HYPE. It's because of that that I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD, plus, I think it's a total rip off paying $10.50

Oh it's not as if it was a big secret. The almond flavored milk and the shiny mobile above your crib made it a dead give away.

Besides, you turned out fine, right? Uhh... nevermind.

...so it is bad...

to both Ryan and ExNihilo

i'll take you up on that.

... at which time Ryan will be 65.

DANG IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, first of all, any of you who think (ahemm...RYAN) that your going to see a good movie based on a MARVEL comic are just asking to be let down. The original Spiderman movie...lame. The sequel...lame...and yes, the 3rd one beyond lame. Xmen? The Hulk. Lame-o.

Now, if you want a superhero movie, you better start with a DC comic. All this "oohhh..I'm a FLAWED superhero who second guesses my every action and has so many issues...boo hoo...bad lama...." Marvel stuff always left me cold when I was a kid.

Thus, naturally Batman and the original Superman are going to be better right off the bat....um....well, yeah, I intended that pun.

But I'm not a fan of sequels...(original Superman good...2nd, 3rd and 4th were terrible). Superman remake terrible except for Kevin Spacey who was a much better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman. And anyone would be a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder...whoever cast her was an idiot.

But Batman....well...the first two were good...despite all the fuss about casting Michael Keaton as Batman. And as good as Val Kilmer is, he couldn't save his version of Batman..and don't get me started on George Clooney.

I like "Batman Returns" in part because I think Christian Bale is one of the best 3 actors on the planet..though he doesn't get to show it in the Batman movies, and an amazing supporting cast (Morgan Freeman, Michael Cain, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson(sp?) I mean, geez, how many OSCARS or nominations are right there in that list!!!??

So, I will see the 2nd one (there is NEVER a line at our theater!..thank goodness for small towns).

and we shall see!

jcys

ima seeing it tonight... again.

maybe this time i'll memorize the rest of the lines...

So I went and saw the movie yesterday. And can I just say, WOW. Don't care about all the hype or whatever, but this was seriously the best batman movie made to date. And one of the best movies I've seen. I will def. be adding this to my movie collection. Heath Ledger in his BEST PERFORMANCE YET, no seriously, he got the part spot on. I liked Maggie Gyllenhaal playing the part of Rachel, rather than Katie Holmes. I've been a fan of Gyllenhaal ever since she played the lead in "Sherrybaby." Anyways, all I have to say, is this movie is a must-see.

i just saw it....

heath ledger didn't act in this movie. no, i think these guys went to gotham city and picked up the actual joker to play this part. it didn't even cross my mind that this was really heath ledger acting, and that says a lot about any acting performance. in this movie, i couldn't tell who the real bad guy was. batman had his problems and the joker had his, and both equally caused as many deaths as the other. i found myself sympathizing more often with the joker while i knew very well that batman was supposed to be the protagonist. but i think that proves the whole point of the movie, that the hero will "live long enough to become the villain".

this was a great movie, but it's not as good as many people say it is. with that said, there were no disappointments for me in terms of expectations. what i don't understand is the big deal people are making over whether or not kids should see it. i didn't take my 7 year old brother who's dying to see it so i can see if it was good for him to watch, but there is no way anything in this movie could scare him to death, and he's already seen some intense movies. i'm definitely taking him to see it.

Glad you could put any "hype" aside and see that the acting on Mr. Ledge's part was pretty awesome.

One question ... you say this movie isn't as good as many people say it is. What do you consider "good"? Just curious.

that's a good question. a very broad definition of "what Nreuest considers good" in a movie (heck maybe anything) would be a balanced mix of atmosphere, timing, originality, and personal appeal. the "personal appeal" factor makes my opinion somewhat biased. but overall, i think the only thing in the dark knight that kept it from being "special" was the ending. there was so much buildup and the movie ended before anything could be resolved. i nearly found myself screaming "I WANT MORE BATMAN!!"

it's like nearly every movie nowadays is just setting up for a sequel. even if there is a sequel, i want a satisfying ending!

WHAT?!!!



I'll give you that 3 was bad and, well, let's just pretend 4 didn't happen...kind of like Rocky V.

Agreed ... The Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies were actually sequels or prequels to each other but at least they had an "end". The end of "Back to the Future II" drove me nuts because it was a blatant set up for a III. And don't even get me going on sequels that should never have been made (Disney does this a lot ... Mulan II, Aladdin II, Cinderella: Dreams Come True, etc.)

Personally I liked Dark Knight better than Batman Begins which is unusual since I typically don't find the second movie in a series as engaging as the first.