?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Batmobile

I'm Batman

Posted on 2008.07.23 at 09:22
Current Location: 75070
Current Music: Zimmer - The Dark Knight
I have not yet seen the movie. I heard it was really good. I heard that it did very well at the box office. I'm getting a lot of 'I told you so.' Its this last part which has me confused. You hedged your bet based on speculation. As did the studio. There was no guarantee for its success.

I heard in the news the reason it did so well at the box office opening weekend was that most people went to see it because Heath Ledger died. I don't understand that. When I see it, it won't be to see some actor who later died. Why is that such a draw? There are no words I can think of to explain it. I'll want to see it because I enjoyed the first one, and I heard that this was a spectacular movie.

You said it was going to do well because it was going to be such a great movie, which, as it turned out, it was. But that's not why it did so well opening weekend. So which is it? And furthermore, how do you justify your answer?

Lastly, because I won't take my son to see The Dark Knight I bought the 1966 original Batman: The Movie I saw in theaters in the late 70s.

He'll probably hate me.




Comments:


This Is Me, Ten Sticks
lehah at 2008-07-23 14:57 (UTC) (Link)
The 1966 movie is good, old-fashioned fun. If anyone can discredit it, they're not people worth talking to.

TDK is not a fun movie. It's written with a dark and misunderstood nihilistic edge - like someone who saw Fight Club and understood the words without hearing the message.

If you want a fun movie to watch with your son, go and rent The Phantom (1996).
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-23 16:08 (UTC) (Link)
Batman: The Movie when camp was king! I'm waiting to watch it with him. Both for nostalgia's sake (my father took me to see it when I was about my son's age) and to see his reaction to the villains he has come to know only through the new cartoons and the Schumacher films.
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2008-07-23 15:57 (UTC) (Link)
Unfortunately all of the attention being heaped on Heath Ledger's performance is eclipsing Aaron Ekhart's contribution to the film, which is considerable.

And no, this is not a movie to take the kids to see. It seems to have gotten a PG-13 because the MPAA decided that it was apparent that they weren't going to be able to keep children out (a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps).

I'm planning on picking up the '66 Batman on Blu-ray once the smoke from the purchase of the camera clears. I've heard it looks outstanding.

Edited at 2008-07-23 03:58 pm (UTC)
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-23 16:15 (UTC) (Link)
hiro_antagonist touched upon the storytelling technique" employed utilizing both characters, and it would make sense to me that in order for the film to have been as good as everyone is saying, the strength would have to go to the entire cast.

I'm a bit 'old-fashioned' in what I will and will not allow my children to see. My son is very good about this, always checking the ratings on his games before playing them, and calling me if he thinks the "T" rating is unwarranted.

I'm looking forward to watching the film with him. I saw the Blu-ray at the store and it looked phenomenal!
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2008-07-23 21:13 (UTC) (Link)
I thought the film was very good, but I also have the reservation that there is a lot of hyperbole going around about it that would make it difficult for any movie, regardless of how good it is, to live up to. It is not flawless (parts of it are ham-handed, it is a bit too long) but it is a very intense experience.

If you're old-fashioned or new-fashioned, this is a movie for adults, not children. There are several very disturbing sequences in it, the issues being more tonal than graphic (although there is some of that as well, especially with respect to Two-Face). It is sort of Heat meets SE7EN, if that helps to explain it (SE7EN actually being a good analogy because much of the violence in that film is implied rather than shown).

I want to see the bright candy-colors of the old school Batman in high def! I'd have already gotten it, but... well... camera...
galinda822 at 2008-07-23 18:00 (UTC) (Link)
I've heard that it's a very, very dark movie. I'm not sure I want to see it myself.
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-23 18:27 (UTC) (Link)
I'm very excited about seeing it. Street date for DVD is December. I'll buy it that Tuesday!
catttitude
catttitude at 2008-07-23 18:14 (UTC) (Link)
Didn't they already remake Batman with ??? Val in it or some other actor?
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-23 18:26 (UTC) (Link)
This would be the sequel to Batman Begins with Christian Bale. A re-imagining of the franchise. Much like they 'remade' Superman without Christopher Reeve.
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2008-07-23 21:07 (UTC) (Link)
It's actually a little bit more like what they did with James Bond with Casino Royale. Bryan Singer's Superman film sort of fuzzily follows the events of Superman II (Lex has been to the Fortress before, Lois has a child from their union in that film).
wardlejew
wardlejew at 2008-07-23 19:25 (UTC) (Link)
** No spoilers here **

Excellent Movie. I find myself pondering it still. The story was fantastic. Yes, the movie is very dark in multiple ways. Two I note here 1: The Joker is ruthless! 2: The movie explores the darker side of humanity and makes you think "Which would I choose?"

I haven't decided how old I want my boys to be before they seen this one. 13 is probably about right.
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-23 20:14 (UTC) (Link)
My oldest is nine and he's very good about not giving me grief over what he can and cannot see. That may change the closer he gets to 13...
(Anonymous) at 2008-07-23 21:11 (UTC) (Link)
May change?!
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-24 04:08 (UTC) (Link)
I doubt he'll stay sweet and respectful during all of his teen years, but I can hope!
joey_glover
joey_glover at 2008-07-23 22:08 (UTC) (Link)
i get to go see it tonight!!! i can give you a review if you like?
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-24 04:09 (UTC) (Link)
Congratulations! But please don't spoil it for me. Thank you!
David Alexander McDonald (Steven E. McDonald)
wyldemusick at 2008-07-23 22:04 (UTC) (Link)
It's a dark, intense film, though quite a bit is done through implication -- there's an oddly old-fashioned sensibility about the violence.

It's packed to the gills, though, and makes sense as a complete story, with no really apparent excisions. There's a couple of not so thrilling moments (including one block of dialogue that's cringeworthy the way it comes out), a couple of places where the editing seems a bit off.

What may make or break it for you is something I've seen grumbled about repeatedly -- the Batvoice. Overrrrrdone.
ehowton
ehowton at 2008-07-24 04:10 (UTC) (Link)
Is that anything like the "The Voice" in Dune? No wait - don't tell me!
Previous Entry  Next Entry