I believe in Harvey Dent" sticker). His make-up is effective, albeit slightly too ridiculous to be genuinely scary. If I have nightmares about the way a character looks tonight it will not be him but rather the Joker in my mind. We see his change and I felt I understood it but I wished that we could have spent longer with him. These final portions of the film feel rushed and a dramatic change of pace. Eckhart's performance does not have the manic energy of Ledger's and the result is that suddenly the adrenaline falls away. The Joker is in custody, we know we shall not see him again in the movie, and the people on the boats are now safe. The danger we have been building up to has passed and that which remains feels smaller and disconnected from the emotional drive of the film. I disagree with critics who think that Two Face should have been in the next movie instead of tacked onto the end here. That would require a very different characterisation and a decidedly different journey. This character is motivated by a very personal hunt for revenge. This character is not capable of playing at master criminal (which never felt all that realistic in Batman Forever anyway) - it would not be true to the journey that Nolan has begun in this film. Nolan uses the Dent storyline to reinforce the question that Batman keeps asking himself throughout this movie - "am I a force for good or evil in the end?", "have things become worse because of me?". The answer Nolan hints at is that Batman is needed because ultimately all are corruptable. He wants to give up the fight, hand his mantle onto Dent - an elected figure - but even as a human we see that Dent does not match up to his perfect picture he has painted. Yet the messages of this film seem confused. It displays fears about the use of surveillance technology and even has Lucius say "no, I think this is wrong" - yet Lucius is prepared to utilise the very systems he criticised moments before "just this one time". It talks about the dangers of handing power to just one individual and yet suggests that no one but Wayne/Batman is capable of holding this degree of power without becoming a monster. I was left feeling that Gotham had been made more "real" to make a political point and yet I was unsure at the end what the point was. Perhaps that makes it a success - I am sure that there will be many people leaving the film debating what its message actually is. In some ways I prefer a movie that asks difficult questions of us without presenting us with set or easy answers. I look forward to seeing where the franchise heads next and I hope that Nolan and Bale stick around. I am a little uncertain how they can top this - after all, the villains left are decidedly second tier (Mr Freeze has been suggested but would bring back unfortunate memories of Batman and Robin) - but I think this movie demonstrates that a film can be complex and thought-provoking and yet still be a massive box office draw. It feels to me to be so much closer to the spirit of the comic books than anything that has come before it. And to think - I haven't even had space here to talk about Jim Gordon, Alfred, the Batbike, Rachel Dawes or the more subtle humour used throughout this effort... I'm sure however that this is a movie that will be talked about for some time to come - particularly when we get to Oscar season.
]]>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:25:07 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture7/27/2008 5:25:07 PMIt's been three years now since Batman Begins was released and to say that anticipation for The Dark Knight was high would be an understatement. I cannot remember a film other than The Phantom Menace for which anticipation has been so high. Fortunately this film delivers on most of that expectation and is, in my opinion, the best Batman film to date. Spoilers follow When Tim Burton returned to the Batman franchise to shoot Batman Returns, he imposed a darker style on the film than in his first effort. Nolan follows the same path, albeit to more acclaim, as he shows us a world threatened by anarchism and the breakdown of order. This world is less stylised than the Gotham of previous films - this feels much more like a modern, Western city. The banks look real, the buildings look real and as a result the violence that hits this city feels more immediate and disturbing. Opposite Christian Bale's Batman is the excellent Heath Ledger who deserves the critical acclaim his performance received. I am not ready to say that he wipes the floor with Bale's more subtle and mannered portrayal of Wayne/Batman but you find yourself on the edge of your seat whenever he appears on screen. This Joker is unhinged and anarchistic. He toys with that audience as much as he does with Batman, feeding us conflicting stories of his origin and what he wants. By the end we know that all he desires is chaos and to shake our confidence in our neighbours. He wants to twist those characters around him and manipulate them emotionally. He succeeds in doing this with the vulnerable Dent, Gotham's new district attorney whose biggest flaw is believing his own hype. The Joker, in one of the movie's best scenes, convinces him in the power of chaos and turns him into a loose, unpredictable weapon. What I loved about that scene is that the Joker gives Dent power. All through the movie there is this recurring pattern of the Joker urging people to kill him, almost as if he wants to be put out of his misery. He is not a criminal - Eric Roberts' mafia boss and their ilk are clearly flagged up as the criminals. No, this Joker is simply unhinged and psychopathic. There were several scenes that I found myself closing my eyes during, unsure about just how brutal they were going to be. I wanted to watch but found this Joker so complete a characterisation that I found myself feeling uneasy. Aaron Eckhart's Two Face conversely is a character whose story is raced through far too quickly for us to appreciate him. To call him the second villain on the piece is misleading. He is no more, nor no less than the Joker's weapon. The bomb he has planted that is about to go off (incidentally, I love that when he is turning Dent into that weapon he is wearing an "I believe in Harvey Dent" sticker). His make-up is effective, albeit slightly too ridiculous to be genuinely scary. If I have nightmares about the way a character looks tonight it will not be him but rather the Joker in my mind. We see his change and I felt I understood it but I wished that we could have spent longer with him. These final portions of the film feel rushed and a dramatic change of pace. Eckhart's performance does not have the manic energy of Ledger's and the result is that suddenly the adrenaline falls away. The Joker is in custody, we know we shall not see him again in the movie, and the people on the boats are now safe. The danger we have been building up to has passed and that which remains feels smaller and disconnected from the emotional drive of the film. I disagree with critics who think that Two Face should have been in the next movie instead of tacked onto the end here. That would require a very different characterisation and a decidedly different journey. This character is motivated by a very personal hunt for revenge. This character is not capable of playing at master criminal (which never felt all that realistic in Batman Forever anyway) - it would not be true to the journey that Nolan has begun in this film. Nolan uses the Dent storyline to reinforce the question that Batman keeps asking himself throughout this movie - "am I a force for good or evil in the end?", "have things become worse because of me?". The answer Nolan hints at is that Batman is needed because ultimately all are corruptable. He wants to give up the fight, hand his mantle onto Dent - an elected figure - but even as a human we see that Dent does not match up to his perfect picture he has painted. Yet the messages of this film seem confused. It displays fears about the use of surveillance technology and even has Lucius say "no, I think this is wrong" - yet Lucius is prepared to utilise the very systems he criticised moments before "just this one time". It talks about the dangers of handing power to just one individual and yet suggests that no one but Wayne/Batman is capable of holding this degree of power without becoming a monster. I was left feeling that Gotham had been made more "real" to make a political point and yet I was unsure at the end what the point was. Perhaps that makes it a success - I am sure that there will be many people leaving the film debating what its message actually is. In some ways I prefer a movie that asks difficult questions of us without presenting us with set or easy answers. I look forward to seeing where the franchise heads next and I hope that Nolan and Bale stick around. I am a little uncertain how they can top this - after all, the villains left are decidedly second tier (Mr Freeze has been suggested but would bring back unfortunate memories of Batman and Robin) - but I think this movie demonstrates that a film can be complex and thought-provoking and yet still be a massive box office draw. It feels to me to be so much closer to the spirit of the comic books than anything that has come before it. And to think - I haven't even had space here to talk about Jim Gordon, Alfred, the Batbike, Rachel Dawes or the more subtle humour used throughout this effort... I'm sure however that this is a movie that will be talked about for some time to come - particularly when we get to Oscar season. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/7/21/32869.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 7/21/2008 8:50:40 PM
Body: I am really struggling here. I really don't feel like cracking open the thesaurus to out-hyperbolize what's already been said about “The Dark Knight” a dozen times over. Simply put: A) It lives up to the hype, and B) Yes, Heath Ledger as The Joker is that good. The only way to tackle this review and add anything new to what's already been said is by addressing your concerns as a moviegoer. That's right, you. Why do I do this? Well, I'm just a giver, I suppose. So herein are ten reasons why you should either jump aboard the “Dark Knight” Love Train with the rest of us, or whether you should draw the blinds when you see that Bat Signal appear in the sky. See it: If you enjoy crime drama: The film begins with a crackerjack heist by Joker and his crew that not only ticks along like a timed explosive, it sets the stage for just how morally bankrupt the film's chief villain truly is. He is a character whose sole purpose is not singularly driven, but rather one who likes to conduct social experiments, regardless of their outcome. For Batman, who is considered a champion of justice, the Joker represents his ultimate foe. If you balk at seeing a “superhero” movie: Too often dismissed by stuffier film-goers as guys running around in silly spandex pajamas, “Knight” sets its story in a very real world environment that echoes many fears and concerns where chaos reigns. Sure, there are acts of superhuman strength, but there are equal parts of superhuman suffering, as leads are forced to make choices in which one life's value possibly outweighs another. If you eschew CGI for more tangible effects: Digital trickery has become a staple to the genre, especially those released in the heady days of summer blockbusters, but there are no wholly rendered CGI beasties on Batman's fight card here, and when it is used, like the charred, rotting side of the face on Batman's other nemesis Two-Face, it's both subtle and disturbing. If you are a fan of iconic screen villainy: Confession time: When it comes to listing the top actors of this generation, Heath Ledger would probably not even make my long list. His turn in “Brokeback Mountain” was undoubtedly poignant, but the whole film's over-rated melodrama possibly kept it from making any impact on me. I found him decent, but rather nondescript. Until now. His role as a psychotic harbinger of destruction is seminal, plain and simple. And for those of you who showered Javier Bardem and Daniel Day Lewis with praise last year in “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” respecticely, you owe it to yourself to witness this performance. If you enjoy epic films: While staying primarily focused in Gotham City (after taking a brief detour to Hong Kong to round up some baddies), the story feels oceanic in its sprawl. “Dark Knight” analyzes a society ruled by fear and governed by disorder. It demonstrates not only how officials and denizens react in times of crisis, but takes the time to detail these reactions, as well as their repercussions, giving them motivation and purpose. It's a sizeable task in any film, but it builds to a crescendo that feels purposefully messy and frustrating. You know, kind of like life. If you'd rather get drawn into a story than manipulated by a rousing score: Too often, we find ourselves moved because some guys in the string section of an orchestra tell us to. Not here. Never obtrusive, always lurking in the shadows (like its lead), the score (by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer) is as subtle as Danny Elfman's (between the Prince ditties) was bombastic in the 1989 version. Instead. “Knight” is propelled by such intrinsic theoretical absolutes as “good” and “evil” (Sometimes by the same character, sometimes by our hero), providing each member of its stellar cast – Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as inventor Lucious Fox, Michael Caine as heroic manservant Alfred, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, Aaron Eckhart as politician Harvey Dent – an opportunity to decide where his or her moral line in the sand is drawn. Which leads us to... If you prefer your characters with moral ambiguity: There is not a second of flab in the film's 2.5-hours, and in that time each of its characters are tested. Similar to that memorable coin toss by Bardem's Anton Chigurh in “No Country” (and Harvey Dent here), the results are sometimes left to chance and the consequences are not pretty. If you enjoy horror films: The discomforting truisms of human nature are the root of all classic horror films -- our primal urges, our basic instincts, those gravitational draws to the dark side that have yet to evolve from that primordial muck – are the foundation of scary stories, and have a home in “Dark Knight.” These are not perhaps the “gotcha!” scares that one closely associates with modern horror, but they are the nightmares that can keep one up at night when alone. If you appreciate ensemble acting: I have already mentioned a number of the actors involved, but have yet to speak about Christian Bale, who plays Batman and his alter ego billionaire Bruce Wayne (sorry for the spoiler). It is perhaps because he is a cog in this machine. It is by no means a slight to his ability, for he once again demonstrates just why he is one of the finest actors working today. But he is only one “Knight” in this chess game. If you enjoy sequels with more narrative meat on their bones: As opposed to taking the “Bigger! Stronger! Faster!” approach to sequels, writer/director Christopher Nolan's “Dark Knight” is much more interested in inhabiting and studying the world in which our heroes dwell. It could have been easily called “Gotham” and have been completely accurate. The last bit of praise that I can pile onto this film is by giving it the cinematic equivalent to “The Empire Strikes Back,” (considered by many, myself included, to be the best of the “Star Wars” franchise), in which storylines weave without a knot at its end. It can be disconcerting, but in the end, it feels more organic than any other film released so far this year. And yes, it is based on a “comic book.”
]]>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:50:40 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog7/21/2008 8:50:40 PMI am really struggling here. I really don't feel like cracking open the thesaurus to out-hyperbolize what's already been said about &ldquo;The Dark Knight&rdquo; a dozen times over. Simply put: A) It lives up to the hype, and B) Yes, Heath Ledger as The Joker is that good. The only way to tackle this review and add anything new to what's already been said is by addressing your concerns as a moviegoer. That's right, you. Why do I do this? Well, I'm just a giver, I suppose. So herein are ten reasons why you should either jump aboard the &ldquo;Dark Knight&rdquo; Love Train with the rest of us, or whether you should draw the blinds when you see that Bat Signal appear in the sky. See it: If you enjoy crime drama: The film begins with a crackerjack heist by Joker and his crew that not only ticks along like a timed explosive, it sets the stage for just how morally bankrupt the film's chief villain truly is. He is a character whose sole purpose is not singularly driven, but rather one who likes to conduct social experiments, regardless of their outcome. For Batman, who is considered a champion of justice, the Joker represents his ultimate foe. If you balk at seeing a &ldquo;superhero&rdquo; movie: Too often dismissed by stuffier film-goers as guys running around in silly spandex pajamas, &ldquo;Knight&rdquo; sets its story in a very real world environment that echoes many fears and concerns where chaos reigns. Sure, there are acts of superhuman strength, but there are equal parts of superhuman suffering, as leads are forced to make choices in which one life's value possibly outweighs another. If you eschew CGI for more tangible effects: Digital trickery has become a staple to the genre, especially those released in the heady days of summer blockbusters, but there are no wholly rendered CGI beasties on Batman's fight card here, and when it is used, like the charred, rotting side of the face on Batman's other nemesis Two-Face, it's both subtle and disturbing. If you are a fan of iconic screen villainy: Confession time: When it comes to listing the top actors of this generation, Heath Ledger would probably not even make my long list. His turn in &ldquo;Brokeback Mountain&rdquo; was undoubtedly poignant, but the whole film's over-rated melodrama possibly kept it from making any impact on me. I found him decent, but rather nondescript. Until now. His role as a psychotic harbinger of destruction is seminal, plain and simple. And for those of you who showered Javier Bardem and Daniel Day Lewis with praise last year in &ldquo;No Country for Old Men&rdquo; and &ldquo;There Will Be Blood,&rdquo; respecticely, you owe it to yourself to witness this performance. If you enjoy epic films: While staying primarily focused in Gotham City (after taking a brief detour to Hong Kong to round up some baddies), the story feels oceanic in its sprawl. &ldquo;Dark Knight&rdquo; analyzes a society ruled by fear and governed by disorder. It demonstrates not only how officials and denizens react in times of crisis, but takes the time to detail these reactions, as well as their repercussions, giving them motivation and purpose. It's a sizeable task in any film, but it builds to a crescendo that feels purposefully messy and frustrating. You know, kind of like life. If you'd rather get drawn into a story than manipulated by a rousing score: Too often, we find ourselves moved because some guys in the string section of an orchestra tell us to. Not here. Never obtrusive, always lurking in the shadows (like its lead), the score (by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer) is as subtle as Danny Elfman's (between the Prince ditties) was bombastic in the 1989 version. Instead. &ldquo;Knight&rdquo; is propelled by such intrinsic theoretical absolutes as &ldquo;good&rdquo; and &ldquo;evil&rdquo; (Sometimes by the same character, sometimes by our hero), providing each member of its stellar cast &ndash; Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as inventor Lucious Fox, Michael Caine as heroic manservant Alfred, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, Aaron Eckhart as politician Harvey Dent &ndash; an opportunity to decide where his or her moral line in the sand is drawn. Which leads us to... If you prefer your characters with moral ambiguity: There is not a second of flab in the film's 2.5-hours, and in that time each of its characters are tested. Similar to that memorable coin toss by Bardem's Anton Chigurh in &ldquo;No Country&rdquo; (and Harvey Dent here), the results are sometimes left to chance and the consequences are not pretty. If you enjoy horror films: The discomforting truisms of human nature are the root of all classic horror films -- our primal urges, our basic instincts, those gravitational draws to the dark side that have yet to evolve from that primordial muck &ndash; are the foundation of scary stories, and have a home in &ldquo;Dark Knight.&rdquo; These are not perhaps the &ldquo;gotcha!&rdquo; scares that one closely associates with modern horror, but they are the nightmares that can keep one up at night when alone. If you appreciate ensemble acting: I have already mentioned a number of the actors involved, but have yet to speak about Christian Bale, who plays Batman and his alter ego billionaire Bruce Wayne (sorry for the spoiler). It is perhaps because he is a cog in this machine. It is by no means a slight to his ability, for he once again demonstrates just why he is one of the finest actors working today. But he is only one &ldquo;Knight&rdquo; in this chess game. If you enjoy sequels with more narrative meat on their bones: As opposed to taking the &ldquo;Bigger! Stronger! Faster!&rdquo; approach to sequels, writer/director Christopher Nolan's &ldquo;Dark Knight&rdquo; is much more interested in inhabiting and studying the world in which our heroes dwell. It could have been easily called &ldquo;Gotham&rdquo; and have been completely accurate. The last bit of praise that I can pile onto this film is by giving it the cinematic equivalent to &ldquo;The Empire Strikes Back,&rdquo; (considered by many, myself included, to be the best of the &ldquo;Star Wars&rdquo; franchise), in which storylines weave without a knot at its end. It can be disconcerting, but in the end, it feels more organic than any other film released so far this year. And yes, it is based on a &ldquo;comic book.&rdquo; http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2008/7/19/32757.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 7/19/2008 8:41:12 AM
Body: The Dark Knight is everything it has been advertised to be: exciting, captivating, and enthralling. It is the first major category Oscar worthy movie I have seen in 2008, and not just for the gripping and chilling final performance of Heath Ledger, who certainly deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod. This Batman movie bests all of its predecessors. It is the best Super-Hero sequel movie i have ever seen, and may just be worthy of a Best Picture nomination come January 2009. Sequel success is not a new thing in Hollywood, but more often then not Super-Hero follow ups fall short of their first chapters. Not only does The Dark Knight up the ante, it takes the whole pot, which is a relief considering one of the last Super-Hero franchises, Spider-Man, which showed early success, has trailed off into mediocrity. Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker is everything Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus could only dream of being in Spider-Man 2. Maniacal, sadistic, and calculating, Ledger's Joker even makes Jack Nicholson's 1989 Batman performance seem like Bozo the Clown. Even my fear of Batman falling into the same trap as Spider-man 3, by writing in too many villains (and therefore too many plotlines), were quelled by Christopher Nolan and brother John's brilliant script. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face was fresh and unexpected, adding more depth and emotion to The Dark Knight. The Nolan's succeeded where the Spider-man 3 writers failed with Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin II, not by keeping it simple, but by creating a truly intertwined story-line for their villians. This film certainly has it all, doing everything right for both the die-hard comic book fanboy and the pedestrian blockbuster movie-goer. The casting for every character is dead-on, including the replacement of love interest Rachel Dawes with actress Maggie Gyllenhaal who provides a much more believable peformance than her predecessor Katie Holmes. Many people will come to the theater to see Ledger at his absolute best, and he certainly is, but they will also leave the theater raving about the amazing action sequences and the engaging story-line. They will leave thirsting for more, and wondering how in the world another Super-Hero sequel, let alone another Batman sequel could possibly top this.
]]>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:41:12 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed7/19/2008 8:41:12 AMThe Dark Knight is everything it has been advertised to be: exciting, captivating, and enthralling. It is the first major category Oscar worthy movie I have seen in 2008, and not just for the gripping and chilling final performance of Heath Ledger, who certainly deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod. This Batman movie bests all of its predecessors. It is the best Super-Hero sequel movie i have ever seen, and may just be worthy of a Best Picture nomination come January 2009. Sequel success is not a new thing in Hollywood, but more often then not Super-Hero follow ups fall short of their first chapters. Not only does The Dark Knight up the ante, it takes the whole pot, which is a relief considering one of the last Super-Hero franchises, Spider-Man, which showed early success, has trailed off into mediocrity. Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker is everything Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus could only dream of being in Spider-Man 2. Maniacal, sadistic, and calculating, Ledger's Joker even makes Jack Nicholson's 1989 Batman performance seem like Bozo the Clown. Even my fear of Batman falling into the same trap as Spider-man 3, by writing in too many villains (and therefore too many plotlines), were quelled by Christopher Nolan and brother John's brilliant script. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face was fresh and unexpected, adding more depth and emotion to The Dark Knight. The Nolan's succeeded where the Spider-man 3 writers failed with Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin II, not by keeping it simple, but by creating a truly intertwined story-line for their villians. This film certainly has it all, doing everything right for both the die-hard comic book fanboy and the pedestrian blockbuster movie-goer. The casting for every character is dead-on, including the replacement of love interest Rachel Dawes with actress Maggie Gyllenhaal who provides a much more believable peformance than her predecessor Katie Holmes. Many people will come to the theater to see Ledger at his absolute best, and he certainly is, but they will also leave the theater raving about the amazing action sequences and the engaging story-line. They will leave thirsting for more, and wondering how in the world another Super-Hero sequel, let alone another Batman sequel could possibly top this. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/18/32742.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/18/2008 5:00:56 PM
Body: The Dark Knight is hands down the best Batman movie yet, but has Christopher Nolan painted himself into a corner by using up the only viable Batman villains? Most of the Batman villains left are either too campy (the Penguin, the Ventriloquist), depend too much on flexible comic book logic (Clayface, Killer Croc), or are just watered-down versions of the Joker (the Riddler, the Mad Hatter). Tim Burton’s Batman featured The Joker (Jack Nicholson) for good reason. The Clown Prince of Crime, always Batman’s most threatening foe, represents (among many things) an unwillingness to take human life seriously. In that moral void his vibrant personality explodes like a fireworks display of mania, menace, and eccentricity. The Joker is the calling card of chaos and evil at its sexiest. Batman isn’t the reason we watch Batman over and over again, the Joker is. Of course Michael Keaton brings gravitas to Batman, but let’s face it–as sweet as Batman is, he’s just not good company. Ever notice how passengers in the Batmobile feel like they’re at the end of a bad date? Batman is the control and the villain is the variable, and we all know the movies between Batman and Batman Begins are failed experiments. Danny DeVito as a mutant Penguin, Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face, JIm Carrey as the Riddler, Arnold Swarzenegger as Mr. Freeze: none of these villains grab hold and shake the imagination like the mighty Joker. I’m wary of Nolan making a third Batman movie. Is there an actor capable of making the Riddler a force to be reckoned with? Or like some bloggers are saying, would the obscure villain Anarky be the best fit for capping off Nolan’s trilogy? Anarky sounds a bit like V in V for Vendetta, a highly principled and violent anarchist who destroys “for the people.” I would watch that, but I don’t think for a second the film would be as good as The Dark Knight. As far as I’m concerned, Batman’s story pretty much begins and ends with the Joker. That’s why even though I loved Batman Begins and adored The Dark Knight, I’d almost prefer that Christopher Nolan stop making Batman movies. PS - every drink I have today will be a toast to Heath Ledger. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:00:56 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/18/2008 5:00:56 PM The Dark Knight is hands down the best Batman movie yet, but has Christopher Nolan painted himself into a corner by using up the only viable Batman villains? Most of the Batman villains left are either too campy (the Penguin, the Ventriloquist), depend too much on flexible comic book logic (Clayface, Killer Croc), or are just watered-down versions of the Joker (the Riddler, the Mad Hatter). Tim Burton’s Batman featured The Joker (Jack Nicholson) for good reason. The Clown Prince of Crime, always Batman’s most threatening foe, represents (among many things) an unwillingness to take human life seriously. In that moral void his vibrant personality explodes like a fireworks display of mania, menace, and eccentricity. The Joker is the calling card of chaos and evil at its sexiest. Batman isn’t the reason we watch Batman over and over again, the Joker is. Of course Michael Keaton brings gravitas to Batman, but let’s face it–as sweet as Batman is, he’s just not good company. Ever notice how passengers in the Batmobile feel like they’re at the end of a bad date? Batman is the control and the villain is the variable, and we all know the movies between Batman and Batman Begins are failed experiments. Danny DeVito as a mutant Penguin, Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face, JIm Carrey as the Riddler, Arnold Swarzenegger as Mr. Freeze: none of these villains grab hold and shake the imagination like the mighty Joker. I’m wary of Nolan making a third Batman movie. Is there an actor capable of making the Riddler a force to be reckoned with? Or like some bloggers are saying, would the obscure villain Anarky be the best fit for capping off Nolan’s trilogy? Anarky sounds a bit like V in V for Vendetta, a highly principled and violent anarchist who destroys “for the people.” I would watch that, but I don’t think for a second the film would be as good as The Dark Knight. As far as I’m concerned, Batman’s story pretty much begins and ends with the Joker. That’s why even though I loved Batman Begins and adored The Dark Knight, I’d almost prefer that Christopher Nolan stop making Batman movies. PS - every drink I have today will be a toast to Heath Ledger. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/18/32714.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/18/2008 11:01:08 AM
Body: Blake Edwards will exec produce a redo of his 1979 comedy 10 along with son Geoffrey, who was an assistant editor on the original. I’d ask what young starlet you’d most like to see in cornrows, but of course a newcomer is being sought to fill the iconic Bo Derek role. A new version of Papillon, or at least a new adaptation of Henri Charriere’s autobiography, will be produced by two-time Oscar winner Branko Lustig (Schindler’s List; Gladiator). Could a remake receive more love from the Academy than did the original? It’s been done before… Like, totally bitchin: MGM is developing a musical remake of Valley Girl. Isn’t the ’80s music nostalgia thing over yet? The “remake” of Tim Burton’s Batman (don’t you remember this video?) is now in theaters, and blah blah blah record-breaking theater count blah blah blah possible record-breaking non-holiday weekend gross blah blah blah, as Karina would put it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/18/2008 11:01:08 AM Blake Edwards will exec produce a redo of his 1979 comedy 10 along with son Geoffrey, who was an assistant editor on the original. I’d ask what young starlet you’d most like to see in cornrows, but of course a newcomer is being sought to fill the iconic Bo Derek role. A new version of Papillon, or at least a new adaptation of Henri Charriere’s autobiography, will be produced by two-time Oscar winner Branko Lustig (Schindler’s List; Gladiator). Could a remake receive more love from the Academy than did the original? It’s been done before… Like, totally bitchin: MGM is developing a musical remake of Valley Girl. Isn’t the ’80s music nostalgia thing over yet? The “remake” of Tim Burton’s Batman (don’t you remember this video?) is now in theaters, and blah blah blah record-breaking theater count blah blah blah possible record-breaking non-holiday weekend gross blah blah blah, as Karina would put it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 155

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:32 GMT103562155Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comic/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 07:06:48 GMT443567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/orphan/MemberTagFilms.aspxorphan
Number of films tagged: 1157

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 53

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT11572553Tag