Printable View
While a great movie, I don't think it's aged as well as it could have... I personally think Mask of the Phantasm is a better Batman movie. I also thought Begins was great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Returns also has not aged well (just like the first), but I still feel it's an entertaining movie despite allthe changes it makes over the comics... besides, it has Walken! :)
YOU'RE FUCKING DUMB!!! IT'S AWESOME!!! AARRGGGHHH!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TobalRox
...oh, sorry. I don't know what got over me.
Well, if we're talking all forms of Batman, not just live action movies, than I have to say that The Animated Series is probably the best Batman's ever been.Quote:
I personally think Mask of the Phantasm is a better Batman movie.
I liked Begins a lot, and I'm a huge Bale fan, but something about that movie was a tad...off for me. The first half was awesome, but overall I thought the movie was a little too long and drawn-out. It need to have some fat trimmed to tighten it up.Quote:
I also thought Begins was great.
The funky neck of that Bat costume bothered me as well. :)
I miss when studios thought people couldn't sit through a movie that was more than 2 hours. Thanks to the success of Peter Jackson editing is a lost art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Fuck that. The real trouble with the success of Peter Jackson is that he's never going to make another movie like Meet the Feebles, Bad Taste, or Braindead/Dead Alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Really, though, I'm okay with long movies. People always complain that Batman Begins or Pirates of the Caribbean were too long or dragged in parts, and I didn't see it. I still haven't seen King Kong, though, and people tell me that it was absolutely ridiculous in terms of running way too long.
I can't count the number of movies recently that would have totally rocked if they had maybe 20 minutes cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
However, being over 2 hours isn't always bad if a director needs that time to keep things engaging or to tell an expanded story. It's really tricky. Superman Returns was 2 1/2 hours and I thought it totally worked at that length. Batman Begins, for me, didn't.
Oh, I know. In fact, LotR were fine at their length, as well as The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, and a lot of other great movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
But it used to be thought of as something to be avoided if possible, and now people will make them 3 hours even if it could be a lot shorter.
It's funny how just a couple years ago they made tarantino split up Kill Bill.
See, that's a perfect example. Until right this second when you told me, I didn't realize The Shawshank Redemption was over 2 hours. I just didn't notice it. That's the goal with filmmaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
But too many movies nowadays are jumping on the "lets throw in every scrap of footage that would normally be left on the cutting room floor" bandwagon, and then adding another 10 minutes for the DVD "UNRATED EXTREME TOO HOT FOR THEATERS" Director's Cut. It's just too fucking much.
That's the rare instance of a movie that should have been a single 3+ hour monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I really like the movie a lot, don't get me wrong... but it didn't age well, so I don't love it as much as I used to when I was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
This is true, but Mask of the Phantasm was released theatrically, so that's why I brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I never had any issues with it... my only complaint about seeing it wasn't even a fault of the movie, but of the theater itself. A theater MUCH closer than the usual IMAX I had gone to decided to advertise they added an IMAX theater to their location... I went and it was nothing but disappointing since the screen was barely bigger than a normal screen and the seats were just the normal seats that were in the theater before. It sucked and wasn't worth the extra money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
That was only a short period of time in cinema's lifespan.. many movies used to be epic and it was no big deal. Then the 80s came around and they wanted to be greedy and play movies as many times as possible per day. Granted I know movies were getting shorter before then, but the 80s were the worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
QFT! Hell, even something like The Fightners I'd take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave
You're a sucker if you think they made him split that up... that was pure greed knowing they could charge for the same movie twice. Get people to feel they have to see the 2nd half and then pay for it, then buy both of them on DVD, then buy both of them again for the eventual SEs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I thought it was just greed too, but where are the SEs? 2 came out in early 2004. If it was greed-driven the SEs would've been out in late 2004.
Tarantino didn't want to cut anything. There's no way a 4 hour movie would fly in today's environment. That's why it was split up. Seriously.
I still haven't bought either film because I'm waiting for those stupid SEs.
GOOD STORY, I KNOW.