Controversial opinions about other movies

15859606163

Comments

  • Posts: 4,513
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Only seen Raging Bull once, although I thought it was wonderfully shot, edited and acted.

    I’m not sure I’d call Taxi Driver overrated either. Again, not for everyone and not an easy watch, but I think there’s a reason why it’s praised so much. I think it’s a very relevant film today (films like Joker obviously got a lot of influence from it in terms of story/filmmaking, and I’d personally say that’s not a film anywhere near as gripping as Taxi Driver).

    I think Taxi Driver is an incredibly powerful portrait of loneliness. Especially in a big city where the character starts to develop dangerous obsessions.

    I love the way the film ends with the media proclaiming Travis a hero, when we know he is actually a severely damaged and potentially dangerous individual.

    One of my favourite films.

    The great thing about the ending is whether we believe it to be 'real' or not (I personally always got the sense it was in his head and he was dying on the floor in the previous scene) there's something to take away. Is there an irony in the media celebrating a severely damaged and dangerous individual, or does it end with Travis in what is effectively Hell? It's a movie I always get so much out of.

    That's an interesting take regarding the ending being in his head. I love that final quick shot as Travis appears to glance at something in his rear view mirror.

    I also always wonder why Iris ran away from her parents in the first place? As she's apparently now 'back at school and studying hard..'

    A film i never get sick of watching.

    For me the last scene comes off as so idealised there’s something off about it. Betsy is uncharacteristically interested in Travis, Iris is back at home, and Travis is celebrated as a hero for what is essentially an unhinged massacre. For me it always felt like the very ending with Travis becoming agitated and looking in his mirror etc was a moment of realisation. Could be him realising he’s imagining all this and about to die (the reason why I say it felt like he was in Hell was because of all the red lights washing over his face in the mirror and the fact that his work as a taxi driver is such a big part of his isolation, to the point it’s unusual he would return to that work after). Or maybe it’s a brief moment of realisation that what he’s done isn’t virtuous, and the fact that he’s celebrated for an awful crime makes him little better than the people he’s killed (or tried to in the case of Palantine). As if he’s become part of the horrible city he’s gone against throughout the film.

    It’s a tremendous film in my opinion. I remember reading they tried for a while to get a sequel made. Not sure that would have worked.

    A sequel..? God no, it's perfect as it is. Although it's one of those rare films that are so good, they leave you wanting more..

    Agreed. That and Schrader and Scorsese effectively expanded on those ideas a few times afterwards to the point there are a few spiritual sequels to Taxi Driver. King of Comedy, American Giggolo, Light Sleeper, Bringing out The Dead etc.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,186
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Only seen Raging Bull once, although I thought it was wonderfully shot, edited and acted.

    I’m not sure I’d call Taxi Driver overrated either. Again, not for everyone and not an easy watch, but I think there’s a reason why it’s praised so much. I think it’s a very relevant film today (films like Joker obviously got a lot of influence from it in terms of story/filmmaking, and I’d personally say that’s not a film anywhere near as gripping as Taxi Driver).

    I think Taxi Driver is an incredibly powerful portrait of loneliness. Especially in a big city where the character starts to develop dangerous obsessions.

    I love the way the film ends with the media proclaiming Travis a hero, when we know he is actually a severely damaged and potentially dangerous individual.

    One of my favourite films.

    The great thing about the ending is whether we believe it to be 'real' or not (I personally always got the sense it was in his head and he was dying on the floor in the previous scene) there's something to take away. Is there an irony in the media celebrating a severely damaged and dangerous individual, or does it end with Travis in what is effectively Hell? It's a movie I always get so much out of.

    That's an interesting take regarding the ending being in his head. I love that final quick shot as Travis appears to glance at something in his rear view mirror.

    I also always wonder why Iris ran away from her parents in the first place? As she's apparently now 'back at school and studying hard..'

    A film i never get sick of watching.

    For me the last scene comes off as so idealised there’s something off about it. Betsy is uncharacteristically interested in Travis, Iris is back at home, and Travis is celebrated as a hero for what is essentially an unhinged massacre. For me it always felt like the very ending with Travis becoming agitated and looking in his mirror etc was a moment of realisation. Could be him realising he’s imagining all this and about to die (the reason why I say it felt like he was in Hell was because of all the red lights washing over his face in the mirror and the fact that his work as a taxi driver is such a big part of his isolation, to the point it’s unusual he would return to that work after). Or maybe it’s a brief moment of realisation that what he’s done isn’t virtuous, and the fact that he’s celebrated for an awful crime makes him little better than the people he’s killed (or tried to in the case of Palantine). As if he’s become part of the horrible city he’s gone against throughout the film.

    It’s a tremendous film in my opinion. I remember reading they tried for a while to get a sequel made. Not sure that would have worked.

    A sequel..? God no, it's perfect as it is. Although it's one of those rare films that are so good, they leave you wanting more..

    Agreed. That and Schrader and Scorsese effectively expanded on those ideas a few times afterwards to the point there are a few spiritual sequels to Taxi Driver. King of Comedy, American Giggolo, Light Sleeper, Bringing out The Dead etc.

    Absolutely right about 'spiritual sequels'

    I think Light Sleeper comes closest. I saw it on it's release and at the time thought it was a little too similar. Excellent performance from Willem Dafoe. I really must give it another watch at some point.
  • Posts: 4,513
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,301
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I'm not the biggest Batman fan, so I'm probably not the best person to evaluate these films. Having said that I also prefer Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. Ledger's Joker is indeed phenomenal, but that's the only real highlight in that film, the rest is fine though I never thought it was exceptional. I enjoy BB more on almost all accounts, and it also has a great villain in Murphy's Scarecrow.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,730
    Batman Begins is probably the best of those three. It's the only origin movie I've seentl that does the origin bit perfectly and also manages to have its own completely satisfying plot apart from the origin stuff.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 16,926
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.
  • Posts: 15,345
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.

    I always understood the Wayne Enterprise employee was meant to become the Riddler in a subsequent film, but it was ultimately abandoned.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 16,926
    To be honest I remember it felt like it was there just to give Morgan Freeman something to do. My bum really ached at the end of that film, it was way too long.
  • edited January 29 Posts: 4,513
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.

    I’ve not seen BB in a while admittedly but that’s interesting. I’ve always found it had a tighter, more coherent story though. TDK has a tendency to go off on plot tangents that to me feel a bit forced (ie. Gordon ‘fakes’ his death midway through the film and reappears later. It’s to add some emotional stakes for Batman - albeit rather artificially in my opinion. I always find myself questioning how and why he did this as there are no obvious answers. Same can be said about the employee example - it adds nothing). I also found on my last viewing it could be a bit… I dunno if it’s the right word but cerebral? Just a bit too much dialogue that doesn’t sound natural and hammers home ‘ideas’ , especiallly Gordon’s last monologue (and again, I find the idea of Batman playing God and putting Gotham against a common enemy but lying about it… well, a bit creepy and something that never works in practice). BB felt much more naturally engaging for me.

    I also like the atmosphere and cinematography of BB more. Gotham just doesn’t have the same Noir feel in the last two films.
  • Posts: 384
    I was never that big a fan of TDK. To much going on in one film. Yes Ledger was extraordinary as the Joker, but Aaron Eckhart was superb as Harvey Dent/Two Face bit he got lost in the mix. The story of Dent becoming Two Face would have made a really strong story on its own, instead almost as soon as he transformed he was dispatched. Meanwhile Joker just seemed to disappear for a big chunk of the film. Controversial opinion maybe but I actually prefer TDKR.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 16,926
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.

    I’ve not seen BB in a while admittedly but that’s interesting. I’ve always found it had a tighter, more coherent story though.

    Yeah I was honestly surprised, I had memories of it being really good, but yeah; 'flat' was definitely my thought of it. Of the 'origin' movies of that time, I'd say Casino Royale holds up much better. Or maybe I've stayed more familiar with CR so haven't noticed it ageing, I don't know.

    I was actually also pretty shocked at the treatment of Bruce's parents. He loses his mum and dad, but from watching BBegins, you'd think his mum wasn't even present in his life- it's all about how great his dad was. His mum pops up in the background a bit but may as well be his nanny. It made me think Nolan's treatment of women is a bit odd. I then googled that and it seems like a thing people have noticed in his career.
  • Personally I think Batman Returns is better than all of the Nolan Bat-Films. I adore the Nolan movies (perhaps more out of Nostalgia) but Batman Returns just feels so moody and atmospheric. Devito and Pfeiffer are phenomenal as villains (rivaling Heath Ledger’s Joker imo) and Keaton’s take on the character is my favorite live action interpretation. In many ways it isn’t exactly faithful to the comics, but it still takes themes/ideas that the comics explore and adapts them for the big screen better than any subsequent live action Batman film.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,301
    Personally I think Batman Returns is better than all of the Nolan Bat-Films. I adore the Nolan movies (perhaps more out of Nostalgia) but Batman Returns just feels so moody and atmospheric. Devito and Pfeiffer are phenomenal as villains (rivaling Heath Ledger’s Joker imo) and Keaton’s take on the character is my favorite live action interpretation. In many ways it isn’t exactly faithful to the comics, but it still takes themes/ideas that the comics explore and adapts them for the big screen better than any subsequent live action Batman film.

    I'm with you. I'd say it's my preferred Batman film, followed by BB. All the rest I don't tend to return to.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,186
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I'd agree with a lot of that. The entire sequence with the two ferries is pretty tedious.

    My favourite of the three is Dark Knight Rises.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,129
    I'm not that much of a Batman fan. AFAIR, we never had the TV series in Germany (at least not during my youth), and I may have read a few comics...though I always preferred the funny ones, like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse and a few others (side remark: I still find at least the "early" Donald Duck cartoons by Carl Barks to be a lot more intellectual than any of that superhero stuff, be it Marvel or whatever).

    That being said, I liked the Tim Burton Batman movies quite a lot, but I also remember watching Batman Begins the first time and telling my wife that it's not just a good Batman movie, but a very good movie, period/full stop. And I stand by that, although Christopher Nolan and basically everything he made afterwards (disclaimer: I haven't watched Oppenheimer yet) is for me the epitome of "overrated". And this includes TDK and TDKR, which I find a lot inferior to BB. But overall, I think the Tim Burton films are much more to my taste of how Batman should be.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 16,926
    Yeah same here. I prefer Batman to be in a heightened fantasy reality, because if you try and make him realistic and put him in the real world, you throw into sharp focus what a dangerously mentally ill man he is. And also: dressing as a big bat is very silly. He makes more sense in a gothic fantasy land.

    Agreed about Nolan films too: The Prestige actually made me angry, it was so stupid. And yet it thinks it's clever. Same sort of thing with Inception- everyone was stroking their chins about the supposedly ambiguous ending saying 'what could it mean', but it could only mean one thing and wasn't a cliffhanger at all.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,394
    My issue with Batman Returns is its lack of action and tension. While I appreciate the theatrics to some extent and the casting is spot-on, I rarely feel any urgency for Batman to save Gotham. The threat never fully lands for me. The Penguin's mayoral ambitions were handled far better in the '60s TV series, in my opinion. As for the abduction of the firstborns, while dark in concept, it’s over almost as soon as it begins, and the carnivalesque (or Burtonesque) aesthetics only weaken its impact. Max Shreck's grandiose scheme is furthermore difficult to take even mildly seriously.

    Catwoman's arc is interesting but ultimately a disappointingly straightforward revenge story following a supernatural transformation. Tim Burton’s disregard for comic accuracy was a loss for both him and the audience—Batman: Year One had already provided a great backstory for the character. The prostitution angle, while perhaps too risqué for WB at the time, was abandoned in favour of a more fantastical yet oddly surreal approach that I find difficult to appreciate.

    That said, I do like how the main characters explore their animalistic instincts—one of the few things I can genuinely praise about the film.

    The '89 movie had a few strong action sequences, but its sequel, as Elliot Carver would put it, "lacks punch." I expect a Batman film to have at least some action. Batman Forever, for all its flaws, delivers on that front—it may not always be great, but at least it keeps my adrenaline up. Even The Batman, a slow-burn film, makes time for Batman to throw some punches. Keaton, unfortunately, is underused in Batman Returns; it's a shame he spends most of his screen time brooding rather than doing much of anything.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah same here. I prefer Batman to be in a heightened fantasy reality, because if you try and make him realistic and put him in the real world, you throw into sharp focus what a dangerously mentally ill man he is. And also: dressing as a big bat is very silly. He makes more sense in a gothic fantasy land.

    Agreed about Nolan films too: The Prestige actually made me angry, it was so stupid. And yet it thinks it's clever. Same sort of thing with Inception- everyone was stroking their chins about the supposedly ambiguous ending saying 'what could it mean', but it could only mean one thing and wasn't a cliffhanger at all.

    As an avid DC Comics reader, I can appreciate heightened fantasy as well. But film is more than just its story, and Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy works for me on all levels. That’s why I prefer those films to Batman Returns. Then again, I’m a staunch fan of Nolan’s work, including The Prestige, though I respect differing opinions. (For example, while I’d love to see Nolan tackle Bond, I don’t believe he’s the only one capable of pushing the series forward.)

    Nolan’s Batman films aim for a more grounded, realistic approach. I’m not saying that’s the only valid direction for Batman, but I find the idea of a close-to-real-world Dark Knight genuinely exciting.

    That said, I’m interested in all kinds of Batman interpretations—Burton’s gothic vision, Nolan’s realism, Snyder’s sci-fi-infused take. The key difference for me is that the Nolan and Reeves films get me invested, while Batman Returns feels—pardon the word—masturbatory, a self-indulgent passion project for Burton.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,186
    All I took from Batman Returns is that Tim Burton wasn't particularly interested in Batman..
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,562
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.

    I’ve not seen BB in a while admittedly but that’s interesting. I’ve always found it had a tighter, more coherent story though. TDK has a tendency to go off on plot tangents that to me feel a bit forced (ie. Gordon ‘fakes’ his death midway through the film and reappears later. It’s to add some emotional stakes for Batman - albeit rather artificially in my opinion.

    Yeah, I hate when filmmakers feel the need to artificially raise the emotional stakes by including lots of forced gimmicks like pretending to be killed of, going into hiding, rivalry between allies, long lost daughters that sort of thing.
  • edited January 30 Posts: 4,513
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    These are opinions I’ve had in the recent past anyway, but having rewatched The Dark Knight for the first time in a long while last night, here are my controversial takes on it I feel have been cemented a bit!

    I like Ledger as Joker, but overall I don’t think it’s anywhere near as well made as Batman Begins was. It has some very contrived writing in places - especially in terms of dialogue, but also plot points. Also the final scene clashes with everything the film has set up (namely that despite Gotham’s flaws, people will do the right thing ultimately in hard times). I actually find it a creepy ending and certainly not as virtuous as the film makes it out to be. Also, Batman kills Dent, which should be a bigger deal than it is in the film.

    I remember watching Dark Knight in the cinema and kind of mentally editing out that whole subplot about the Wayne employee who works out who Batman is- it felt unconnected to the rest of the film and just made it longer. Bear in mind I haven't seen it in many years so don't have a robust knowledge of it.
    I did rewatch Batman Begins for the first time in many years recently, I remember that being a very solid film but to be honest my reaction was that I thought it actually hasn't aged well. It all felt oddly flat and the set pieces weren't as exciting as I remembered them being. It was okay, but I was actually a bit disappointed, it feels dated.

    I’ve not seen BB in a while admittedly but that’s interesting. I’ve always found it had a tighter, more coherent story though. TDK has a tendency to go off on plot tangents that to me feel a bit forced (ie. Gordon ‘fakes’ his death midway through the film and reappears later. It’s to add some emotional stakes for Batman - albeit rather artificially in my opinion.

    Yeah, I hate when filmmakers feel the need to artificially raise the emotional stakes by including lots of forced gimmicks like pretending to be killed of, going into hiding, rivalry between allies, long lost daughters that sort of thing.

    Reminds me of the film Logan a bit when you put it like that/considering the thread we’re in 😉
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,926
    Oh yes, that was a good film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,562
    Gordon's supposed death isn't just to raise the stakes for Batman, its to show that the good guys aren't being purely reactive all the time. The fact that they manage to capture the joker, only for him to ultimately prevail anyway lends weight to his mantra of reality bending towards chaos.
  • edited January 30 Posts: 4,513
    Gordon's supposed death isn't just to raise the stakes for Batman, its to show that the good guys aren't being purely reactive all the time. The fact that they manage to capture the joker, only for him to ultimately prevail anyway lends weight to his mantra of reality bending towards chaos.

    Fair enough. I think it’s just something that always confused me. Like, there’s no indication it’s pre-planned and there’s no easy to spot benefit to faking his death IIRC (it’s the mayor Joker wanted to assassinate - it’s not like Gordon dying changes that or would even delay anything). To me personally it felt like a ‘gotcha’ moment, and it’s always taken me out of the film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,562
    Ofcourse the truth is that Joker is carefully manipulating the chaos, and even then there's sides to Gothams humanity he doesn't account for, hence the ending on the ships.
  • edited January 30 Posts: 4,513
    I do find it quite funny how he claims he isn’t a guy who has plans despite making very elaborate plans throughout the movie! Not a criticism incidentally, and likely he’s just bs’ing Dent.

    I like the part with the bombs on the ships. As I said for me the very ending kind of clashes with that idea somewhat.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,779
    All I took from Batman Returns is that Tim Burton wasn't particularly interested in Batman..

    As I said on the Batman thread, BR is WAY TOO MUCH Tim Burton. To the point, WB should have arguably told him to tone his style down more than once. Long before the final product came out. While directors deserve their visions shown, there does come a point where someone should be told no. As @DarthDimi said, the dark fantasy works for the look of Gotham City. For the characters occupying Gotham, mixed results. As for TDK writing, the Nolans do tend to have some plot holes and cliches. Also, I'm surprised that WB and DC didn't ask for some The Animated Series people for more ideas and stories. They had that perfect mix of those director's styles.
  • Posts: 2,101
    @Mendes4Lyfe -- Yeah, I hate when filmmakers feel the need to artificially raise the emotional stakes by including lots of forced gimmicks like pretending to be killed of, going into hiding, rivalry between allies, long lost daughters that sort of thing.

    We are so familiar with "the formula" that we're set up for what's coming. I prefer films that upend my expectations.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,186
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    All I took from Batman Returns is that Tim Burton wasn't particularly interested in Batman..

    As I said on the Batman thread, BR is WAY TOO MUCH Tim Burton. To the point, WB should have arguably told him to tone his style down more than once. Long before the final product came out. While directors deserve their visions shown, there does come a point where someone should be told no. As @DarthDimi said, the dark fantasy works for the look of Gotham City. For the characters occupying Gotham, mixed results. As for TDK writing, the Nolans do tend to have some plot holes and cliches. Also, I'm surprised that WB and DC didn't ask for some The Animated Series people for more ideas and stories. They had that perfect mix of those director's styles.

    The makers of The Animated series certainly did get Batman. and as you say, got the perfect mix of styles.

    Their treatment of Harvey Dent/Two Face is the best portrayal of the character bar none.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,779
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    All I took from Batman Returns is that Tim Burton wasn't particularly interested in Batman..

    As I said on the Batman thread, BR is WAY TOO MUCH Tim Burton. To the point, WB should have arguably told him to tone his style down more than once. Long before the final product came out. While directors deserve their visions shown, there does come a point where someone should be told no. As @DarthDimi said, the dark fantasy works for the look of Gotham City. For the characters occupying Gotham, mixed results. As for TDK writing, the Nolans do tend to have some plot holes and cliches. Also, I'm surprised that WB and DC didn't ask for some The Animated Series people for more ideas and stories. They had that perfect mix of those director's styles.

    The makers of The Animated series certainly did get Batman. and as you say, got the perfect mix of styles.

    Their treatment of Harvey Dent/Two Face is the best portrayal of the character bar none.

    Glad to see another Batman TAS Two-Face Fan. Emmy worthy material, for the writing and Richard Moll's voice over performance. I also think the same makers TRULY should have been (and still could) look at Superman. Superman TAS is underrated. They certainly understood Superman better than Bryan Singer, Zack Snyder and maybe even James Gunn. I feel that not using that team of talent was a waste for Superman for almost 30 years now.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,301
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    All I took from Batman Returns is that Tim Burton wasn't particularly interested in Batman..

    As I said on the Batman thread, BR is WAY TOO MUCH Tim Burton. To the point, WB should have arguably told him to tone his style down more than once. Long before the final product came out. While directors deserve their visions shown, there does come a point where someone should be told no. As @DarthDimi said, the dark fantasy works for the look of Gotham City. For the characters occupying Gotham, mixed results. As for TDK writing, the Nolans do tend to have some plot holes and cliches. Also, I'm surprised that WB and DC didn't ask for some The Animated Series people for more ideas and stories. They had that perfect mix of those director's styles.

    The makers of The Animated series certainly did get Batman. and as you say, got the perfect mix of styles.

    Their treatment of Harvey Dent/Two Face is the best portrayal of the character bar none.

    Now that you mention animation, I quite liked Mask of the Phantasm, which I totally forgot about, but if you ask me now I think I like that one the best out of all the Batman films.
Sign In or Register to comment.