WOW

you talking about the superman movie ... why the little x3 ball kick

There goes $300 million.

or a write-up from a kid with ADD?

Haha if this guy likes XMen2 and hates Batman and Batman returns then this movie sounds like a disaster. Let's hope it doesn't suck ass as much as X-Men2 or is as vague as Batman Begins.

16 more days.

Dedicated to the Reeves. <P>Tear.<P>Go Singer and gang--very interested in the plot twist. Saw Brandon on the MTV premovie award show. MAN,, does he sound like Christopher. I still think the suit is a little cheesy, but the suit doesn&#39;t make the man, but this is SUPERMAN, so yeah, I think the suit does matter tremendously.

"Good, but not great". Right out of the Joblo site!

Haha if this guy likes XMen2 and hates Batman and Batman returns then this movie sounds like a winner. Let&#39;s hope it does kick ass as much as X-Men2 or is as badass as Batman Begins.

Of course the Shumacker films were horrid but Batman Returns was infinitly better than Batman Begins. Credibility: Lost.

BRANDON ON THE &#39;ROIDS!!!

Catwoman was the highlight. "Just the pussy I was looking for!"... Je... Sus... Christ.

There&#39;s this one shot of Brandon running down the street opening his shirt to reveal the tights, and his hairs seems longer than usual. Is that at the end of the film? Also, do the explain how his hair get&#39;s all slicked up and how he gets that freaking curl every time he changes?

after he said he "loved" Batman Begins. What a turd that was.

"Returns" is my favourite superhero film of all time.

;-) I&#39;ve gotta stop doing these talkbacker parodies, before I take it too far and get permanently trapped in the foul abyss of my parents&#39; dingy basement. That comment about it not capturing Supes&#39; humour is a scary one. One of the trailers almost pulled it off (can&#39;t remember which one, maybe homewrecker&#39;s), but the first two movies had a breezy swagger about them, and yes it made with the funny, so if this comes off like a Margaret Cho joke, as in a joke sent through the cross-dimensional rift between Metropolis and the Phantom Zone and thus losing all resemblances to humour in the process, then that might just break the film. If you can&#39;t get the jokes right, then you probably can&#39;t get the pacing right either.

&#39;comic book film&#39;, because it wasn&#39;t about Batman.

Brandon Routh seems like a boy. Superman needs to have wisdom behind his eyes or in other way seem MANly. Christopher Reeve pulled that off. Brandon Routh does not. He lacks the gravitas to pull off the roll. Everything else that will be wrong from the movie will follow directly from that problem.

Sounds like good news for the movie. Haven&#39;t seen a bad review yet (and no, the JOBLO post was not a review).

I&#39;m still gonna see this.

In Superman II - which parts did Donner direct? I heard it was only the CUs :-)

GIANT PENQUINS?!?! Evil Circus. "Hell Here" and Catwoman gaining amazing acrobatic & fighting skills from a fall into kitty litter? Penquin spitting up black goo? Rockets strapped to penquins? Penquin living in the sewer?!?! Hokey one-liners, and a waste of Chris Walken if ever I saw one. If you have ANY respect for Batman, you&#39;ll realize that Batman Returns was a lot of Tim Burton jacking off on the Dark Knight, while channeling Beetlejuice and Adam West.

Uhm dude..JW did&#39;nt score this movie...

The one thing I can entirely disagree with is the "waste of Christopher Walken". Everything else you said is true, but I see those elements as reasons why it&#39;s brilliant. Not &#39;logical&#39;, but brilliant. Also best Elfman score outside Edward Scissorhands.

They were good when I was 13 years old, but watching them as an adult revealed how crappy they were, at least in this era. If you watch them as an adult (and have an adult mind, which some of you do), then you will agree. SR is not going to totally suck...it will be marginally entertaining, but far from very good.

Hates X-Men 3, Daredevil, all Batman movies except BB. This guy must have a phD in mediocrity.

Couldn&#39;t anyone following the development of this flick over the last year come up with a similar review? "The pacing is off." How? Where? To what affect? Does this mean it drags in the beginning, or the middle -- or do things develop too quickly? And sorry, pal, but reviewing the STORY is the crux of any good review. Or did you already sum it up succinctly when you wrote, "its best moments are the ones that remind us of the first movie"?

Really, it wasn&#39;t that bad. Sure, I will give you that the end kingpin sucked. But seriously, it didn&#39;t suck like the Hulk, where they have to call do-over. The suit didn&#39;t have nipples on it, always a good sign. Seriously, go back and watch the director&#39;s cut again with an open mind. It&#39;s not great, but it doesn&#39;t suck either.

I have nothing against the guy, but with the exception of "The Usual Suspects" I can&#39;t stand his work. The trailers that I have seen look decidedly shit. It&#39;s starting to look like the film that I feared it would. There seems to be nothing new, or nothing to go wow at. Dissappointed that they didn&#39;t cast Caviezel. Thought he would have been great. Don&#39;t like the sound of this adherence to the original films. The whole thing should be taken off in a slightly new direction. Please don&#39;t let them have fucked this up, Ireally it to be great.

I suppose that&#39;s a good thing, as I would be kind of weirded-out about finding her passed-out drunk in the bushes back behind the &#39;ol tool shed missing a couple o&#39; her teef. (I would still do her of course, missing Chiklets and all) Also, this "review" stinks. Tells me absolutely nothing. At. All. One more thing, Daredevil was a decent flick. Not good and certainly not great. But a damn sight better than X3, Punisher, and Elektra. Anyways, see you geeks on opening night at the IMAX for this one. Like Bryan Singer, I&#39;m out.

the word is out...the special fx scenes are the best people have ever seen, the story is full of romance, action and heart. Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth and the supporting cast do a wonderful job. Routh IS Superman. sorry talkback Singer and Routh superhaters.

It seems like SInger may have played it safe here and not done anything absolutely fucking insulting to the character, which is FAR more than you can say for most superhero film. It seems to be these bombastic ridiculous things that hack directors and writers like to throw in for no reason whatsoever that alter characters for the far worse that trick idiots into heaping effusive praise on awful comci book films because hte illusion of emotion is there. I would much rather have a film play it safe than try to reinvent the wheel to disastrous effect *cough* X3 *cough*

Batman Returns was just alright, but I&#39;d watch that over Begins ANY day. There was something off about Christian Bale&#39;s performance. Too much acting tough and not enough being tough (damn method actors). It&#39;s true that Donner&#39;s Superman films look dated now, but (and I&#39;ve said this before) those films captured the essence of Superman. "who are you?" "a friend." When Lois is interviewing Superman at her apartment, he tells her he stands for truth, justice and the American way...and you believe him. If you try to get Tom Welling or Dean Cain to say something like that, you bust up laughing "get the fuck outta here!"

"to the character" -- What, like make him an illegitimate father and deadbeat dad?

ive never seen the two in the same place at the same time. hhmmm. i have been told by reliable sources that while singer was making this film, joss was out there rotating planet earth which explains why he was unavailable to work on this film in a more hands on capacity. so when you go to see supes return, remember- joss made it so.

You want to talk about badly/written poorly thought up how about the Return&#39;s Two-Face! and how shitty is Chris O&#39;Donnell!

was the best comic to film movie in my opinion. Also Everybody needs to chill with the hate on SR!

Is my hero...

Remember how we were ready to put McG and JJ Abrams&#39; heads on a couple of sticks and march through the Warner Bros. lot with back when the "original" script came out? Superman gets his powers from the suit, Krypton isn&#39;t blown up, Superman dies, Jorel dies to tell Superman he can&#39;t die, Superman comes back to life, big CGI kung fu air fights with Zod, Lex is an FBI agent, Lex is from Krypton, Superman goes back to Krypton at the end cause of some political bullshit for a part two and three that we don&#39;t care about Etc. Etc. I mean it just wouldn&#39;t stop! It was like the aristocrats joke and at the end the executive says "what do you call this movie?" Abrams responds, "Supeman!" Anyways, script review comes out, and TBers are all "show respect to the Donner films! That was the Real Superman!" now we get what looks like an homage to supes 1 and 2, and you guys are like "Donner Films suck! I can&#39;t believe this crap!" You guys are fuckin funny.

...is great. Not as good as Begins, but probably better than the original, although I tend to come back to the original more, for nostalgia purposes. But goddamn if that movie isn&#39;t fucking DARK. You get the feeling Batman would let everyone in Gotham die a horrible death if he could just get some Catwoman pussy. And that doesn&#39;t make the movie bad, it&#39;s just Daniel Waters&#39; wonderfully warped and irreverent writing. That&#39;s something a lot of fanboys don&#39;t seem to get...a reverent comic adaptation does not automatically make a GOOD comic adaptation.

where Routh doesn&#39;t speak.

Could somebody break down Superman 1 and 2 for me? To this day I feel Superman 2 was better. Superman 1 was like Batman Begins to me: the first 3/4 were absolutely brilliant but it sort of cooled off towards the end. I mean all three movies are in my top 5-6 comic movies of all time. But Superman 2 just has an emotional element spread throughout that I felt made it an overall better movie than Superman 1. What are other folks opinions about Superman 1 vs. Superman 2?

BTW- I thought the Superman Returns review hit some good points and did its job as a breakdown of the movie more so than maybe a review per say. I enjoyed the read. Thanks Sponge Man.

I thought the Tim Burton movies were misfires. Michael Keaton, though game to try, sure as hell wasn&#39;t Batman. He was woefully miscast. My ideal Batman would&#39;ve been a young Clint Eastwood or something. Batman Returns was better than the original (which had one of the worst scripts I can remember) but that wasn&#39;t saying much. But then Schumacher took over and suddenly, I yearned for those Burton ill-conceived ventures. I wanted to love Batman Begins, but I never could really get into it. For some reason, I felt detached from the whole thing. I&#39;m STILL waiting for a great Batman movie.

Thanks for bringing that up...it seems that people forget that Batman was just killing people left and right, especially in Returns. The only good thing about that movie was the Wayne/Schreck meeting...good shit from Walken.

Read a fucking Batman comic, will ya?

http://stalagsweden.blogspot.com/2006/06/supermann.html Brandon Routh looks a lot like Hitler in the new movie. Scary.

I think a big screen superhero movie should be... well... big... as in larger than life big... particularly in the hero vs villain battles. I mean, we are talking about "super" heros with "super" powers righting wrongs that only they can handle. Leave the stuff that can be told on TV for episodes of Smallville and give us the bang that the big budgets can give us. While I liked X1 & X2, I don&#39;t think Singer gave us any memorable/monumental battles that are worthy of the best of the comics. I also think Spiderman2 and BB told the "human" side of things that plague the lives of superheros better than Singer&#39;s X1 and X2. But I should reiterate that I did like X1 and X2 and I am looking forward to SR.

But you have to respect the fact that everyone involved were so monumentally fucked up. Of course Christian Bale is a more logical Batman. He&#39;s cut, he spent years training and we got to see the painstangly detailed method of how he got his equipment. But Michael Keaton was infinitely better. Because he was just some rich kid who needed to fight crime but was out of his element. And he was a pshycotic. Keaton portrayed the psycho aspect perfectly. Bale was competant but in the end he was just another action hero.

Tim Burton did a fantastic twist on that character. He had no choice but to come up with an original idea that would keep modern day audiences engaged. What kind of Peguin did you guys want to see? Some clean cut, filthy rich, short and bald fat man? With a glass patch over his eye cackling like a hyena? Please, Devito was down right scary as the Pinguin. Batman Returns wasn&#39;t great. But Devito&#39;s performance carried that flick.

Fanboy or fanboi is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single subject or hobby, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Frequently a fanboy will trash the very things they enjoy thinking they can do better, however, they don&#39;t have enough personal motivation to get off their asses and enter the industry and establish themselves. They therefore only criticize on websites such as Aint it Cool News.

Christian Bale&#39;s Batman has it all together. He pretends to be a dumbass playboy but is actually a disciplined soldier type. Michael Keaton&#39;s Batman is just a fucked up person who knows he&#39;s out of his element but does what he does anyway. I think the second is more interesting.

contradiction. By definition, Spacey overuses himself all the time. the man cant stop overacting, overmoving, overovering.

1.crane meeting with falcone in club about "someone sniffing around" 2.morgan freeman telling bruce about the stuff he does in that basement 3.liam neeson revealing himself as the real ra&#39;s al ghul{best plot twist ever in a comic book movie} 4. the batmobile chase 5.my balls 6.rachel giving bruce&#39;s present 7. the joker calling card 8. the insane shit on the train 9. the awesome special effects with the bats attacking the cops at arkham. 10.the stuff with the hotel and the europeans in the pool. and the others are ok but not really worth mentioning. hey, if they do the joker in the next movie, how will they work around the jack nicholson stuff from the first batman movie?

..bat. Let&#39;s get one thing straight: RICHARD DONNER DID NOT MAKE A GOOD SUPERMAN MOVIE!!! He made a Superman movie with occasional bits of brilliance, and yeah, he got Superman right, BUT HE FUCKED UP EVERYTHING ELSE! Luthor was a moron. The greatest criminal genius on Earth for some reason feels he has to have two fuckwitted sidekicks for what reason??? Morgot Kidder has and always has had a face like hammered shit! "Superman 2" tried to repair some of these things, but also failed due to a host of reasons most noteably Zod&#39;s desire for oral sex from everyone and having the flick taken away from him halfway through. (Seriously, that pulling-the-S-off-the-shirt? What the fuck was that?) If this movie exhibits &#39;Donnor&#39;s sense of humor&#39; it will be another clusterfuck. Singer is a fucking twat if he went the Donnor route. This is what he left "X3" to be assfucked for?

So, using that as some kind of benchmark is crap. I will simply discount this opinion.

...for all the &#39;hype&#39; it&#39;s getting. I&#39;ll see it, but I can&#39;t say I&#39;m at all that excited. Much more anxious to see Nacho Libre.

The Usual Suspects wasn&#39;t good because of his direction, you idiots. It was good because it was WELL WRITTEN. And that credit goes to Christopher McQuarrie.

But I&#39;ve already found lots of raves about this film online. Read this: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=7528 ...And just for the record? The reviewer was right on the money: BB, X2, SP2, etc, excellent - All other Batman movies suck major MAJOR donkey dick. It&#39;s just a fact, Jack.

I don&#39;t know how anyone can sit there and say he was better than Bale. He is under 6 feet tall and not built. He has frizzy, thinning early 90s hair. Wasn&#39;t there some scene where Alfred brough him cookies and milk in the Batcave or something? He&#39;s always wearing glasses. His Batman schtick basically consists of pouting and arching his eyebrows. Oh, and acting aloof. Jittery and aloof. Burton didn&#39;t exactly help in this respect either, he&#39;s got him doing stupid shit like hanging upside down to sleep. Don&#39;t get me wrong, Batman and Batman Returns are fun mindless popcorn flicks that still hold a bit of nostalgic value for me. I appreciate the performances, even when I know they aren&#39;t actually getting the characters. I don&#39;t think Jack Nicholson was the perfect Joker, but his performance was fun to watch. I like all that bizarre Gotham set design, even if they only had one main set that they used for pretty much every scene in public. The original Batman movies are fine if you like zany, off the wall blockbusters. But Nolan, Bale and Co. really captured what most of the characters were all about in my mind. When my nitpicks for Batman Begins are stuff like "they should have made Christian Bale&#39;s hair darker" then I&#39;m immensely satisfied. Most of the casting was spot on (Batman, Gordon), other casting was unconventional but worked out fine (Raas, Scarecrow), there where character actors aplenty, and then there was Katie Holmes. Still, Begins was in my top 3 films of 2005 and I think it&#39;s probably the best (super)hero film ever made. I also think it set up all the cards for a sequel that&#39;s going to trump it and everything else out by 2008.

Penguin is a short, fat mafia boss with a bird fetish and a taste for high society, not a sewer living mutant that eats fish and rides around in a giant yellow duck. Batman Returns sucked and if you like it, you probably have sex with herds of Elk.

The first 30-40 minutes are GREAT, but after that it turns to shit.

"Waacckk, waaaack, waaack. Would you like to see my man-sized manacotti, Batman? It&#39;ll make you eat lightnin&#39; and crap thunder!" Wait, think I got it confused with Grumpy Old Men and Rocky. I think I got it, "Now hear this, now hear this. This is your Captain speaking. My fine pinioned pirates, we&#39;re approaching the tricky buoy! Sharpen your cutlasses! There may be skullduggery ahead!" Batman 1966, THE definitive Batman. Now go bitch about Christian Bale not "scowling" enough. Fanboy, please.

No one denies that BB was the best batman adaption ever made that stayed the most true to the comics. I mean you have friggin&#39; rha and scarecrow in it and the acting was top notch. The first batman is a close second just cause of JACK NICHOLSON.. by far the best joker ever, and ever will be. No one can trump Nicholson&#39;s joker... he owns that character. Keaton sucks, and de vito was boring

Remember what this Superman movie ALMOST was -- a genuine, full-fledged shit-fest. It&#39;s nice that it pays homage to the first Superman movie -- if it didn&#39;t, you bunch of asshats would have bitched and moaned about it. Frankly I think it worries TOO much about the Donner flick, and doesn&#39;t try to be it&#39;s own movie enough -- but I&#39;ll take that over a Tim Burton rubber-fetish-on-film piece of crap anyday. From everything I&#39;ve seen, Routh will make an adequate Superman, but he DOES look like a kid in a halloween costume when he tries to play Clark Kent. Nonetheless, he&#39;s STILL better than Nicolas "hello I&#39;m way too old and bare NO RESEMBLENCE whatsoever to Superman" Cage. Damn, you guys are a bunch of whiners.

It sucks that the best scenes in this movie are ones that will remind us of the originals. I was hoping Bryan Singer would step up and give us some new classic Superman moments but I guess not. As far as Batman Begins "sucking" I say the weakest link in that film are the shitty fight scenes...some of the worst ever shot! Note to Nolan for the next...kill the tight shots and pull back so we can see what the hell&#39;s going on!

really has serious movie quality issues.

more shitty movies that will probably make money the first weekend and then fall on its ass the second. I&#39;m not gonna see this rehashed shit fest anymore than I would&#39;ve seen xino3. Fuck&#39;em until they can make movies people won&#39;t defend by sticking their thumbs up their ass and say it&#39;s a fun popcorn flick. Good god what a crock of shit.

was comic book movie candy. Bring on the sequel -- now.

Sometimes reading talkbacks make me want to kill myself. It&#39;s like nobody can find anything positive to say about anything ever. I&#39;m psyched for Superman. ALL the reviews have been positive thus far. AND I think the reason that you haven&#39;t seen any REAL story related reviews is the fact that the studio has forbid them this early. I just want to know how the review of Superman Returns turned into a dissertation on which Batman or Batman film is the best.

Seriously, what a crappy summer movie line up so far... POTC better be killer...

This movie is needed. Every decade or so the comics revamp the Superman universe, they re-tell the origin story in a familiar-yet-new way. This movie is doing the same.(The comics needed it imo because the whole death of Superman/Steel Superman was getting out of hand) This movie is revamping the Superman universe, and I think it is the perfect time. After so many failed attempts somebody realized that in order to restart the series we needed to tell it this way in order to give this series life again. and Why not make it? It&#39;s a great story and should be told for our generation with our new technology. Give us characters we can care about then leave it to the sequels to expand the series.

uh yeah, so for every movie that gets a good review on this site, you guys say PLANT. but when this one gets a good review, you treat it as fact. everyone here is two-faced. and no, that&#39;s not a batman joke. something else i have learned from this site: if a movie or show gets trashed by the talkbackers, it must be a great film or tv show!

A plant&#39;s job is to get your glands pumping adrenalin and endorphins by the litre, get you desperate to go check out the movie they&#39;re selling. If anything, this review puts a damper on the hype it&#39;s been getting so far. Thus no, "This reviewer&#39;s called Spongebob, more like Weedy Mctwoleaves" comment.s

this would look worse than xmen 3

it was a bad movie, period.

Is half of a great movie. It was the first cinematic attempt at taking a comic book hero somewhat "seriously" which is why people still remember it so fondly and consider it a classic. Even though we can see now how flawed it was, it was the first real step, and without it, we wouldn&#39;t have some of the comic book adaptations that we enjoy today. The first half of Superman: The Movie is still classic though. The second half breaks down and becomes a bit silly. Even as a 9 year old when I originally saw it back in &#39;78 I thought, "hey if he can fly fast enough to reverse the direction of the earth and turn back time -- he should&#39;ve been fast enough to catch both damn missiles in the first place! Slacker!" But that said, I&#39;ll always have a special place in my heart for that film. It&#39;s just when I watch it now, I usually shut the DVD off after he catches the helicopter.

WTF! And BATMAN BEGINS rules.

Returns sucks. I watched it recently and couldn&#39;t even finish it, it&#39;s so fucking cheesy. Batman Begins is probably my favorite comic book movie ever.

Schumacher Batmans are horrid. Devito was a good choice, but Burton fucked it up with the cud shit. Michael Keaton was an uninspired Batman choice. Begins focuses on Batman not Nicholson. Michelle was gorgeous, but her costume rivalled Halle&#39;s in it&#39;s crappiness. I am encouraged by the tempered approval of Superman Returns. I think Singer hit it out of the park. Now, James Cameron, after 880 do Kevin Smith&#39;s Superman/Doomsday fight as the sequel to Bryan&#39;s film.

Lots of work put into the origin of Batman but they forgot to add any interesting villan stuff. The Batman movies before had lots of villan origin but nothing about Batman. Seven Batman movies and none have got the balance right..sadly.

I just want to see the days of Batman being in his early forties dangling on a rope ladder from his Bat-Copter with a giant rubber shark biting his leg shouting &#39;&#39;Robin, get me the Bat-gas, shark repellent&#39;&#39;. Or running around a dock with a fizzing cannonball saying &#39;&#39;some days you just can&#39;t get rid of a bomb&#39;&#39; Those were the days, sigh.

The movie looks boring. The casting is boring. The directorial choice is boring. Nothing about this project excites me. No Marlon Brando. No Gene Hackman. No Terence Stamp. Boring.

My wings are like a sheild of steel! You don&#39;t get much better than that

...but not a good BATMAN movie. I loved how perverse and fucked up it was, but it was clearly made by someone who knew little about Batman and cared even less. As for Batman Begins...if you didn&#39;t like that movie, then you&#39;re not a fan of the comic book Batman. That&#39;s not a value judgment, just an observation. BB is the first and only Batman movie to actually be true in spirit to its source material.

because the producers rushed Donner to finish it before he wanted and then got rid of him.

deserve to be removed from IMDB and erased from our memories (Batman Forever/&Robin, Catwoman etc). Batman Returns wasn&#39;t great but it wasn&#39;t that bad either. One of the problems was that it&#39;s distinctly and as much a "Tim Burton Film" as it is a Batman film. So I think you have to review BR with that in mind. BB is by far the best Batman. Superman The Movie was good except for the whole earth spinning backwards thing. That part was retarded.

I like his enemys. If he had lame foes I really wouldn&#39;t be interested in him.

They were the two sore spots in the first movies.

"The Superman/Lois Lane night flight is STILL unnecessary. "

For the time being, Batman Begins is the best super hero movie ever made.

out in full force today. Well maybe not full force seeing how a lot of these trolls have multiple ID&#39;s for these movie message boards. Where have the three of you been, on vacation or something. Your just dying to hate Superman Returns. I&#39;ll be laughing my ass off once again when I see you in line paying full price for a ticket.

This shit looks like the Kong remake. A movie expected to be great, but then miserably fails to deliver. A few moments of brilliance in a dull, long ass movie doesn&#39;t make it good or great. Filmmakers get too full of themselves and forget that to satisfy an summer movie audience, you need great action that excites and makes you want to see the film at the theater again. You are making a comic book adaptation, not the sequel to Million Dollar Baby. Also Singer needed to stop dick riding Donner and make his own movie. Making a remake/sequel to Superman 2 is a bad idea. The core audience for this isn&#39;t us. It&#39;s younger kids who probably never saw Superman 1 and 2 and grew up watching Smallville, reading the comics, or watching the various Superman cartoons. Seeing Superman in a post 9/11 world on some Dawson&#39;s Creek shit crying over a love lost is not exciting.

I got someone to post my screen name in a subject header! ...i think my job here is done :) in all seriousness, it troubles me that the reviewer says there aren&#39;t a lot of action scenes. while i&#39;m all for story, characters, blah blah blah, i hope the action doesnt suffer and make the movies boring. we dont need another HULK dissapointment.

Watch the opening in Batman &#39;89 when Keaton holds the criminal junkie dude over the rooftop and says "I&#39;m not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want you to tell all your friends about me." Junkie (shittin his pants): "WHAT ARE YOU?!" Keaton: "I&#39;m Batman." He looked calm, crazy, and he meant it. Now go watch Batman Begins where Bale lifts up Carmine Falcone and says "I&#39;m Batman!" 1. He&#39;s pouting. 2. He&#39;s trying (poorly) to hide his british accent 3. He sounds like he&#39;s got a cold! and what does he say after that to? &#39;nice coat&#39;. WHAT THE FUCK!?! where did that same bum come from? I don&#39;t care if Keaton didn&#39;t look the part, he was crazy enough to make up for it. As for Batman returns, I agree it was way too different from the comics. That&#39;s why I look at it like a weird elsewords story. And don&#39;t get me started on the Schumacher films. If I ever see that guy in person I&#39;m gonna kick his ass.

"As for Batman Begins...if you didn&#39;t like that movie, then you&#39;re not a fan of the comic book Batman." Excuse me? That movie had nothing but the purest hatred and contempt for the comic books, not to mention being painfully boring, pretentious, and abysmally acted (Can we add the Scarecrow and especially Ra&#39;s Al Ghul to the list of Batman villains poorly served by Hollywood?) It&#39;s not a patch on the Golden and Bronze Age comics, or on the OYL comics, or on the vastly superior BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, which, unlike BEGINS, actually respected its sopurce material. Don&#39;t tell me I don&#39;t like Batman when what I really oppose is piss-poor moviemaking.

This guy lost any crediability when he said that comment. Superman has wonderous powers and we want to see him use them. I don&#39;t want to see Superman going thru emtional highs and lows. it bad phucking enough that they went and gave him a son when it&#39;s been in the comics that he can&#39;t concieve a child with a human. Now this reviewer tries to paint a convincing review, but it doesn&#39;t work for me. i also like how he took the time out to bash x3 and ratner. Asshole.

This flick does sound almost EXACTLY like the first Supes movie, which begs the question: Was this intentional? If so, why? To begin a new franchise for people that had never seen the previous films? I would contend it is a mistep by the creative folks behind the new film, which should have gone in a completely different direction (Metallo? Maybe Darkseid? But someone with SUPER powers to fight SUPERman, duh!).

You must be a troll! Or, or, you have multiple screen names! Give me a break. Who are you, JDanielP or homewrecker?

Is still my hero

Mainly because it pissed off McDonald&#39;s parents and comic book geeks - two groups of people who take life way too seriously. Sure Batman Begins was more faithful to the comic, but where was the fun?

I&#39;m all for some emotional sennes at some points, but a drama and love story. Oh lord what has Singer done. I haven&#39;t seen the movie, but I already haven&#39;t liked some of hwat i&#39;ve heard. First that comment about him making his first chick flick, now that&#39;s scary and then this so called reviewer saying not that many action sequences and the last 20 minuates is straight drama? this is a phucking comic book film, it&#39;s god damn Superman, not the kind of material I&#39;d use to go after an Oscar. Didn&#39;t Ang lee try this with the Hulk and he ended up alienating the fans. Idon&#39;t know how this movie will turn out but if Singer has indeed turned this into some sappy emotional story then WB is in for a ride awakening when their numbers comes in. At 2 1/2 hours kids and teens are going to get restless with nothing but staright talk and a lil action spruced here and there.

I&#39;m disgusted.

I applaud you. Only Hulk was much more of a perfect match for cerebral drama than is Supes. The television show was heavy on drama. Hell, even the old Tales to Astonish covers proudly claimed that it was a &#39;soap opera&#39;. Do that with Supes and you end up with Lois and Clark - The Movie. That series made for decent enough television, but I doubt that&#39;s what the public wants in a comic film. Anyhow, it&#39;ll be interesting to see Singer follow in Ang&#39;s shoes, only to receive praise instead of the criticism. Ratner continues Singer&#39;s bastardization of the X-Men characters while amping up the action quotient only to be blasted. Ang gave us one long, GREAT smash scene and two smaller ones and *included* heavy drama, yet he himself is smashed. Meanwhile, Singer makes Supes an illegitimate father and deadbeat dad with way more drama than action and I just know he&#39;ll be loved. Just don&#39;t get it.

Don&#39;t know how this turned into a Batman TB, but no-one can deny the greatness of Begins and the potential for a fantastic sequel featuring The Joker. They set out to make Begins a movie about Bruce Wayne becoming Batman rather than focussing on the villain(s), and they did it PERFECTLY! In the sequel I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll focus on The Joker - the ultimate Batman villain. Nicholson&#39;s performance was gold (&#39;never rub another man&#39;s rhubarb!&#39;), even though The Joker could be brought to the screen in a much better way.

yeah...I thought Superman was supposed to be what all humans (morally) aspired to...so why, why would they decide to make him a deadbeat dad/illegitimate father? That&#39;s just... stupid. At least Nolan didn&#39;t make Batman the opposite of what he&#39;s supposed to be.

This new Superman guy looks like he spent some time on the gay porn circuit.

I know alot of people really still love Burton&#39;s versions, but if you really wanna go for the version that is the truest to the comics, and doesnt take place in a more realistic world, then definately, Batman Begins wins hand down.

I mean...why do we need a sequel to a movie that is 20 years old, and pretty much a rehash with a few new twists?? Why couldnt they, with this budget and today&#39;s SFX, have Supes fight Darkseid, Braniac, Doomsday, or anyone besides another wussy version of Lex Luthor!!

say what you want about smallville, i will even agree with you on many points, but not many can argue that Smallville is the only live action forum thus far to get the character of Lex Luthor right!!

For one, John Ottman did the music. Only the main Superman theme is still John Williams. Also, the Superman Returns &#39;Making of...&#39; hardback came out two weeks ago. It reveals more than this guys &#39;review&#39;.

All movies suck because they&#39;re all fake. Documentaries are fake AND boring. I hate all storytelling. I wish someone would take me away from this world where everything sucks so hard. Okay, there was this one film I saw when I was 9 that rocked and ten people saw it and it was the best film ever and everything else is going to suck because when you saw it, it was as if god uttered the word &#39;awesome&#39;. I&#39;m not going to say the name of the film because people might think it sucks. If they think it sucks then they suck. I hate, for I am a fanboy. Come and suck at the bile-filled teat of my geeky hatred of any attempts at storytelling. So, who wants to go with me to see this suckfest? I&#39;ll see it three times if I we can talk about how much it sucks! God, I hate existence. /...and scene. Thank you everybody, you&#39;ve been a great audience.

Effects are only special when they make contextual sense, fit the tone of the movie, are seemlessly integrated AND invoke either raw human emotions (awe, wonder, fear, aggression etc.) or pioneer a new iconography. In other words, I&#39;m fuckin SICK, of SE&#39;s that generate no drama or no atmosphere or no poetry. For example, the only visually interesting things about spider man 2 were KD and this one shot where spidey comes flying into the train from outside and &#39;lands&#39; on this verticle bar in a very cool crouch position. I could care &#39;less about all the fuckin video game swinging about on top of the skyscrapers. Batman Returns, another case in point. All I remember of that film is the amazing catsuit and some cool bat plane that batman was flying when he flies it past the moon! Both of those images were, and are, iconic. Just like the alien emerging behind newt out the fuckin water, or the T Rex foot in the mud, or Yoda turning from black to red to white for that matter. Or the girl comin out the TV for the first time in the Japanese version. Ya know what I mean? or am I babbling incoherent crap as usual. I&#39;ll try and focus. How about this: In the matrix yeah, the best sequences are probably the morpheus training fight and the smith subway showdown. Both use special effects quite sparingly. The occasional cuts to bullet time at specific dramatic climaxes. The sequences are truly enhanced by their special effects which don&#39;t seem to breach the reality in which they are applied. In the matrix retarded, even the fuckin car chase left me cold. It was so hyped and everything, like it had taken them like 20 years to make this set in the desert and many people had died in order that this beautiful fuckin vision be realised. But in the end, all the best bits were in the trailer, it went on for too long and bits of it looked fake. The end result? being completely drawn out of the scene. I guess what I&#39;m tryin to say is, Shaddow of the Colossus, Half Life 2 and Silent Hill 2 are absolutely, genuinely balls to the wall fucking brilliant because even though they&#39;re video games just like all the rest, full of monsters and aliens and shit, they are also full of fuckin art. Meaning, sub text, beauty, purpose, whatever you wanna call it. Those visuals DO something to you, just like the visuals in those movies cited above. Firework displays are out kids. Lets get some fuckin ART into our special effects frenzies. Lookin at the trailers for superman, all I&#39;m left with is this giant image of supes floatin around in space lookin all serious and shit (aside from the fact that he also looks like a gay lesbian pretty boy) with this gigantic fuckoff CGI crapfest red thing, undululating behind him, in the WIND! WTF. Whenever I see shit like that, I spend most of the time tryin to enjoy the drama of the shot/sequence/etc. but end up with the curious feeling that they probably drafted someone from the Macdonalds school of graphic design to sit down and try and make it: &#39;as shiny and cutting edge&#39; looking as possible. FUCK. THAT.

When Bruce left Gotham after confronting Falcone in the restaurant he got rid of anything that identified him as Bruce Wayne, including trading his jacket with that bum, who mumbled, "That&#39;s a nice coat" as Bruce wandered off to see the world. So he was complimenting his own clothing, a see? A little joke. Also, if you want to compare Keaton&#39;s scene you mentioned from the first Batman, I would compare it to a different scene in BB, where he interogates Flass. Flass cries "I don&#39;t know! I swear to God!" And he replies "Swear to ME!" and drops him. I liked that. Anyway, I&#39;m hoping Supes Returns will be good.

I thought the cape as shown in the tailer wasn&#39;t fluttering, it looke like it as just floating there, unfurled in spoace weightless. The motion only seemed to be from the camera panning around him. Also, I thought he was still in the upper atmosphere, like he is at the end of Superman: the Movie, which could account for any "fluttering, (and his ability to hear sound). In Superman the Movie, you can see the cape moving with superman flying in either upper atmosphere or the edge of outer space as Chris Reeve smiles at the camera and flies off into the sunrise. Clearly, in light of that scene, the makers of this movie are sticklers for keeping continuity with Donner&#39;s original. Hopefully that scene didn&#39;t ruin the end of the movie for you or make you think about after-school specials; it&#39;s one of my favorite flying shots from any of the Superman movies.

...so long as you have an incredibly literal-minded understanding of movies. It&#39;s a film for lazy people, who only care about how close something adheres to its source material. Nolan&#39;s direction is basic TV drama shot coverage. Boring movie. No surprises. No wonder we get so much more watered down piffle like X-Men 3 and Fantastic 4 than we do exciting comicbook fare like Batman and Batman Returns. Viewers are now adverse to the concept of discovery in cinema. They care only that Hulk is the right shade of green and that Sin City looks exactly like Frank Miller&#39;s drawings. Do you just go to movies to congratulate yourselves?

With the exception of Katie Holmes, I thought BB was THE Batman movie, those who disagree have obviously never read a Batman comic book in their lives. Now when do I get my Dark Knight Returns movie? As for Superman Returns, even if EVERY review came back negative, you know you would be in line just as I&#39;ll be when it opens.

you&#39;re oppinion is nul and void

...is that it&#39;s made ONLY for fanboys, which may mean heaven to you people, but for the rest of us it&#39;s piffle. In all seriousness, we&#39;re talking about a man....in a rubber bat suit. Think about that. Can you REALLY take that seriously? Is it deserving of such a somber, realistic treatment? It&#39;s a stupid notion, one that doesn&#39;t need deep analysis. Burton got the first two right in that its over-the-top material that needed to be treated in an operatic way. I used to read the comics when I was younger, but that time&#39;s over and done with. I&#39;m a big boy now. It&#39;s time to put the kid stuff away. Besides which, the term "graphic novel" came into play only because these comic dorks were ashamed that they couldn&#39;t read anything without pictures, so rather than mature and try to read something different, they dumbed down the culture and fooled people into calling them "graphic novels." Well, fuck you. They&#39;re comic books...for KIDS and they always will be. So while some will shout that those who hated BB haven&#39;t obsessively read Batman comcis enough to respect the film, that&#39;s a critique I&#39;m willing to take. Life is too short to dwell of puddle-deep characters such as Batman when there&#39;s books by Didion, Fitzgerald, Thompson, and Vonnegut that I haven&#39;t read. Maybe you should follow suit. Then you&#39;ll actually have something to talk about besides whether an actor captured the persona of a funny page character.

Is she in this? And does Spacey get to replicate Hackman&#39;s classic scream of her name? I loved that as a kid :)

This is a site for fanboys by fanboys. Why do you even come here? Go back to your Pynchon Appreciation blog or wherever it is you can mingle with people worthy of your insight. You&#39;re posting on a thread about a man who flys around in blue tights, for crying out loud! BTW, have you seen the new cover Frank Miller did for "Gravity&#39;s Rainbow?"

Dude, don&#39;t be a tool. Ra&#39;s Al Ghul told Bruce Wayne that he needs to "become an idea" and that idea was one that would make the bad guys afraid. Bats generally freak people out, especially one that&#39;s as big as a man and able to haul you up to the top of a building upside down and interrogate you until you piss your pants. "They&#39;re comic books"? LOL you were deprived of any fun or imagination or even entertainment growing up, weren&#39;t you? Get help, it&#39;s not too late.

"Returns is Keaton jacking off on the Dark Knight" That&#39;s PERFECT!!! Couldn&#39;t have said it better. Begins > Forever > 89 > B&R > Returns Batman Returns is the worst superhero ever made. It was so bad, that Burton got himself canned...for Schumacher! The Penguin leaking Penzoil out of his nose? Flipper hands?? Poodles that catch batarangs??? Penguin pallbearers??? A Batman that gets his @ss handed to him by a disgruntled secretary? A d@mned circus gang???? Sheesh!!!

Who are they?

so if I have all of the authors you mentioned and about 6 Batman graphic novels on my shelf, am I still immature or illiterate? I can&#39;t believe we&#39;re still getting into a debate over whether comic books can qualify as literature, when Maus and the Watchmen and even the Dark Knight Returns are considered to be some of the best literature of our time..

Considering he couldn&#39;t even move in the suit, he gets a pass for even making the character interesting. But, Batman is not a psycho, and Keaton was physically wrong for the part.

Spider-Man. It&#39;s also better than most of the superhero films ever made. A perfect superhero film has yet to be made. Unbreakable doesn&#39;t count.

Has Aintitcool been infected by some irreversible virus that prevents the showing of hope. Case in point the net was peppered with overjoyed reactions to SR screenings but some how Merrick finds and reports the good but not great ones. OK at least they&#39;re "good" reviews but they seem begrudgingly so. Of all the websites I visit this one seems to be a syphon, devoid of hope! (which is sad because i think Harry created a great thing here)

brought me to tears. Nice job Singer. That&#39;s very worthy dedication. I&#39;m excited to see this movie it HURTS!

...except to those who want to appear smart. One could argue that the Mario Bros. represent Italian repression caused by the Catholic church unbottling itself and fighting back, but you know what? You&#39;d be full of shit. And if something like Watchmen (which I did read in my younger days) is "great literature" in this day and age, what does say about us? That&#39;s not a ringing endorsement. Just means we&#39;re stupid and need everything to be boiled down to its most basic form (i.e. comics.) If you&#39;re too lazy to open a book without drawings in it, that&#39;s fine. But be open about it. Don&#39;t hide behind this veneer of "average-joe" intelligence where the dumbest of shit is put on a pedestal and anaylzed for some deeper meaning. It&#39;s Batman, not some lost novel by Eco or a Rothko painting. Admit you&#39;re a dude that likes comics. It&#39;s a lot more respectable than the phony, posturing examinations of the supposed subtext of Spider-man and his ilk.

And that was the Timm and Dini cartoons. That&#39;s the only representation of Batman to come to the screen (albeit, small one) that I ever thought captured the spirit of the character fully and told great stories. I didn&#39;t care much for Burton, hated Schumacher, and just wasn&#39;t really into Nolan&#39;s film (it had its moments though). But Timm and Dini did a wonderful job. There was one episode where Batgirl "dies" and Batman and Robin are on the run from Commissioner Gordon-- damn that was fantastic! I only wish a movie Batman story could be that entertaining.

I like Michael Keaton. He&#39;s a decent actor. And he tried hard considering he was stuck with lame scripts and a suit you could barely move in -- but was he Batman? Hell no. There has to be something said for casting an actor with physical presence in certain roles. You have to LOOK the part too. He was no more Batman, than Gary Oldman was Dracula.

Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, Fitzgerald (although long dead) are great and all. Same goes for Margaret Atwood, Ondaatje, Rushdie and many other contemporary authors.. Personally, I don&#39;t see why you even put didion within mention of them. How do you even put Thompson and Fitzgerald and Vonnegut together either? They&#39;re all completely different with their style of writing. Vonnegut even uses drawings in some of his novels. Is not that a vague form of graphic novel? If you want to talk strict literature in an extended narrative sense without pictures than you&#39;re correct. Why can&#39;t literature also have art complimenting it&#39;s prose in the form of graphic novels and comics? Literature is subjective and I believe that you can find just as much deep meaning in a string of batman comics that you can find a Vonnegut novel. Some comics can be very shakespearean in their take on themes of love, fate, death, and the human condition in a fantastical way. It&#39;s all purely subjective, but if you want to cling to your stuffy intellectual biases without seeing the beautiful form some comics can attain than that&#39;s your choice.

I sure hope so. If word gets out that this is merely a "good not great" movie, then Singer and co. should be VERY worried. With Pirates coming out the week after this one releases, then they&#39;ll be lucky to hit $100 mil domestic total. Besides, we&#39;ve been saturated with Superman for years and years (cartoons, comics, Lois & Clark, Smallville, etc) so getting a ton of people into theaters to see it all "again" may prove near impossible.

I love literature; I don&#39;t see how you can look at work of William S. Burroughs and then look at Grant Morrison&#39;s work in say Doom Patrol and not see the parallels between them, and the beauty of sequential art as a medium of expression. Morrison&#39;s work really extends that type of cut-up technique while introducing a host of other ideas only possible in the graphic novel format. I don&#39;t see how you can elevate straight prose as being inherently superior. They are two equally valid forms of artistic expression. Also: How did the filmmakers of Batman Begins fail because they followed the comics? What else are they supposed to follow? In closing: Why don&#39;t you try opening your mind? Civilization does not end at the limits of your narrow understanding. Art can take many forms, and the true beauty of culture can be found in the caress and embrace of them all.

And go peddle your elitist shit elsewhere. Who the hell do you think that you are to come onto this talkback spouting shit like "[c]omics are not literature... except to those who want to appear smart" and then rattle off a few vague "literary" names in order TO APPEAR SMART. That&#39;s humorous as shit coming from a jackhole who can&#39;t even think in a logical manner. Want to be schooled by a comic book geek? Here goes, genius. Your argument against comics as literature (and the discussion herein of subtext and the like) presupposes that none of the comic book geeks in this talkback have read literature. How do you reach that conclusion? Well, you reach simply because no one in the SUPERMAN RETURNS TALKBACK is discussing Chekov, Dostoevsky, Hemingway, Proust, Salinger, or Sartre. Did it ever occur to that literary brain of yours that discussing topics like those in a talkback about SUPERMAN RETURNS is not only inappropriate but fucking moronic. Now, if you can link the SUPERMAN RETURNS (or COMIC BOOK) discussion to anything in any literary works, more power to you. Otherwise, lick my literary balls, as Voltaire might say. By the way, I recently finished The Idiot by Dostoevsky and I think that you&#39;d find it most enlightening, at least from a self-awareness perspective. While the fact that SOME comic books are considered LITERATURE may say something about us (as a culture), your self-aggrandizing posts say far more about your own egotistical self-image and piss-poor fucking logic. You, sir, are the one who is "full of shit" and if our culture doesn&#39;t obtain your "ringing endorsement" why don&#39;t you go find one that does - simply locate the nearest mirror and stare deep own eyes until you drop dead. You may "need everything to be boiled down to its most basic form" or feel that others do, but I like to view comics as the literary marriage of mythology, short story, and art (with a fair dose of fable thrown in for good measure). How the fucking fuck do you know that any of us is "too lazy to open a book without drawings in it?" I read a book every day or two and my current reads are Scott&#39;s Ivanhoe, Paine&#39;s Common Sense, Malmont&#39;s The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril, Fitzgerald&#39;s The Last Tycoon, and The Peloponnesian Wars by Thucydides... and that&#39;s just for this week, Chief Fucknut. In a world redefined by Freud, EVERYTHING is up for analysis at a deeper level - even the dreams brought on by the SUPERBURRITO COMBO I ate last night before bed. We analyze OUR DREAMS and BODY LANGUAGE, dickweed, so you better believe that the artform that marries Poe&#39;s short stories with Picasso&#39;s painting gets as healthy dose of dissection as everything else, including your sad little criticism. I admit it; I&#39;m a dude who likes comics, but, unlike you, I&#39;m also a dude who can appreciate more than one art form and find, not only value, but intelligence in them. As best I can tell, the only "phony, posturing" that&#39;s been done in this talkback is by you. Please feel free to preen elsewhere - your navel is calling.

I really hope I&#39;m wrong and Superman is good. I just haven&#39;t hears one thing or seen on shred of Footage that has got me amped. Sure Supes saving the plane looks nice, but it already been there done that. I&#39;m sure it&#39;ll be cool to see none the less with todays ex. Anyway WB went in the wrong direction and played it to safe. It all sounds like a rehas of the 1st Superman, which everybody, even the 10 year old kiddies have seen. Supes fights boring Luthor again, and i say boring because it looks as if it&#39;s the same comedic Luthor from the previous films as opposed to the shrewd and serious Luthor from the comics and the animated series. I&#39;m just not interested in lex luthor as the villian. Where is the villian with powers? Where is Metallo, Darkseid? For god&#39;s sake they show a nice set up of metello in the video game, but doesn&#39;t use someone like him in the film? people want to see supes cut loose and take down bad guys not human villians spraying Supes with bullets from a damn big ass machine gun. Everyone knows bullets don&#39;t hurt Supes so why did Singer even include that scene? The dumb sap just fires repeatedly instead of trying to get away. harry is going to support this film, and I&#39;m sure his review is already written singing the film praise. i just laugh. I fear the direction this film is going to be, and something tells me that plane sequence is the best we&#39;re going to get. Doesn&#39;t matter supes will still make money.

With that kind of budget, pre-production costs and advertising they are doing (or are going to do) Supes needs a worldwide BO of around 700 million to break even (Hollywood accounting of course, which states that a movie must make double its total costs to break even for all parties involved - distributors, percentages, studio, etc.)

It&#39;s right in line with what AICN was hinting at. Donner&#39;s Supes was an absolute classic so it is no surprise that Supes Returns falls a litte short but as a reboot this should be first. Hey, is anyone hearing that Madsen&#39;s character actually saves the day at the end?

You from Cadavera?

of the complete masterworks of Marcel Proust.

...but the more I hear about the similarities to Donner&#39;s first Superman effort, the less enthusiastic I feel about SR. I think the continuity involving Brando&#39;s Jor-El, the Williams theme and the Kryptonian crystal science is just fine, but too many of the story aspects seem similar. The only half remake, half sequel that ever worked was Evil Dead 2. I hope I&#39;m wrong.

On the misgivings regarding SR. Combine the "redux" with Singer&#39;s "cold" vision and the Plot-Point Kid and I&#39;m less than enthusiastic, but, like you said, I hope I&#39;m wrong.

listen dude i am neither a multi user name or religious fundamentalist (cuoldn&#39;t be further from the truth) and please "Darth Hater" is just a humerous play on words don&#39;t read to much into it. The only thing I truly hate is ignorance and intolerance (like haters) Again please don&#39;t confuse me with anyone else on this board I am an individual. My statment stands though, why don&#39;t you think about what i said about negativity at face value with no alterior motive. It was simply a study in a confined social setting. Why is negativity drawn to this TB so often? Peace.

Most reviews I&#39;ve read are like this. All reviews point out that this movie is heavy on the love-story-soap elements. I don&#39;t know if this is what people want when they go in a theater to watch a "brand-new" Superman movie. I hope AICN dares to show some of the less-positive reviews too.

I don&#39;t understand why everyone is always licking that film&#39;s nuts. The villains were poorly (and under)used, many of the fight sequences were shot so close and cut so fast that it was hard to see anything. It just took itself far too seriously. I like Bale but I didn&#39;t feel that he brought anything special to the role of Batman. Minor point but I wasn&#39;t a fan of his raspy whispering "batman" voice, either. As for Returns, I have to say I liked it alot. I loved Burton&#39;s stylistic take on Gotham and it&#39;s residents. Begins&#39; Gotham was just a perpetually dark, dirty city. Burton&#39;s Gotham had a lot of weird little bits and pieces that made it something different. A city that you could see was probably beautiful in it&#39;s heyday, but was now this crime-infested hellhole. The Penguin was a great fucking character, played perfectly by Devito. Absolutely memorable. Catwoman was awesome, too. I will also think of Michelle Pheifer when I think of Catwoman. I agree, Walken didn&#39;t have a big role, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessary for every huge actor to have a big role in every movie he/she is in. Returns may not have been in line with all the comic continuity, but it worked. And Batman (a relatively boring character... we get it, you&#39;re plagued by the deaths of your parents) is only as interesting as the villains he fights, and while Scarecrow was pretty cool, there wasn&#39;t enough of him. Ra&#39;s al ghoul or however it&#39;s spelled wasn&#39;t particularly compelling, which is unfortunate because he took up much of the villain time. Plus: Begin&#39;s score does not hold a candle to Elfman&#39;s fucking classic Batman score. I can&#39;t believe no one has mentioned that point yet (or maybe I just missed it). All that being said, Begins wasn&#39;t terrible, just not amazing.

Is that the new cool thing to do? And if you were overwhelmed by Begins, you = hopeless.

...your last trailer was actually funny. I guess I was right in assuming that the original was a fluke because this latest effort was terrible. The only funny on display was the indelible proof of how unwholesomely obsessed you are with Singer, Routh and men in tights. Seriously, chief; the idea of how long you must have spent editing that thing is downright scary. The result was a bit cowardly on your part as well. I see the usual homophobic motif but it&#39;s lacking your normal anti-semitic tone. Courage of your convictions deserting you? In terms of your tiny, demented and severly limited online world I guess you&#39;ve sold out.

In order of chocolatey goodness: Spidey II - a note-perfect film, Superman I, Incredibles- which is the best Fantastic Four movie we&#39;re gonna get, Batman Begins, Superman II, Burton&#39;s Batman - thanks to Jack, X2, Spidey I, X3, X1 - sorry, anti-Ratners, but X3 was solid...........Rancid Supermovies in no particular order - Supes III and IV - Supes IV is possibly the worst film ever made, not just genre-ly speaking - Supergirl, Batman & Robin, non-Corman Fantastic Four, and the icy black pit of despair and penguins-eating-noses that was Batman Returns........Fair to middlin&#39; supermovies - Batman Forever - in retrospect, a foreshadowing of the abomination that was B&R, but nearly as bad as you remember - Daredevil, Hulk - a noble failure - and the Adam West Batman flick, which was way too much fun.

It all takes place on one giant fake looking set. The villians are cheesy! From the clown people to cat woman talking. The Pigeon is God awful. They turned a clasic batman villian into a carny freak. I hate carnys. circus freaks. nomads ya know. they have little hands. Tim Burton turned gotham into his own little nightmare before christmas world. Making batman movies too epic and over the top. Batman begins brings batman back to earth and humanizes him. Bale&#39;s batman questions the idea of being a bat man. how ridiculous that is to begin with and learns to embrace. making us the audience believe more in a batman and accept a crime fighter in a bat costume. Gotham is also grounded more in reality. The villians aren&#39;t over the top either. In general. It&#39;s a realistic batman that doesn&#39;t go overboard. I love the music in begins as well. not to over the top. dramatic sounding. classic scenes. batman running as the bats fly around. when the gased citizens look up and see batman flying. he looks like a real bat with glowing eyes. it reminds me of 40&#39;s batman and what he stands for. he puts the fear into all criminals. its so classic that imagery. Thank God batman is back on track and no more nipples

Nothing.

They kept to the original character of Penguin and made him just a fat little bizarre man? Even if you hate the mutant version in Returns, I think it&#39;s fairly obvious that it was a much better route for the character to go. It made him unsettling and somewhat frightening, plus it gave him motivation, instead of him just being some fat, rich, bird enthusiast. I&#39;m not saying Returns is the best movie ever, I just enjoyed it more than Begins. A "realistic" Batman is boring to me. Batman has always been a little over the top. Come on, the Joker, Two face, the Riddler, Freeze? These are not "realistic" villains. Putting them in a "realistic" setting doesn&#39;t do them justice.

Yes, I will be seeing this movie, although most likely on DVD. I&#39;m losing interest in the film rapidly, in case you didn&#39;t notice -- which does pose a problem for you and your phony theory that I&#39;m trying to promote it. You still haven&#39;t addressed the lack of your usual zany anti-semitism in your "film". You obviously sold out for hosting space. Hilarious.

But Batman Return is a superior movie. I really dig the way, how the villains are different aspects of Bruce&#39;s personality. Smart. I liked Begins but I find it really funny how some people are saying it&#39;s better, becouse it&#39;s in a more realistic world, it&#39;s more credible. Guess what, vigilante in a rubber bat suit in a realistic word, will never be credible. The Returns Batman had a lot better place in that world where freaks lived in the sewers, and cats could ressurect women, than Begins Batman had in it&#39;s own "realistic world". But yeah, if you measure a movie&#39;s quality based on the closeness to thesource material, then Begins wins it for you. It depens on what you looking for in a movie.

Green Arrow. Ollie is a hero that deserves to be completely grounded in realism, unlike Batman. Really didn&#39;t like the first viewing and walked out of the theater disappointed. It fared much better with me the second time around at home. There&#39;s lots to like, but several annoying things remain that dismay -- There &#39;dark knight&#39; is more than a ninja. Batman is a detective and inventor. These two major facets were effectively eliminated in the film. You could have planted Sho Kosugi in the film and it still would have worked. The different take on Scarecrow was innovative, yet still falls flat from what is expected from a Batman villain. Rah&#39;s was enough of a low-key foil. Gordon driving the Batmobile. That should never have happened. Holmes was completely wasted. And every time Wayne wore the cowl he spoke like one of the Baldwin brothers. The rest was perfect, however. The scenery was perfectly designed and the score was splendid. The performances were beyond excellent (excepting Batman&#39;s dialog), especially for something based on a comic book. It was a good superhero film, but I wouldn&#39;t classify it as one of the greatest nor one of the worst. Not every comic movie has to induce seizures or orgasms you know.

Talk about stupid. You can&#39;t tell Clark Kent is Superman because of a pair of glasses? How about a guy with an ultra-styliuzed blonde goutee who slaps on a mini mask and dresses up in green tights? I&#39;ve never understood why anyone finds Green Arrow remotely interesting.

Tough luck kiddos

As grounded in reality as the medium can offer. It&#39;s a superhero flick, so some suspension of disbelief remains necessary. Someone else summed Batman Begins perfectly -- for all the talk of &#39;reality&#39; the movie still included fear gas activated by microwaves. Hate the character all you want, the fanfic trailer on Green Arrow remains one of the best I&#39;ve seen. The film&#39;s goatee wouldn&#39;t have to be organic, you know.

When he&#39;s wearing the mask and he talks snarly like that I thought that that was what made him so much scarier and cooler...Seriously, if he used his normal voice then everyone would be like &#39;Bruce?&#39; SO STFU... his batman voice rox and he better keep it in the next flik

and Long Halloween would have been a much better source to adapt.

Tim Burton makes Tim Burton movies. Before anything else it&#39;s his vision, it&#39;s Tim Burton&#39;s Batman. And Tim Burton&#39;s vision of Batman is that he doesn&#39;t think Batman is very interesting and would rather focus on the villains. And that is why in Batman Returns Batman gets about half an hour of screen time and the other hour and a half is about the Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Schreck. Revisionist interpretations of these characters in fact, that are so far off base it&#39;s not even funny. Not once do I get the feeling from any of the 4 old Batman movies that Batman is anything to be frightened of, I&#39;m pretty sure I could kick Michael Keaton&#39;s ass. After all, he has no formal training, he just decides he wants to be a bat while he&#39;s trying to act all aloof. The Burton flicks are stagey, goofy fun: not to be confused with better films. More entertaining for some I suppose, but I often find them irritating to watch. Pretty colors and musical flourishes go a long way I suppose, but character development and a fully fleshed out world on screen go a lot farther in my book. I don&#39;t like Begins because it&#39;s more realistic, I like it because it&#39;s a better film. And because it&#39;s a better adaptation of the source material. It&#39;s a good synthesis of Year One, The Long Halloween, and some of the back catalog without being a total copy. It nails the characters and what they&#39;re all about. Batman isn&#39;t "psycho", that&#39;s not his deal. He is a human weapon with some issues he&#39;s trying to work out. And to top it all off, no matter how much you like to bitch and moan about the frenetic fight scenes, they&#39;re still better than the fight scenes in Burton&#39;s Batmans. If Batman isn&#39;t programming a batarang to take out some street thugs because he can&#39;t move in his rubber costume, he&#39;s escaping in the Batmobile and firing a grappling hook out at the wall just so he can take a corner wide as hell at about 20 miles an hour. In Begins Batman literally has a fucking tank that he can rip through Gotham with. Nothing in Burton&#39;s movies is functional, it&#39;s completely style over substance. I think Begins had both.

There were quite a few actually. The ending with the Joker card, the bats swarming the cops to let Batman make his escape, Falcone, Flass, Loeb, Batman learning his abilities the hard way (both contain a perilous scene on a fire escape). Visually and tonally Begins takes a lot from Year One. I don&#39;t have it in front of me and haven&#39;t read it in a while but those are just a few elements I remember.

...from this fanboy batfight is a bit of Neal Hefti and big word balloons that say "OOF!", "SOCKO!", "KA-POW!" and "WHAM!"

Burton BLEW IT big time. Batman Returns was such a missed opportunity.

Batman Returns was reviled when it came out. Sure it looks like genius when compared to the next two sequels, but it was still a huge, step in the wrong direction.

That&#39;s a ridiculously general thing to write. Maybe it would be better to say "some slow witted morons with no attention spans will be unable to ignore their text messages long enough to absorb this fairly straight forward movie".

Their is yet to be a great Batman movie. Tim burtons "original" had the look but was about as loyal to the book as a turd (jack napier killing ma and pa wayne!!!!!!!!!!!). Begins was ok except for Christian bales frequent orange tan (only when he&#39;s in the cowl though. strange), and Michael Caines common as muck, cockney Alfred. Kudos to it though for the complete lack of CGI. Proof you can still make movies with stuntmen and practical rigs. As for returns, What the fuck? any movie that has danny devito jumping around in a model of the Batmobile that he&#39;s just stolen from outside of Woolworths is just wrong.

BB has to be the best Batman movie ever, right in front of &#39;89 Batman. For the ones who say that Batman Returns is the best one.....WHAAATTTT!?! Batman/Bruce Wayne took a back seat to the villians in that movie, at least BB was all about Batman. I thought it was very smart in how they expanded on the origin and still kept it grounded and plausible. Oh yeah, Nolan&#39;s Batman sequel will be better than BB just like Singers X2 was better than X-Men.

How did it go from Superman to Batman?

HES LIKE OMFG SO MUCH COOLER

Honestly, Batman has kicked Superman&#39;s ass TWICE and every other superhero in the DC universe is scared shitless by the Bat. Half the time when they mention fear they say; "Like that time Bruce looked at me and I crapped my pants." Batman is the man, dawg.

When I last checked Frank Miller&#39;s comic, Bruce beat the crap out of Kal with Kryptonite. Superman came over to my gym. He bench pressed 800 lbs. with his pinky, and I think he could do more....... Bottom line, Superman can use his superbreath to snap Batman, Robin, and Bane&#39;s back simultaneously while making the moves on Lois. Superman can hang in there with Doomsday and the Hulk so I think he can go fifteen with tough guy, gadget-guru Batman. Make some fucking sense, theoneofblood. Next thing, you&#39;re gonna say the Bosox have more titles than the Yankees.

Michael Keaton had the temperment, but lacked the presence. He also wasn&#39;t big or tough enough. Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, was the perfect choice. He looked like he lept right out of Action Comics. Brandon Routh seems also to be a good choice.

Keaton was the worst choice for Batman. Batman was at least 6 4", tall dark and hansome, Keaton was none of those...Keaton was chosen because he was good buddies with Tim Burton, who just directed him in Beetlejuice...and that&#39;s the way I see it.

Batman Returns is a great film because it&#39;s character driven. All three villains represent a different aspect of Bruce Wayne&#39;s psyche. That&#39;s why the claim that the film isn&#39;t really about Batman is off base. The whole film is about Batman, and his struggle to come to terms with his different personas as vigilante, businessman and orphaned outsider. That&#39;s why it&#39;s my favourite Batman film. Yes, it&#39;s more of a Tim Burton film than a Batman film, but it&#39;s his take on the character, just as valid as Frank Miller&#39;s or Bob Kane&#39;s (whose original version of the character bears little relation to the comics of today). As for the complaints about Burton changing the characters of the Penguin and Catwoman, that&#39;s because the original versions wouldn&#39;t have worked in the world he created. The Penguin of the comic and TV show is just a boring guy in a tuxedo who quacks a lot. He also made Catwoman a more psychologically damaged and sympathetic character. The complaints about her suddenly knowing martials arts and having nine lives are missing the point. She&#39;s not a realistic character, she&#39;s a metaphor for someone who&#39;s killed and reborn as a stronger person. And Walken isn&#39;t wasted. The scene where he pushes Selina out of the windows is one of his greatest ever, scary and funny. Now, Batman Begins is a good film, too, but it&#39;s not the masterpiece all the comic book geeks who are masturbating over it think it is. A realistic take on Batman is valid, I just don&#39;t find it as interesting or as fun as Burton&#39;s dark fairytale version. And that&#39;s the word.

He was a great Batman because of his personality. Who cares if he doesn&#39;t have the right physique. He had the intensity. His "I&#39;m Batman" to the punk in the first film sounded like someone who is crazy and dangerous. Bale&#39;s "I&#39;m Batman" sounded like someone with hemmoroids. twitaman mentioned Oldman being miscast as Dracula, but I thought he was great for the same reason. He had the passion for the role. People are too hung up on casting someone who looks right, even if they&#39;re not the best actor.

True, Returns is an outward psychological study of Batman. While it is interesting, I found Burton lacking in some creative areas. This film played like a cross between Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. The Penguin was needlessly repulsive. He made Catwoman unattractive. Burton&#39;s world is ugly. His vision for the superhero lacked the breadth necessary to properly convey the dark knight&#39;s world. Batman Begins has a grittier look and feel than the Schumacher crapfests. It also has far greater flare than the quirky, clastrophobic style of the first Batsequel.

I agree about Oldman in Copolla&#39;s version. He was as good as Lugosi. As for the best Bat, I&#39;m alot more scared of Bale than Keaton...... and it ain&#39;t because Bale is over half a foot taller w/muscles(though that don&#39;t hurt). Bale has a very dangerous look about him. Keaton tries to have this menace, but has yet to achieve it. If I ran into Keaton&#39;s Batman in a dark alley, I&#39;d want no part of the Begins Batman.

Since all we have to rely on is a brief description from stoker, and not decades of visual depictions

That&#39;s a cool and interesting take on it, I must say. And I agree the scene with Waken pushing Selina out the window is terrific... Still don&#39;t like the movie though ; )

I meant to say Walken obviously.

First of all, I can&#39;t believe I&#39;m actually going to argue about a comic book character. Secondly, dude, having the ABILTY to be a badass is very different from having the WILL to be a badass. Ask yourself, who is more hardcore? Bruce Campbell&#39;s Ash from Evil Dead 2 or Bruce Willis&#39; superdude from Unbreakable? Bruce Willis is way more powerful than The Chin, yet I bet you think a certain S-Mart employee is far cooler. It&#39;s the same with Superman. Sure, he COULD destroy pretty much the whole planet and kill every other superhero out there, but the thing is you know he WON&#39;T, because he&#39;s a goody two-shoes boy scout. Batman is far more of a badass because he won&#39;t hesitate to break a man&#39;s spine to get answers and he&#39;s got a contingency to take out every other superhero out there. He&#39;s a ruthless bastard who doesn&#39;t just rely on some fancy-pants powers to save his ass. He uses his genius and his sheer trained skill to overcome adversity. I think somebody who gets somewhere through diligence and hard work is always going to be more awesome than someone who gets there based purely on "God-given" powers.

Why do I always post here when I&#39;m drunk?

Really? Why? Easily the worst aspects of the originals.

I don&#39;t get the whole Singer Love either? Why is he looked at as some sort of god? Harry hearts Singer like he&#39;s in his will. And people act like Ratner is the anti-Christ. FYI: X1 was boring and X2 was a step in the right direction, but aside from Nightcrawler&#39;s scene, it&#39;s not that great of an action movie itself. X3 wasn&#39;t a great movie, but it finnaly showed some mutant vs mutant action (other then the 3 boring Wolverine fights from X1 and X2). I&#39;ve seen the special effects, and as anyone who&#39;s seen Star Wars Ep 1, special effects do not make a great movie. The trailers look OK at best, and while Reeve wasn&#39;t The Rock, he also wasn&#39;t some 125lb pretty boy. We already had a followup to Superman II, it was called Superman III (Richard Pryor, can&#39;t top that). Now we get Superman 2.5. That being said, I&#39;ll still be there opening night, but not because I think Singer is some genius. Just because I love Comic Book movies. Oh yeah, and BTW - Michael Keaton was the best Batman, EVER!!!

Hey, since nobody else has pointed this out to my knowledge I&#39;ll be the one. There is one scene where he is looking! clearly looking for - I think it was Elekra- behind some strings of laundry on a rooftop or something. The whole thing loses credibility right there. Can&#39;t he hear her heartbeat? Or use his radar. No, he&#39;s peeking behind towels and underwear. Anyone else notice this. Godawful.

Let&#39;s be honest, now.

then I will look forward to Steel Returns. I can wait.

Pee Wee Herman is the Penguin&#39;s dad in Batman Returns. crazy.

Val Kilmer tried and did a good job in my opinion. Chris O&#39;Donell would have been perfect as Nightwing not young Robin. Riddler is not supposed to be over the top, he is an intellgent guy who wants to prove he is smarter then everyone. Carrey played him too much like the Joker for me. In fact when Paul Dini takes over writing Detective Comics in a few months, he is bringing Riddler back as a private investigator,to show people he is smarter then Batman, should be interesting. Tommy Lee Jones was too over the top for Two Face, Guy Pearce would be a great Two Face. The story was horrible, and once again everyone finds out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Can we stop with that please...

Sounds fine to me. Who said it had to be "brilliant"? I never expect any movie to be brilliant when I see it... Very good works well for me.

...for daring to assert that Superman Returns is the DC movieverse&#39;s X3, good but not the great, earth shattering cinematic comic hero experience fans so desperately wanted? As I pointed out in that earlier post, all of Harry&#39;s pre-love for this and pre-hate for X3 seems to have amounted to naught (fart in a windstorm, I belives was the analogy I used) since the films apparently ended up being virtual equals in terms of quality. The only difference between them has been the way reactions to them by critics have been couched on this site. Why would a post like this need to be deleted?

Haven

"[A] brief description from stoker" of Dracula?!?!?! How do you define brief, my friend? From the novel, I count (but do not quote for brevity&#39;s sake), thirty lines of description covering height, age, weight, face, nose, nostrils, forehead, hair, temples, eyebrows, moustache, mouth, teeth, ears, chin, cheeks, skin color, hands (including their hairiness), fingers, the odor of his breath, and his general mannerisms/mode of behavior. That&#39;s "GENERAL DESCRIPTION" to you? And that&#39;s just in Chapter II when Harker first meets him. Dracula is extremely well-described in Stoker&#39;s classic. Unfortunately, Oldman, while a great actor, doesn&#39;t even come close. Christopher Lee (especially as he appears today) is the closest actor physically to Dracula as described in the novel. That having been said, let me turn to SR again and the recent spate of reviews. I haven&#39;t seen such fawning since the critics got hold of a politically correct, yet pedestrian, love story and dubbed it the masterpiece love story of our generation. That&#39;s right - Brokeback Mountain. Based on the reviews I&#39;ve read today, you&#39;d think that Singer was some sort of cinematic god who&#39;d managed to capture Olympian nectar on celluloid in order to bath our sad, puny bodies in that nectar during the theater experience. I mean, seriously, I&#39;ve read words and phrases like "monumental classic," "visual tour-de-force," "eye popping 21st century visuals," "epic," "spectacular," "jaw dropping, "triumphant," and (my favorite about Routh himself) "a good actor but more noticably a very beautiful man." Hee hee hee! Yessiree, Bob! Brandon Routh is more NOTICEABLY (Apparently, the guy is so damned pretty that the reviewer can&#39;t even spell correctly! Wow!) a "beautiful man" than he is a "good actor." Excellent! Just what I was looking forward to - a BEAUTIFUL man! You know, I fell for the crap about Brokeback (greatest love story, blah, blah, blah) so I saw the damned thing, realizing halfway through the crapfest that, change the sex of either Gyllenhaal or Ledger, and the reviewer wouldn&#39;t have given this movie the time of day. I&#39;ve got a sneaking suspicion that, change the "very beautiful man," and most reviewer wouldn&#39;t have given SR the time of day either. Call me cynical, but I grow leery every time some car salesman in a cheap suit piles superlative upon superlative when trying to sell me a piece of shit. I hope that SR isn&#39;t the piece of shit that every cell is screaming that it is.

I feel like rubbin&#39; weenies now.

Most of you people are fucking pathetic. Fight fight fight fight fight. All you go on about is &#39;this movie sucked.&#39; &#39;No, THIS movie sucked.&#39; Christ, some dickhead even spelled &#39;stupid&#39; &#39;STOOPID&#39; while trying to add his tirade about Batman Begins. Why dont you losers just wait until a movie is released before decimating it? Take a long, hard look at yourselves and the utter bullshit you post. It&#39;s pathetic.

Oh, my God! I have now taken a long, hard look at myself and the utter bullshit I post. It&#39;s pathetic. Thank you, deanamatronix, for making me realize that we are EEEEEEEVIL and PAAAAAATHETIC because we dare to have an opinion about the worth of a cinematic endeavor BEFORE it comes out. How dare we! You are so right. Hopefully, I can depend on you to show up at my new movie. It&#39;s an experimental flick in which I rub celluloid with my own feces (as well as puss from a donkey who died of an infection) and then I piss on the celluloid to set the smeared feces and puss in place. I&#39;ll be running the flick in a small, hot, dark, crowded theater. The film will be over 7 hours long and will feature Barbra Steisand&#39;s vocal "stylings." Of course, I&#39;m sure that I can depend on you, deanamatronix, to not offer any prejudgements and to be there on opening day. Ticket price will $4,000 and the film will start showing at 3 AM. See you there?

Alright, so it&#39;s a little more than brief. But even if the whole text.. what is it about 400 pages? was description of Dracula you&#39;d only then be getting a fraction of the way there to how many times characters like Batman and Superman have been visually represented, not to mention described with words. Dracula has been visually represented to death as well, but it all comes from the one source and so has become fairly open to interpretation. no question christopher lee comes closer to the description in the book than oldman does, but i think characters from books are more open to interpretation and experimentation simply because everyone reading the book gets a different mental image in their head. With comic books, it&#39;s right there on the page.

I mean, who cares?

God, I was in LUV with her as a 9 year old. When that movie came out I thought, "gee every time Ms. Teschmacher is on screen I feel all &#39;tingly&#39;...down there." Sure it was a stupid character, but what a doll!

Someone brought up how touching the scene was with Ma Kent when Clark left Smallville in the original &#39;78 movie (the one in the wheat field). I too thought that was a beautiful scene, with great cinematography and John Williams at his best. But, it doesn&#39;t really make sense and seems weird and overly maudlin now that I think about it. I mean, why all the depressing notes and heart-tugging; "I&#39;m leaving ma, Ben Hubbard will take care of you now." I mean, the guy&#39;s Superman right? HE CAN FLY!!! Shit he could come home in two seconds and plow the fields overnight. OK, now I&#39;m just being silly. But still, think about it. Oh, and Christopher Reeve was the definitive Dracula, a guy that actually LOOKED the part, INTIMIDATING. I would&#39;ve been frightened to come up against him in a dark alley in his prime. Oldman as Drac...shit, I&#39;ll take my chances I ain&#39;t a-scar-uh.

Gwai Lo - completely agreed about mental images versus visual images. Ransomz - nobody care if SUPERMAN is GAY; I care if the fact that the actor is gay (or the reviewer is gay) causes the movie to get reviews that are FAR more glowing than they should be. Isn&#39;t that clear in what I wrote? Gay, straight, I don&#39;t really give a shit what anyone does in their personal lives. I do give a shit when it influences your opinions enough to give effusive praise to endeavors that would otherwise have been considered pedestrian, but for the bias of the reviewer.

I KNOW that you mean Christopher LEE, not Christopher REEVE, right? ;)

After reading just about every tb on this particular subject(but not the review that spawned it)lol. This is what I would like to add to the conversation. 1st off. I am a comic book fan. I have been for many many years. I like comic book movies. I&#39;m not going to list the ones that are my favorites, but Batman Begins is definitely one of them. Along with Spiderman 1 & 2, The X-Men movies and even The Hulk (perhaps because I can maintain my attention for more than 30 seconds at a time. But mostly, because I thought that he was the most incredible representation of the big green monster ever put on film. Thank you Ang Lee.) One tber said that Batman Begins was a movie for comic fans but not movie fans. LIE!. I saw it with my friends. I&#39;m a fanboy, they&#39;re not. And they loved it too. Because it was exciting. And they were willing to overlook and ignore its flaws to allow for a good time at the theatre. Try it some time. Let go of your incessant need to analyze every frame, and allow yourself to just be immersed in the movie. In re: to Batman Returns. I thoroughly enjoyed DaVito&#39;s Penguin over Nicholson&#39;s Joker. It wasn&#39;t the Cobblepot I was used to from the comics and cartoons, but he was engrossing compared to Nicholson&#39;s Joker, who was just another Nicholson being Nicholson performance, with more make up. Keaton is the best Bruce Wayne, hands down, but not the best Batman. But that&#39;s not why we are here. We&#39;re here about Superman. Donner&#39;s/Reeve&#39;s Superman are classics because they brought the big blue boyscout to the big screen like never before and he truly embodied the character like no one thought possible up until then. But yes, the movie is also flawed. From spinning the world backwards nonsense, to killing off Pa Kent, to Lex Luthor as clown. Another tber mentioned the J.J. Abrams script abomination and the upcry of dissent towards it. And how, if this movie doesn&#39;t adhere to Donner&#39;s vision, the fanboys will be angry as well. That&#39;s not true either. I don&#39;t want Singer&#39;s Supes to be close to Donners. I want it to be it&#39;s own. 1. Krypton blows up. 2. Pa Kent LIVES!!!! DAMMIT! 3. Lex is dangerously smart (and preferrably rich) I would agree that Rosenbaum&#39;s Lex is the coolest Lex living today. 4. Lois does NOT have a son by ANYBODY. 5. Action, more than drama. If a movie maker could follow these simple requests I would be very happy. Regardless, we ARE getting Singers Superman, and I AM going to go see it. Why? Because I want it to do well enough that, perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere down the road we might get to see a World&#39;s Finest. And that is the only reason. Sorry for the long rant.

I&#39;d like to give a kudos to your post "Warren Oates, please do us all a favor..." post. I agree with you 100% and thought you made your point very well.

This guy&#39;s shit opinions became null and void when he said he hated X-Men 3, Daredevil and the previous Batman movie (sure, the fourth was shit, but the first three were great!)

ought to learn to about lighting and shadows. If you want to dazzle with the action, don&#39;t have practically EVERY SEQUENCE have action. Batman is a detective and an adventurer. Still, Begins is the best Batman film. They also got the idea of the urban legend which should be played up instead of realism.

nothing in the trailer to recommend this film. Zip. We&#39;ve seen it all before - in Donner&#39;s films.

Borat Movie Trailer!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTpfkfS-2k

He carried the film. Kidder was also great, though no classic beauty, they had wonderful chemistry. Other than a few good set pieces, that is the only reason to watch the old Superman films. It&#39;s the same thing with X-Men. Without Jackman completely selling Wolverine, the first film would hardly have been worth watching.

Sorry but to me Bale and Rooth are kids trying to play grown-ups. In fact that was the only weakness about BB. Keaton WAS Batman. Bale was someone trying to look tough.

He&#39;s only about twice Keaton&#39;s size. He was only about ten times more physically intimidating than Keaton. He&#39;s only 32. Maybe Keaton WAS Batman to you, but for most of us he was Beetlejuice in a batsuit. And yeah, Bale did look tough. That&#39;s the point of Batman, he&#39;s tough. He&#39;s tougher than the cheapest steak you can find reheated 3 days after cooking in the microwave. He kicks ass and takes names. The already diminutive Michael Keaton was even less convincing in a big rubber batsuit that didn&#39;t allow him much movement, so right away it&#39;s hard to suspend disbelief that the criminal thugs are just waiting with their chins out for Batman to ZOCK them in the face.

Incredible production design, fantastic action scenes (especially the pandemonium at the city square and the bat skiier navigating through the frozen sewer). The scenes with Pfeiffer after she&#39;s been "killed" are absolutely fantastic and are ten times funnier to me now than when I first saw them ("Want to attract your boss? Pick up some Schrek perfume!")

that most people either don&#39;t have or don&#39;t address, is the choice of casting. There are simply too many big-name actors in it, and I thought it was distracting. Burton&#39;s films worked because they were populated with three stars but a galaxy of character actors. Do you really need a two-time Oscar winner to play Alfred? Of course not. Michael Gough, whom Burton cats due to his love of Hammer horror films, filled the role brilliantly. Katie Holmes brought irreparable damage to the film as well with her atrocious performance, and Freeman was totally worthless as well.

That has to go to Ghost World, with Sin City a damn close second. Love those flicks or hate &#39;em -- You know this to be true.

Damn cough syrup.

No matter how much Superman Returns is gonna suck, and boy is it gonna suck a whole lotta ways (it&#39;s got &#39;chick flick&#39; all over its face for crying out loud), the bottom line is this: KEVIN SPACEY IS PLAYING LEX LUTHOR. What more you want? Reeve back from the dead? Spacey&#39;s playing Luthor. Be happy, and STFU. Oh. And Batman Begins was an entertaining movie but a bad Batman movie and I&#39;ll tell you why. I don&#39;t care if the show&#39;s called "Batman Before Conception" if Bruce Wayne isn&#39;t in cape and cowl more than the last twenty minutes of the film, it sucks raw eggs through a coffee stirrer.