Quake3World

Michael Keaton has always been a pussy, he had to clone himself to do a women's work.

Dave wrote:Well, I saw it tonight and it is the best Batman movie by far. Im surprised no one mentioned Liam Neeson's performance as Ra's al-Guhl, reprising his role as Qui-Gon Jinn... easily the coolest Batman villain because he's the only one Batman didn't create through his vigilantism and he was well chosen as the villain to begin Batman's career.

Yehhe played a very good part
All in all everone was amazing in the film.
Scarcrow was played very well, and wasnt
what i expected really. I was expecting some
mad crazy dude but it was a refreshing change
to see a non "super" villan

They're talking about Crispin Glover being the Joker. That's fine casting.

watched it tonight. it's really good. it's my new favorite comic book movie.

Pauly wrote:They're talking about Crispin Glover being the Joker. That's fine casting.

I've hated that fucker since Back to the Future. He's fucking nuts.

Pauly wrote:They're talking about Crispin Glover being the Joker. That's fine casting.

noone has a Joker's devillish smile as Nicholson, and thats a fact

that being said, i think Glover can pull it off

MKJ wrote:

Pauly wrote:They're talking about Crispin Glover being the Joker. That's fine casting.

noone has a Joker's devillish smile as Nicholson, and thats a fact

that being said, i think Glover can pull it off

w3rd

Best Smile ever

Pauly wrote:

Dr.FrasierCrane wrote:Better than the original Batman movie (Keaton)?
Fuck, must be good then. Will have to check it out.

Isnt Christan Bale Welsh?
Holy-Sheep-Ass's-Batman!!

This isn't just the best Batman film by far, it's the best comic book film adaption so far. Well, maybe not better than Superman 1 + 2. Close call.

Have you actualy watched superman 1 + 2 recently?

somebody should edit the title of this thread to warn any unsuspecting cunts of Dave's gargantuan spoilers

haha.. I wouldn't call it a spoiler

Just got back from seeing it tonight. Loved it, I thought it was excellent.

And the effects they used for the gas were awesome - especially when he saw Batman's face. :icon32:

Does anybody know where they shot the first part of the movie, with the mountains and ice floes? That was some great scenery.

Edit: And I'm starting to think of Gary Oldman in the same vein as Johnny Depp -- is there any role he can't play?

well, if he's like johnny depp, then i would probably have to say willy wonka

The scenes in the monastery were shot in England and the outdoor shots are from Iceland

MKJ wrote:

Pauly wrote:They're talking about Crispin Glover being the Joker. That's fine casting.

noone has a Joker's devillish smile as Nicholson, and thats a fact

that being said, i think Glover can pull it off

:icon14:

I also thought that the pithy one-liners were a bit too much for this movie. They just clashed with the otherwise dark aura of the rest of the movie.

Jackal wrote:I also thought that the pithy one-liners were a bit too much for this movie. They just clashed with the otherwise dark aura of the rest of the movie.

we seem to be agreeing a lot lately. maybe its something in the water

Jackal wrote:I also thought that the pithy one-liners were a bit too much for this movie. They just clashed with the otherwise dark aura of the rest of the movie.

Yea I agree with that too. One-liners CAN be good in a dark movie, if they're a dark kind of humor, but these just really weren't.

Also, why would they be making another movie with the Joker? He was already in the original Batman.

Whats wrong with having the joker again? its pretty obvious that this whole batman series is different than what they had before.

i mean, hell, if you want to ask that, you should also ask why was the killer of bruce wayne's parents a different dude this time.

How anybody can even remotely like Batman 1 is beyond me. A fat joker and a fat Batman; it was embarassing to say the least. Michael Keaton is such a curly-haired faggot, he makes me throw up even more than Robin Williams. Just entering the screen is bad enough but wearing a black rubber-suit is too much even for a mild-mannered guy like me.
And Jack Nicholson is a good actor, but, people... cast him (fat) as Joker (superthin)?
That first part was such a fuck-up, it could be followed only by part 2 which was even more ridiculous with penguins (sic!) attacking Gotham City.

Im no comic book buff, but Jack Napier is the Joker right?
All I can remember of him in the original film is him getting smacked into the acid, thus creating the grin & the Joker persona. Also he was a lot younger when he killed the Waynes so in theory, there cant be a Joker in a Batman Begins sequel

Dave wrote:The scenes in the monastery were shot in England and the outdoor shots are from Iceland

The ice floes were beautiful.

Chupacabra wrote:Whats wrong with having the joker again? its pretty obvious that this whole batman series is different than what they had before.

i mean, hell, if you want to ask that, you should also ask why was the killer of bruce wayne's parents a different dude this time.

James Bond changed actors several times, but it was still the same series.

diego wrote:How anybody can even remotely like Batman 1 is beyond me. A fat joker and a fat Batman; it was embarassing to say the least. Michael Keaton is such a curly-haired faggot, he makes me throw up even more than Robin Williams. Just entering the screen is bad enough but wearing a black rubber-suit is too much even for a mild-mannered guy like me.
And Jack Nicholson is a good actor, but, people... cast him (fat) as Joker (superthin)?
That first part was such a fuck-up, it could be followed only by part 2 which was even more ridiculous with penguins (sic!) attacking Gotham City.

I loved Batman 1. I saw it when I was younger, and I must have watched it a hundred times. :icon32:

Dr.FrasierCrane wrote:Im no comic book buff, but Jack Napier is the Joker right?
All I can remember of him in the original film is him getting smacked into the acid, thus creating the grin & the Joker persona. Also he was a lot younger when he killed the Waynes so in theory, there cant be a Joker in a Batman Begins sequel

The Joker's origin doesn't actually have a canonical form. Even in The Killing Joke -- in which the Joker is an ex-chemical engineer-turned-comedian who breaks into the chemical plant in order to support his pregnant wife -- his origin is only told from the point of view of his own memories.

The only real constant in it is "falling in a vat of chemicals that dies his skin and hair that colour permanently".

The Napier character was created for the first movie, but has since been refernced in the comic continuity as being one of his pseudonyms.