Interesting comment. As a whole, the series could have been better. Lots of expended potential there. The first movie didn’t suck though.[/quote]
Nor did the second.[/quote]
i think that it didn’t suck for the time. i went back and re-watched a year ago or so. large parts of it definitely sucked.[/quote]
Oh, there’s definitely a lot of suck to be had in every non-animated Batman movie made yet.
Any movie that has Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon sounds like inspired casting to me :)
Frankly, it’s directed by Christopher Nolan, and I positively love his previous films. I think this could be a real winner.
— Alan
I too had a LOTR vibe, don’t know why.
The whole franchise didn’t really leave itself anywhere to go once it killed its best (by orders of magnitude) villain at the end of the first one.
The trailer I saw yesterday before Spanglish had him talking a lot about the bad guy who lives inside him just waiting … for REVENGE!!! for what happened to his parents. Who were killed by the guy who already got dropped off the high roof in the first one. No wonder they had to resort to the Van Helsing-alike setting and stuff.
Ah, who’m I kidding? I’m just bitter… I’ve had it in for the Batman series ever since they put nipples on Chris O’Donnel’s costume instead of Alicia Silverstone’s.
The Joker? Yawn.
The more outlandish the villian, the easier it seems to be for the writers to make Batman boring and bland in comparison. I mean, look at Keaton’s Batman compared to Nicholson’s Batman or Schwarzenegger’s Mister Freeze compared to Clooney’s Dark Knight.
Give me a calm, collected, downright machevellian Ra’s Al Ghu opposed at every turn by ‘the detective’ to bring about a more interesting Batman any day.
A well done Two-face, psychological, not psychadelic, that could be awesome as well.