This old prick wrote the Batman TV series. Therefore his opinion doesn't matter. Maybe he should team with Joel Schumacher for the next reboot if he doesn't understand subtlety and serious story telling.
@spillfan1 one thing is serious storytelling (like "Batman Begins), other is boring and sadistic storytelling (like the dark knight), I guess you love to play grand theft auto, right
The safety aspect of Bruce Wayne's place is not that he can't get there but that Bruce Wayne is Batman, if anywhere in the city is going to be safe then it's Batman's place and nowhere else. She can't state that outright to Harvey without giving away Bruce's alter ego yet we the audience and she both know the truth behind what she is saying, I thought that was obvious.
This isn't a Batman for the reviewer's generation, it's meant for an audience more desensitized to media violence. Also, the man was the only one making any sense. I assume the woman is his wife, and she really didn't understand the movie at all. Also, the main reviewer having written that dull, repetitive old TV series, is extremely biased. Why point out what he thinks are plot holes in this Batman when the one he wrote made no sense to begin with?
the dark knight is definitely the most overrated movie of all time. dont get me wrong i enjoyed the hell out of it but if heath ledger wasnt the joker and his tragic death didnt add hype to the movie it would not have been as successful as it was. on imdb it is rated as the 10th greatest of all time. if you think that this is better than fight club, good fellas, rear window, forest gump, saving private ryan, silence of the lambs and reservoir dogs, just to name a few, you need help.
well i think your comments are a little stupid, it is a serious movie and the old guy is biased because he wrote the original tv show and chris nolan has done it better
@mrhammer1777 i am a moron for stating the facts? well, christopher nolan movies are overrated. inception is a well crafted yet uttterly pointless summer bloclbuster that people call a great film...... tdk- if you dont think tdk is overrated, then you dont know the definition of being overrated.
Like this review or not, they make a good argument and give some interesting points to consider.. I tend to disagree with some of the points and consider this movie to be quite good.
great review, except for all the political ramblings. The movie is enjoyable as a thriller, anything more is what we bring to it, not what nolan was 'trying' to say.
It's the uptight grampas and grannies that make this world such a puritan place to live in. Why can't they realize that the world has changed since they were young and stop complaining? I bet you thought you two were going to see Matlock the movie. So there's that, and you probably didn't have time to take your third nap of the day before going to the movie.
@SuperRichardNixon bro Transformers 2 was also very sucessful, along with Hancock, so lets not be judging a movies greatness by the amount of money it makes ok? And many critics say financial sucess is a dead give away of movie being good not legendary. They say it because, if a movie is to be that sucessful, that means they have to make concessions on their storyline and add things in like action which may not be needed in order for them to appeal to more people.
@SuperRichardNixon Stanley Kubrick once said a movie that appeals to mass audience, or is too clear in its storytelling, and unambiguous is a blockbuster, not great cinema. he said this in regards to movies such as jurrasic park 3, titanic, speed. And i thinkwe can put dark knight in that group.
I dont give a fuck if u think they are good movies its your opinion
Dont say they are good movies because they are sucessful, cause it just makes ur opinion harder to defend
But there's a difference between this film and titanic and speed and jurassic park 3...this movie is not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of nonsense, but to compare this to those, it's like, I dunno, McDonald's with InNOut or something.
@blaklodge well dark knight is a mark above those other movies, but its stil the same as them, cause there was no reason for the action sequences to be there you know? like that movie would have been super great and atmospheric if it stayed completely serious and stayed away from the childish bat pod sequence, i mean imagine if it had no silly action sequences. it would be like a character study/crime epic on the level of heat/departed. man, nolan is great, i just wish he didn't sell out.....
I think that movie critics are pointless, because as the old adage says 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'
I'm not talking about this film but all films in general, don't listen to any reviews, just go out to the cinema watch and make your own mind up.......
Just because you worked on the Adam West version of Batman(a product of it's time) does NOT mean it was more faithful than The Dark Knight. Quite the opposite. This film was very faithful to the character of Bruce Wayne and got everything right. The "criminals all being afraid of bats" thing was a thing made up by the creators of the 60s show, and was NOT a thing in the comic. The thing in the comic is what is in these new movies. Bats are what Bruce Wayne fears.
I would agree with many of your plot points, but when it comes to the darkness of the characters and the character of batman, this had evolved from COMIC BOOKS, not a classic TV show. And as far as the pg 13 part, really watch a kids tv show or play a video game, I mean there is so much violence in society that this movie really comes off as soft and comical rather than violent
Unfortunately, you guys are a bit antiquated to post this review. The Batman of the 1960's was a campy goofball. But if that's what you like and appreciate, fine. But the character was redefined several times and a new generation calls for a new, darker hero. Really, stick to Driving Miss Daisy.
i found this review quite refreshing actually, because they bring a fresh perspective to a film that's perhaps overtly-lauded by the modern audience. they pointed out certain aspects of the film that i didn't think of, even though they made sense when you think back. i guess movies had a higher standard back then, not to mention less violent, because i disagree with the film being overly violent. i mean it's pg13, not r rated.
omg...is he seriously comparing 60's batman to modern batman....batman was totally revamped, he has had a darker tone and personality ever since frank miller wrote the dark knight. don't listen to this old man, he is upset they didn't play the goodie goodie batman in the movie. Batman uses fear as his weapon, not catchy phrases and smiles. God these old ppl piss me off.
yea well i think its pretty "modern" of them to review current movies, and if they are gonna do that they shouldnt compare it to their nostalgic views of what the film should be, just let it be and don't be so fucking biased.
the guy was actually wrote batman stories- and dude, when you give an opinion, it's your bias- "opinion" is a euphemism for bias, under which the word of a critic would fall. so, he didn't like our batman- he had his own- let him enjoy his own batman.
yea hes giving his opinion, but he isnt reviewing the film by itself, he's talking about how the old one was so much better. i hate when ppl do that, not letting something be by itself, its just annoying.
well, you know what- you just admitted that you hate them because they didn't like your version.
- the oldies have the version they like
- the moderns have the version they like
oldies and moderns do not like each other's version. and they both have the right to hate each others' versions.
everyone now thinks that movies are better because of cgi- (years from now a new generation will say the same). just like the 80s nostalgia, you guys will say, well we were the original (despite remakes).
no, i wouldnt. I would look at THAT film, say how it was by itself, then review the old one that i grew up with, and see which one is better as a movie in the whole. Im not gonna like my shit cuz its "modern" and shit, for example the original superman kicks superman returns' ass, so im not biased like these geezers.
man, i just don't understand what you are trying to say by not being biased. you just written repeatedly, that these people pissed you off- you even said you hate it that people just don't let it by itself, i gather that you meant, the dark knight being criticized by itself (and not referred to other versions?)- but now you also said, you would review two versions and choose which one is better?- well, that means, you will have a preference and someone will say you are biased.
I just don't like that these ppl that are clearly too attached to their own time to give this movie a fair review are being put in the spotlight. I agree with you about matters of taste, I just dont think these reviewers are anywhere near professional.
if you say they are biased because they preferred one version, then anyone can also say you are biased by preferring your own. but in matters of taste there is no argument- this means, people like something for their own reasons- there is no right or wrong choice, it's simply taste, and sometimes, a lot of people have the same taste, a few differ. but bias only occurs when there is actually a correct or wrong choice (or at least an approximate resolution)- e.g., is tom taller than katie?
ok if i was to review two movies, I wouldnt compare them to other versions of that genre and say oh its not good because it doesnt have these elements of the other version, I would review them on their own qualities. And btw i never said i prefer the modern version, lol.
@DrewCameron Batman Begins didn't have The Joker, and that movie was awesome. People that go around saying The Joker saved The Dark Knight, don't even need to talk about the film. TDK was made for the fans of Batman and Chris Nolan.
This is the lowest-rated of Marcia and Lorenzo's reviews because fanboys who don't like anybody badmouthing their precious flick take it personally. These two have been in the business four times longer than most of us have even been alive, they are certainly entitled to their (very well-educated) opinions. I personally liked this movie, but was confused and underwhelmed by it. Since when do mud, blood and gravelly voices make films "realistic"? Overrated in my book.
I forgot, Bob Cane thought "Batman" was the batman he created, which was the same level as "The Dark Knight", so you have no right to compare the old cheezy no good plot tv show, which destroyed batman's orginal dark reputation, thank god for "The Dark Knight"
You old geezers should stop hitting the boos in the background, because the dark knight is the best comic book movie, not the best movie, just keep watching batman & robin!!!!
Lorenzo, while the Batman TV show was faithful to the Silver Age comics, the original Golden Age Batman was very different. He was much darker in the '40s than the '60s. He returned to being dark in the '70s, and has remained so.
That's the ORIGINAL character, and that's how he's been portrayed for MOST of his 70-year history. The TV show just happened to come during the 20 years when he WASN'T a dark character.
I like the Adam West Batman, but he has little in common with the original Batman.
Marcia, if this is the most incompetent police force you've ever seen, watch the 1989 Batman. After killing numerous people, Joker tells the cops exactly where to find him, and when...but they're apparently too busy eating donuts to arrest the mass killer.
And on the TV show, weren't there only two cops in all of Gotham City? Gordon and O'Hara? And they never really left Police Headquarters. They just called Batman.
In The Dark Knight, the police arrest practically every gangster in the city.
i love your reviews, and i appreciate how you create your own opinions instead of blindly praising movies for no apparent reason like critics of today do, no country for old men and the dark knight certainly come to mind. i agree wholeheartedly with everything you two have mentioned in this review, and it's obvious you two know what you're talking about and appreciate the core fundamental of a film which is its story.
Don't know if I would really flog the movie for taking a different route with the franchise. You can dock it for the plot, but not simply because it takes a very different, dark approach to it.
Although that's really cool that Lorenzo wrote the first television Batman.
Wow! one of the most satisfying reviews of a movie I have ever heard. I followed Lorenzo from the Wikipedia entry for Three days of Condor and here I was with two intelligent, honest and thoughful reviewers.. cheers .. u guys rock!
this movie should have been "R" But this was a fantastic Film. And i think it's the best film i ever seen in the teater in a very long time. But i get what u guys are saying. At ur age u might see it as a different perspective
i also think that the film is popular because of Ledger dying, although he was good, the lines were too odvious and contrived, to the point of Clee Che.
and the batman was first orginaly a comic book. so how do u know that the makers of the batman didnt want the batman to have a dark low voice he is the batman. when i watched the cartoons and the other movies that was not how i pictrued batman after the comic books
omfg why are they even talking. rachal dawes said bruce wayne is the safest place b/c hes the batman. not b/c the penthouse had so much security its b/c wayne is batman and will protect her. and the voice true it was not in the cartoons but i think it was a neccsary change looking at the other batman films them talking reguraly made them less scarier and less powerful. this movie had such a great plot,directing, and writing this movie is the best movie ever
There are some points to what they said, but you have to realize we are in the 21st century.our time has been jaded by violence of an extraordinary nature.we look at things like 911,school shootings,and worse on tv.Batman being pg13 wouldn't have the same rating in the 80s i guarantee it.And the plot is simple really.i didn't get Batman's voice either,but couldn't one relate to 2Face's helplessness,Bruce's struggle with good and evil,any of it? if you couldn't see any of THAT then you're blind.
Sory if anyone else posted this. The criticism that Wayne's penthouse/ apartment being the safest place in Gotham a half hour after the Joker breaks in is completely nonsensical. Rachel's quote specifically to the fact that Wayne's penthouse was turned into the safest place in Gotham after the Joker broke in. Wayne stepped up the security after the break in.
When Rachel says "Bruce Wayne's house is the safest place in the city", she is referring to Batman's underground bat bunker. She's not going to say that directly to Harvey. She knows Batman's place is the safest - SHE IS REFERRING TO THE UNDERGROUND BAT BUNKER.
when rachel said that wayne's penthouse is the safiest place she was not referring to the security of the penthouse. joker broke into several banks im sure he can break any secruity. rachel meant that wayne will protect her b/c hes batman and he cares for her. And when joker did break in guess who protected her.
LOL. Marcia really says it for me, I totally agree with everything she says about this film. It was really confusing, and very hard to understand, but in the way that the director was almost laughing at me. I understand that your trying to push a point, but the fact that you had to push it on me, really put me off. I watched half of it, and took a nap, and told my boyfriend to wake me up when the ending gets around to happening.
This is not Batman, I like Batman, but this is not Batman.
THE FILM WAS NOT BASED ON THE DC COMICS OF BATMAN, you tit.
THEY WERE BASED 100% ON THE "DARK KNIGHT" (have you heard of them, there actually pretty average) BY THE MOST OVERATED COMIC BOOK ARTIST EVER, MR FRANK MILLER.
the story should have just been, parents killed (we're not sure whom by, it changes from film to film). he is angry and dresses like a bat and seeks that no 1 need die from crime (well thats the jist of it)
there is no mention of anything else, because its a different comic
This film is not at all based on Frank Miller's Batman books. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You either haven't seen this movie or haven't read Miller's books if you're going to make a completely idiotic and false statement like that.
Hey, you, TIT! IT is based on the early comics 1930s-40s and the comics in the 80s that include frank miller's. The Joker lack of origin, etc. was drawn straight from his first appearance in 1940s. Do your research before you call people TITS, you TIT!
Even now, 7 years after her death, I still wonder what Pauline Kael would think of the current films playing in our multiplexes. Marcia and Lorenzo are the next best thing.
i stumbled across your reviews today, and have had a great time watching the various reviews.
i find your insights rather refreshing, and even though i disagree about The Dark Knight (i thought is was really good, if anything due to the excellent performances by the cast), i think the reasoning behind your views on the movie were excellent.
not everybody likes the same things, but very few people can express WHY it is they dislike what they dislike, and in a civil, entertaining manner to boot.
"Clockwork Orange was a serious picture in every way... " no it wasn't... and that's what's so great about it, that it doesn't take rape, murder and violence seriously, it doesn't follow the "right" values of society, this film has nothing to do with clockwork orange except for the fact that maybe the joker was slightly based on that character other than that it is a social critic... and yeah maybe it was way too hip for the geezers this time.
Just because the band of ultra-violent men in Clockwork did not follow the right values of society, it does not mean the film is about not following the right values of society. And that's not why it's a great film. The violence comically portrayed in Clockwork were not meant to amuse, but disgust. I think Clockwork is a deeply moral and ironically serious film. But ur right, Batman has nothing to do with Clockwork... like what ?
He's right when he say's the movie was playing down to fan boys. That's exactly what it was, a fan-service. You can plainly see that even in all the comments here from angry fan boys. I don't necessarily think staying true to the source material is always in the best interest of a movie, either. It's a different medium and should be approached in a different way. That's why so many comic book movies are awful. It just doesn't translate. They are also correct that Ledger was the best part.
gotham is new york+chicago+more corruption if you decrease the corruption even a little bit u can get to how new york was a while ago and how the worst parts of town are its a REALISTIC view thats what most people are saying when they say dark because honestly if batman and his villains were real this is how it would be if it explains so much than how are you confused
FYI if u ever read the comics you would know batman begins is very accurate and meshed its own ra's al ghul villain story with the origin to create a belivable way to train batman yes the bat voice was annoying but u cant expect people to not recognize the famous guys voice and its absurd to research and find one thing criminals were afraid of a bat is generally seen as a dark mysterious creature and in many fantasies they appear to be scary the police are always there except for the explosion
the old one was stupid and unrealistic this movie takes a realistic view at this situation it is completely realistic and the reason that rachel said bruce's apartment was saved is because FYI BATMAN CAN SAVE RACHEL THERE he will always know exactlywhere she is if she stays there also if u didnt notice bruce has the secret compartment the only bad fight was the one at the end with the joker
i think you are trying too look way too deep into this movie, it is a comic book action movie with just enough depth to make it a bit more interesting... you interpreted some things too literal, but i noticed you did that in your no country for old men review as well... i also think that not releasing a movie due to an actors death would be an insult to one's work, they didn't market it "HEATH LEDGERS LAST PERFORMANCE YOU BETTER COME SEE OUR MOVIE," it was handled with great respect
No I assume when someone has to explain the reason for gotham city turning against Batman, the critic obviously wasn't paying attention. My girlfriend that had no clue about the Batman story understood what was going on and loved the movie. I do think the movie was too long though, almost a bit too dark for the Batman series, but Nolan wasn't going for a 60's Batman interpretation. He was going for a more realistic approach and one that was closely related to the comics.
I loved the film, but as usual the reel geezers are spot in in their criticisms. She's right that it plays down to the audience, she's right that it is a little pretentious in it's broad political undertones. The plot point she critiqued about Bruce Wayne's house is irrifutable.
You assume that just because she is an old woman, she lacks the sophistication to critique the movie on its merits. All art is subjective, you have the right not to agree, but to dismiss her opinion simply because of her age is simple prejudice. I believe its called ageism. FYI. Im a 48 year old male.
Does this guy have a Rock Shox sticker on his cane. I've watched it several times and feel it really is. That is honestly more funny than their skewed movie review.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It was boring. The plot was confuswd.The cinematography was lousy. The sets were stark.Two face was a better performance than Joker. Batmans voice sucked.The costume did not make me believe it was anything other than a guy in rubber,The direction SHOWED the director was an ex art house guy. people only made this a big hit becuse the medis TOLD them to . Sheep
You know what, you're absolutely right. It was too hyped up. Honestly, when I saw it, I thought it was a good movie, but I was a little confused at times. Sometimes the plot was too rushed and convoluted. However, I think that if you're a DC comics fan, specifically of Batman, then the movie would make more sense to you and appeal to you more. For people like me, who really aren't familiar with the details about the comic book world of Batman, we don't get that feeling when watching it.
Two face was a better performance than Joker ? Ha ha ha ha ha. Eckhart played himself.. same voice, same everything. Ledger drastically changed every little detail about himself for the role. Eckhart was good, Ledger was great.
Uh buddy everyone including critics and people in the film world consider it a great film... it's even being recognized by the AFI and BFI. Get over it. Nobody cares about your opinion and nobody will remember it.
These guys couldn't have missed the point more. I like them, and Lorenzo is very smart, but I have to disagree. The reason that Bruce Wayne's penthouse is the safest place in the city is because he's the motherfucking Batman. It took him about four seconds to subdue The Joker's men the last time they found their way there. Also, almost all of the marketing was based on Ledger before his death, and after his death the focus was taken off of Ledger out of respect. The film is not sophomoric at all
i hate to bad mouth these ppl but, it seems to me, and im sure other ppl would agree with me, that you guys are OUT OF TOUCH with today's movies.
To the rest of us this batman movie was not confusing, excellent plot, acting, chirography, and down right entertaining. Best batman ever made. The older batmans were too simplistic and redundant, I'm glad to see batman all grown up.
Normally, I like your reviews. On this one, I don't know.
First, Batman disguises his voice so that no one can tell it's him. Esp nowadays with voice regognition stuff out there. It makes sense. Also, the place Joker infiltrated wasn't wayne manor, but Wanye Enterprises office party.
Joker is psychopath who escaped Archam asylum in the first movie. No political statements were trying to be made. It was just Batman. The Vigilantee point is right on though. BTW: thanks God there's no Robin!
These reel geezers are so great. I haven't agreed with them yet, but I love their insight. She's wonderful at picking out undeniable plot flaws, while he has a real sense of what's acceptable thematically. These two are treasures of you tube.
THANK YOU for taking a level head to this movie. people got way too caught up in the hype and some of the moving scenes but failed to see how confused and intellectually 'sophomoric' as you say this was as a whole. great job again
Personaly I agree Koroko, the old lady didnt understand the movie at all, and the old man wanted to see his original crappy batman on the big screen. All I can say is they already tried the happy go-lucky batman twice....IT FAILED
why would the joker come back to bruce wayne penthouse when he thinks harvey dent is batman, the joker wants to go after harvey dent not bruce wayne , pay attention to the movie then you might understand it.
In case they are way out of touch with the Batman legacy. In Batman's first comic book appearances the Batman had a gun. Batman overall was a dark character. It was the comic book company who decided to add a Robin character for one reason to get more Young boys to read.
I normally love and completely agree with these two, but in this review i don't think they really grasped what was happening in the movie. Lorenzo is stuck in the past, and can't accept that batman as changed (the old shows were totally ridiculous btw), and Marcia's negative points were more due to her lack of understanding. The joker never got into Bruce's penthouse, and i found the action incredibly easy to follow. Of course I'm a lot younger than she is.
I think they made very good points...still, for me, the movie was fun and entertaining. In the end thats what people want when they go to the movies.. to be entertained ,,and DK did just that.
Oh goodness! I love these reviews and I love reading the comments!!! These are the hilariously jaded old-Hollywood types that we should look at as almost fossils. I LOVE hearing their venomous rantings about how things have changed for the worse and it really amuses me how people take this sort of thing seriously. Movies are just as trite and cliched as they've always been and yet we constantly flock to the theater.
This ol' fucker is in love with his craptastic Adam West Batman, he just admitted he's one of the fucks who screwed up Batman for the last 40 plus years.
This guy had Batman in the 60s fighting a shark with fuckin 'Bat Shark repellent' just look at this asshat's body of work Hamburger Hill? please he's no differnet than the idiots who wanted to turn Superman into Nic Cage with Tim Burton directing.
I think the movie is made for comic book fans who like their comics serious and dark rather than bright like the old Batman series. Maybe you think Batman should be campy like it used to be, and that's a valid sentiment. But I think the idea here was, "We know Batman couldn't really exist, but IF HE COULD, let's make THAT movie." The idea is to pretend he exists in our reality (maybe in 50 years, though). Is it any sillier than the rubber exploding shark in the Batman movie from the 60s? No.
Bale was released from jail after 4 hours because it was verbal assault (against his drunk sister and mother who were bashing him too, apparently) and there was no evidence.
if you were reviewing your own tv show you would say it was bland and cliched, today generation can deal with more dark movies, and btw what the hell is that crap about Nolan playing on the tragedy of 9/11 absolute crap
The choice of the makers of the dark knight to make batman a darker character was indeed to satisfy the younger generation of people. While the movie didn't follow the original comic books as devotedly or give a friendly feeling, it fit into this new era of movies that were tailored to be crowd pleasers. No matter how original, how intriguing your movie ideas are, if they aren't what the general public wants, they become failures.
Didn't follow the comics? A large part of the inspiration for the story and characters portrayals were taken from Batman #1 (1940), The Killing Joke (1988), Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989) and The Long Halloween (1996). They lifted at least one scene directly from the latter as well. Begins/TDK were much much closer to the source material than any previous live action Batman movies.
It has nothing to do with the "younger generation". Batman was always meant to be dark. The only, ONLY time he wasn't in the character's nearly 70 year history was from the mid to late 50s with the adding of silly Sci-Fi and fantasy elements and the comic code. It only lasted until around 1969 when Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams came on and basically saved the character from the camp insanity.
I'll give the show credit for bringing more attention to Batman though IMO it hurt the character as well.
I´ll take ´Lorenzo´s rendition of Batman and Flash Gordon ANYTIME over Nolan´s movies.
diuga1 1 day ago
All these stupid teenagers are just suffering from hype backlash
69HeywoodJablomie 2 months ago
This old prick wrote the Batman TV series. Therefore his opinion doesn't matter. Maybe he should team with Joel Schumacher for the next reboot if he doesn't understand subtlety and serious story telling.
spillfan1 2 months ago
@spillfan1 one thing is serious storytelling (like "Batman Begins), other is boring and sadistic storytelling (like the dark knight), I guess you love to play grand theft auto, right
crazytalkerman 2 months ago
Have you ever fucked your own mother?
@crazytalkerman
spillfan1 2 months ago
The safety aspect of Bruce Wayne's place is not that he can't get there but that Bruce Wayne is Batman, if anywhere in the city is going to be safe then it's Batman's place and nowhere else. She can't state that outright to Harvey without giving away Bruce's alter ego yet we the audience and she both know the truth behind what she is saying, I thought that was obvious.
ImaginedWriter 5 months ago
This isn't a Batman for the reviewer's generation, it's meant for an audience more desensitized to media violence. Also, the man was the only one making any sense. I assume the woman is his wife, and she really didn't understand the movie at all. Also, the main reviewer having written that dull, repetitive old TV series, is extremely biased. Why point out what he thinks are plot holes in this Batman when the one he wrote made no sense to begin with?
DulBeat 6 months ago
the dark knight is definitely the most overrated movie of all time. dont get me wrong i enjoyed the hell out of it but if heath ledger wasnt the joker and his tragic death didnt add hype to the movie it would not have been as successful as it was. on imdb it is rated as the 10th greatest of all time. if you think that this is better than fight club, good fellas, rear window, forest gump, saving private ryan, silence of the lambs and reservoir dogs, just to name a few, you need help.
carramrod721 9 months ago
well i think your comments are a little stupid, it is a serious movie and the old guy is biased because he wrote the original tv show and chris nolan has done it better
mrhammer1777 10 months ago
THANK GOD they think its overrated. as are all christopher nolan films
malows1234 11 months ago
@malows1234 wow......... your a complete fucking moron
mrhammer1777 10 months ago
@mrhammer1777 i am a moron for stating the facts? well, christopher nolan movies are overrated. inception is a well crafted yet uttterly pointless summer bloclbuster that people call a great film...... tdk- if you dont think tdk is overrated, then you dont know the definition of being overrated.
malows1234 10 months ago
TDK is NOT overrated. it's rated exactly where it should be.
uptownxgirlx 1 year ago
Like this review or not, they make a good argument and give some interesting points to consider.. I tend to disagree with some of the points and consider this movie to be quite good.
runnerpucci 1 year ago
It fascinates me to see what older people think of today's movies and I while I don't always agree with them. I appreciate their point of view.
RetroVGamer 1 year ago
Fuck the Reel Geezers
RorschachJournal85 1 year ago 2
great review, except for all the political ramblings. The movie is enjoyable as a thriller, anything more is what we bring to it, not what nolan was 'trying' to say.
followHimnotUs 1 year ago
Fuck you old faggots.
Nolanfan2001 1 year ago 2
It's the uptight grampas and grannies that make this world such a puritan place to live in. Why can't they realize that the world has changed since they were young and stop complaining? I bet you thought you two were going to see Matlock the movie. So there's that, and you probably didn't have time to take your third nap of the day before going to the movie.
SuperRichardNixon 1 year ago 4
@SuperRichardNixon dude its so overrated dark knight inception == overrated
malows1234 11 months ago
@malows1234 No body gives a shit about your opinion jizz jar. You can't take away the fact that those films were successful.
SuperRichardNixon 11 months ago
@SuperRichardNixon bro Transformers 2 was also very sucessful, along with Hancock, so lets not be judging a movies greatness by the amount of money it makes ok? And many critics say financial sucess is a dead give away of movie being good not legendary. They say it because, if a movie is to be that sucessful, that means they have to make concessions on their storyline and add things in like action which may not be needed in order for them to appeal to more people.
malows1234 11 months ago
@SuperRichardNixon Stanley Kubrick once said a movie that appeals to mass audience, or is too clear in its storytelling, and unambiguous is a blockbuster, not great cinema. he said this in regards to movies such as jurrasic park 3, titanic, speed. And i thinkwe can put dark knight in that group.
I dont give a fuck if u think they are good movies its your opinion
Dont say they are good movies because they are sucessful, cause it just makes ur opinion harder to defend
malows1234 11 months ago
@malows1234 Grow up little man. They're just movies.
spillfan1 11 months ago
@malows1234
But there's a difference between this film and titanic and speed and jurassic park 3...this movie is not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of nonsense, but to compare this to those, it's like, I dunno, McDonald's with InNOut or something.
blaklodge 7 months ago
@blaklodge well dark knight is a mark above those other movies, but its stil the same as them, cause there was no reason for the action sequences to be there you know? like that movie would have been super great and atmospheric if it stayed completely serious and stayed away from the childish bat pod sequence, i mean imagine if it had no silly action sequences. it would be like a character study/crime epic on the level of heat/departed. man, nolan is great, i just wish he didn't sell out.....
malows1234 7 months ago
@malows1234 he didn´t sell out, the action scenes are short and bad
crazytalkerman 7 months ago
@SuperRichardNixon You're literally a child. Sorry you can't handle opinions different than yours
gnarlybirdman 5 months ago
I think that movie critics are pointless, because as the old adage says 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'
I'm not talking about this film but all films in general, don't listen to any reviews, just go out to the cinema watch and make your own mind up.......
maxrome67 1 year ago
You old fucks can go straight to hell. Was the theater not serving any prune juice when you saw this film?
itputsthelotion1 1 year ago 7
Reelgeezers, your name sadly speaks for itself.....
drumking1006 1 year ago 2
WOW
Just because you worked on the Adam West version of Batman(a product of it's time) does NOT mean it was more faithful than The Dark Knight. Quite the opposite. This film was very faithful to the character of Bruce Wayne and got everything right. The "criminals all being afraid of bats" thing was a thing made up by the creators of the 60s show, and was NOT a thing in the comic. The thing in the comic is what is in these new movies. Bats are what Bruce Wayne fears.
JangoFett07 1 year ago
just tell yourselves you're lucky enough to see this movie at your age that is closer to the end!
kfki 1 year ago
@kfki You're p. dumb.
mattress58 1 year ago
Thanks dudes. Such burning intelligence. Agree on our Heath. Damn, damn, damn. We hurt on that down here.
Tom5578 1 year ago
These guys should review Shortbus...
DimpleScot 1 year ago
I would agree with many of your plot points, but when it comes to the darkness of the characters and the character of batman, this had evolved from COMIC BOOKS, not a classic TV show. And as far as the pg 13 part, really watch a kids tv show or play a video game, I mean there is so much violence in society that this movie really comes off as soft and comical rather than violent
younling 1 year ago
Unfortunately, you guys are a bit antiquated to post this review. The Batman of the 1960's was a campy goofball. But if that's what you like and appreciate, fine. But the character was redefined several times and a new generation calls for a new, darker hero. Really, stick to Driving Miss Daisy.
redmrlove13 1 year ago
you guys truly suck at reviewing first you talk crap about into the wild and now this!
slye1991 2 years ago
I can't agree. I don't know, but something in Dark Knight was operatic, mythological and Shakespearian. I'll have to watch it again.
wasteland70 2 years ago
yes....i agree...shouldn't be PG13, way to violent
checkthetoiletpaper 2 years ago
She hit the nail on the head when she said the film plays DOWN to the audience.
drlee2 2 years ago
are they a married couple?
jimpurdie 2 years ago
O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D
even b. begins is better than this
marvincontendo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finally, an honest, truthful review. Kids...listen to your elders.
LaurenceRoques 2 years ago 4
Great review as always!
Love your videos.
linocoria 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow...you pulled the "death of ledger" card out to bring this movie down. good job old hag
rapsucks9000 2 years ago
she was pretty much right though, I think that had a huge impact on the movie's hype
Gibson889 2 years ago
i found this review quite refreshing actually, because they bring a fresh perspective to a film that's perhaps overtly-lauded by the modern audience. they pointed out certain aspects of the film that i didn't think of, even though they made sense when you think back. i guess movies had a higher standard back then, not to mention less violent, because i disagree with the film being overly violent. i mean it's pg13, not r rated.
itsbaoyourhomie 2 years ago
this is a real weak, ill-informed, and confused review
garythetramp 2 years ago
omg...is he seriously comparing 60's batman to modern batman....batman was totally revamped, he has had a darker tone and personality ever since frank miller wrote the dark knight. don't listen to this old man, he is upset they didn't play the goodie goodie batman in the movie. Batman uses fear as his weapon, not catchy phrases and smiles. God these old ppl piss me off.
farizzal 2 years ago
yeah... wait till it's your turn to be old-- you'll know how it feels when what you were used to become "modernized".
vertigo502 2 years ago
yea well i think its pretty "modern" of them to review current movies, and if they are gonna do that they shouldnt compare it to their nostalgic views of what the film should be, just let it be and don't be so fucking biased.
farizzal 2 years ago
the guy was actually wrote batman stories- and dude, when you give an opinion, it's your bias- "opinion" is a euphemism for bias, under which the word of a critic would fall. so, he didn't like our batman- he had his own- let him enjoy his own batman.
vertigo502 2 years ago
yea hes giving his opinion, but he isnt reviewing the film by itself, he's talking about how the old one was so much better. i hate when ppl do that, not letting something be by itself, its just annoying.
farizzal 2 years ago
well, you know what- you just admitted that you hate them because they didn't like your version.
- the oldies have the version they like
- the moderns have the version they like
oldies and moderns do not like each other's version. and they both have the right to hate each others' versions.
everyone now thinks that movies are better because of cgi- (years from now a new generation will say the same). just like the 80s nostalgia, you guys will say, well we were the original (despite remakes).
vertigo502 2 years ago
no, i wouldnt. I would look at THAT film, say how it was by itself, then review the old one that i grew up with, and see which one is better as a movie in the whole. Im not gonna like my shit cuz its "modern" and shit, for example the original superman kicks superman returns' ass, so im not biased like these geezers.
farizzal 2 years ago
man, i just don't understand what you are trying to say by not being biased. you just written repeatedly, that these people pissed you off- you even said you hate it that people just don't let it by itself, i gather that you meant, the dark knight being criticized by itself (and not referred to other versions?)- but now you also said, you would review two versions and choose which one is better?- well, that means, you will have a preference and someone will say you are biased.
vertigo502 2 years ago
I just don't like that these ppl that are clearly too attached to their own time to give this movie a fair review are being put in the spotlight. I agree with you about matters of taste, I just dont think these reviewers are anywhere near professional.
farizzal 2 years ago
if you say they are biased because they preferred one version, then anyone can also say you are biased by preferring your own. but in matters of taste there is no argument- this means, people like something for their own reasons- there is no right or wrong choice, it's simply taste, and sometimes, a lot of people have the same taste, a few differ. but bias only occurs when there is actually a correct or wrong choice (or at least an approximate resolution)- e.g., is tom taller than katie?
vertigo502 2 years ago
ok if i was to review two movies, I wouldnt compare them to other versions of that genre and say oh its not good because it doesnt have these elements of the other version, I would review them on their own qualities. And btw i never said i prefer the modern version, lol.
farizzal 2 years ago
I loved everything about the movie, but i agree with this review 100%
DulBeat 2 years ago
a very good perspective of the movie...loved it...
bharatmisr 2 years ago
I 100% agree with these points. NOBODY is doubting that this is a good film, however it is probably the MOST over-rated film of all time.
Take away The Joker, and this would be a SHIT film. It all rides on him.
DrewCameron 2 years ago 7
Right. But its the same with the comic.This makes it faithful.
MrMoneyclips 2 years ago
take the joker away and u still have a smart, emotional, funny brilliant script
if u say this movie is "shit" without the joker then u dont know what good movies are
xboyo123 2 years ago
@DrewCameron Batman Begins didn't have The Joker, and that movie was awesome. People that go around saying The Joker saved The Dark Knight, don't even need to talk about the film. TDK was made for the fans of Batman and Chris Nolan.
drumking1006 1 year ago
This is a very insightful review. Love to hear your thoughtful perspectives.
tadamori 2 years ago
This is the lowest-rated of Marcia and Lorenzo's reviews because fanboys who don't like anybody badmouthing their precious flick take it personally. These two have been in the business four times longer than most of us have even been alive, they are certainly entitled to their (very well-educated) opinions. I personally liked this movie, but was confused and underwhelmed by it. Since when do mud, blood and gravelly voices make films "realistic"? Overrated in my book.
cometrally 2 years ago 3
I forgot, Bob Cane thought "Batman" was the batman he created, which was the same level as "The Dark Knight", so you have no right to compare the old cheezy no good plot tv show, which destroyed batman's orginal dark reputation, thank god for "The Dark Knight"
lemus869 2 years ago
You old geezers should stop hitting the boos in the background, because the dark knight is the best comic book movie, not the best movie, just keep watching batman & robin!!!!
lemus869 2 years ago
Lorenzo, while the Batman TV show was faithful to the Silver Age comics, the original Golden Age Batman was very different. He was much darker in the '40s than the '60s. He returned to being dark in the '70s, and has remained so.
That's the ORIGINAL character, and that's how he's been portrayed for MOST of his 70-year history. The TV show just happened to come during the 20 years when he WASN'T a dark character.
I like the Adam West Batman, but he has little in common with the original Batman.
jamesoblivion 2 years ago 3
Marcia, if this is the most incompetent police force you've ever seen, watch the 1989 Batman. After killing numerous people, Joker tells the cops exactly where to find him, and when...but they're apparently too busy eating donuts to arrest the mass killer.
And on the TV show, weren't there only two cops in all of Gotham City? Gordon and O'Hara? And they never really left Police Headquarters. They just called Batman.
In The Dark Knight, the police arrest practically every gangster in the city.
jamesoblivion 2 years ago 3
Amazing performance from Heath Ledger, but still an extremely boring movie that is way too overrated.
salibubba 2 years ago
i love your reviews, and i appreciate how you create your own opinions instead of blindly praising movies for no apparent reason like critics of today do, no country for old men and the dark knight certainly come to mind. i agree wholeheartedly with everything you two have mentioned in this review, and it's obvious you two know what you're talking about and appreciate the core fundamental of a film which is its story.
ImTylerDurden99 2 years ago
Also, in terms of the overall feeling of the movie, it really falls into the film noir genre, which isn't often critiqued for that aspect.
Spo8 2 years ago
Don't know if I would really flog the movie for taking a different route with the franchise. You can dock it for the plot, but not simply because it takes a very different, dark approach to it.
Although that's really cool that Lorenzo wrote the first television Batman.
Spo8 2 years ago
Wow! one of the most satisfying reviews of a movie I have ever heard. I followed Lorenzo from the Wikipedia entry for Three days of Condor and here I was with two intelligent, honest and thoughful reviewers.. cheers .. u guys rock!
arvindh54 3 years ago
i loved this movie, but i do agree with the geezers.
MarmiteGivesLife 3 years ago 2
batman would refuse to park in a no parking zone eh? now that's misplaced self-righteousness
suchAnoob 3 years ago
no it's "The Godfather" of our time. Not "Clockwork Orange"!!!!!
DrDMovieMadness 3 years ago
this movie should have been "R" But this was a fantastic Film. And i think it's the best film i ever seen in the teater in a very long time. But i get what u guys are saying. At ur age u might see it as a different perspective
DrDMovieMadness 3 years ago
i disagree strongly with this review. Its an intense crime drama.
therevEJW 3 years ago 2
OMG perfect review! i couldn't agree more
gcsilva 3 years ago 2
Yeah I'm not listening to the guy that wrote Never Say Never Again(the worst Bond movie ever) and the terrible 1976 King Kong :)
argentozombi 3 years ago
I agree with Marcia. This movie was TOTAL CRAP
LickMyCuntMoFo 3 years ago
in my opinion they are square on.
i also think that the film is popular because of Ledger dying, although he was good, the lines were too odvious and contrived, to the point of Clee Che.
rorrt 3 years ago
and the batman was first orginaly a comic book. so how do u know that the makers of the batman didnt want the batman to have a dark low voice he is the batman. when i watched the cartoons and the other movies that was not how i pictrued batman after the comic books
KAMEHAMEHA0017 3 years ago
omfg why are they even talking. rachal dawes said bruce wayne is the safest place b/c hes the batman. not b/c the penthouse had so much security its b/c wayne is batman and will protect her. and the voice true it was not in the cartoons but i think it was a neccsary change looking at the other batman films them talking reguraly made them less scarier and less powerful. this movie had such a great plot,directing, and writing this movie is the best movie ever
KAMEHAMEHA0017 3 years ago
There are some points to what they said, but you have to realize we are in the 21st century.our time has been jaded by violence of an extraordinary nature.we look at things like 911,school shootings,and worse on tv.Batman being pg13 wouldn't have the same rating in the 80s i guarantee it.And the plot is simple really.i didn't get Batman's voice either,but couldn't one relate to 2Face's helplessness,Bruce's struggle with good and evil,any of it? if you couldn't see any of THAT then you're blind.
Jokerfest 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
these old ppl hit it right on the head, this movie sucks bad
miffed123 3 years ago
Sory if anyone else posted this. The criticism that Wayne's penthouse/ apartment being the safest place in Gotham a half hour after the Joker breaks in is completely nonsensical. Rachel's quote specifically to the fact that Wayne's penthouse was turned into the safest place in Gotham after the Joker broke in. Wayne stepped up the security after the break in.
moviedude13791 3 years ago
When Rachel says "Bruce Wayne's house is the safest place in the city", she is referring to Batman's underground bat bunker. She's not going to say that directly to Harvey. She knows Batman's place is the safest - SHE IS REFERRING TO THE UNDERGROUND BAT BUNKER.
peteagassi 3 years ago
when rachel said that wayne's penthouse is the safiest place she was not referring to the security of the penthouse. joker broke into several banks im sure he can break any secruity. rachel meant that wayne will protect her b/c hes batman and he cares for her. And when joker did break in guess who protected her.
KAMEHAMEHA0017 3 years ago
LOL. Marcia really says it for me, I totally agree with everything she says about this film. It was really confusing, and very hard to understand, but in the way that the director was almost laughing at me. I understand that your trying to push a point, but the fact that you had to push it on me, really put me off. I watched half of it, and took a nap, and told my boyfriend to wake me up when the ending gets around to happening.
This is not Batman, I like Batman, but this is not Batman.
blueoceanpride 3 years ago
OLD PEOPLE DON'T GET THE DARK KNIGHT. Why don't you guys go read a BATMAN comic, and then maybe you'll understand why the movie was the way it was.
peteagassi 3 years ago
THE FILM WAS NOT BASED ON THE DC COMICS OF BATMAN, you tit.
THEY WERE BASED 100% ON THE "DARK KNIGHT" (have you heard of them, there actually pretty average) BY THE MOST OVERATED COMIC BOOK ARTIST EVER, MR FRANK MILLER.
the story should have just been, parents killed (we're not sure whom by, it changes from film to film). he is angry and dresses like a bat and seeks that no 1 need die from crime (well thats the jist of it)
there is no mention of anything else, because its a different comic
rorrt 3 years ago
This film is not at all based on Frank Miller's Batman books. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You either haven't seen this movie or haven't read Miller's books if you're going to make a completely idiotic and false statement like that.
fearembodied 3 years ago
Hey, you, TIT! IT is based on the early comics 1930s-40s and the comics in the 80s that include frank miller's. The Joker lack of origin, etc. was drawn straight from his first appearance in 1940s. Do your research before you call people TITS, you TIT!
peteagassi 3 years ago
Even now, 7 years after her death, I still wonder what Pauline Kael would think of the current films playing in our multiplexes. Marcia and Lorenzo are the next best thing.
CanuckEditorguy 3 years ago
did these two see the same movie as all of us?
DoubleAAProduction88 3 years ago
nobody sees the same movie. everyone has different views about the same thing. just because you may not agree with them doesn't make them wrong.
kt4936 3 years ago 7
i stumbled across your reviews today, and have had a great time watching the various reviews.
i find your insights rather refreshing, and even though i disagree about The Dark Knight (i thought is was really good, if anything due to the excellent performances by the cast), i think the reasoning behind your views on the movie were excellent.
not everybody likes the same things, but very few people can express WHY it is they dislike what they dislike, and in a civil, entertaining manner to boot.
Figboy 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Somebody kill these two geezers.
DeAnte85 3 years ago
fuck you dude, these two old folk are rad as all hell.
you should go play in traffic if you don't like them .
ruobhad 3 years ago 2
"Clockwork Orange was a serious picture in every way... " no it wasn't... and that's what's so great about it, that it doesn't take rape, murder and violence seriously, it doesn't follow the "right" values of society, this film has nothing to do with clockwork orange except for the fact that maybe the joker was slightly based on that character other than that it is a social critic... and yeah maybe it was way too hip for the geezers this time.
acwobsk 3 years ago
Just because the band of ultra-violent men in Clockwork did not follow the right values of society, it does not mean the film is about not following the right values of society. And that's not why it's a great film. The violence comically portrayed in Clockwork were not meant to amuse, but disgust. I think Clockwork is a deeply moral and ironically serious film. But ur right, Batman has nothing to do with Clockwork... like what ?
cubes11 3 years ago 2
He's right when he say's the movie was playing down to fan boys. That's exactly what it was, a fan-service. You can plainly see that even in all the comments here from angry fan boys. I don't necessarily think staying true to the source material is always in the best interest of a movie, either. It's a different medium and should be approached in a different way. That's why so many comic book movies are awful. It just doesn't translate. They are also correct that Ledger was the best part.
ProudAnselmo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
teh dark night was evil devil worship, batman kil pepels an wore devil horns wile but fuking a clown. gay devil worship.
ferango222 3 years ago
gotham is new york+chicago+more corruption if you decrease the corruption even a little bit u can get to how new york was a while ago and how the worst parts of town are its a REALISTIC view thats what most people are saying when they say dark because honestly if batman and his villains were real this is how it would be if it explains so much than how are you confused
GuitarIsSick96 3 years ago
FYI if u ever read the comics you would know batman begins is very accurate and meshed its own ra's al ghul villain story with the origin to create a belivable way to train batman yes the bat voice was annoying but u cant expect people to not recognize the famous guys voice and its absurd to research and find one thing criminals were afraid of a bat is generally seen as a dark mysterious creature and in many fantasies they appear to be scary the police are always there except for the explosion
GuitarIsSick96 3 years ago
the old one was stupid and unrealistic this movie takes a realistic view at this situation it is completely realistic and the reason that rachel said bruce's apartment was saved is because FYI BATMAN CAN SAVE RACHEL THERE he will always know exactlywhere she is if she stays there also if u didnt notice bruce has the secret compartment the only bad fight was the one at the end with the joker
GuitarIsSick96 3 years ago
I totally disagree with everything they say. Why? The guy wrote the batman television series. enough said.
shoesarenice 3 years ago 2
i think you are trying too look way too deep into this movie, it is a comic book action movie with just enough depth to make it a bit more interesting... you interpreted some things too literal, but i noticed you did that in your no country for old men review as well... i also think that not releasing a movie due to an actors death would be an insult to one's work, they didn't market it "HEATH LEDGERS LAST PERFORMANCE YOU BETTER COME SEE OUR MOVIE," it was handled with great respect
SpringSauce23 3 years ago
Did... not... understand... film. End of.
Skeet171 3 years ago
The guy seemed to understand it 100%. Probably more than you did.
DrewCameron 2 years ago
i dont like the girl. I never agree with her. I agree with the guy sometimes (not in this review), but the girl in my opinion is really annoying.
farc300 3 years ago
Uhh, girl?
mebee4 3 years ago
sorry i meant the lady.
farc300 3 years ago
Hee =)
mebee4 3 years ago
I think the only thing I agree in this review is the last point made about Bale.
Neonman78 3 years ago
No I assume when someone has to explain the reason for gotham city turning against Batman, the critic obviously wasn't paying attention. My girlfriend that had no clue about the Batman story understood what was going on and loved the movie. I do think the movie was too long though, almost a bit too dark for the Batman series, but Nolan wasn't going for a 60's Batman interpretation. He was going for a more realistic approach and one that was closely related to the comics.
tailgtr24 3 years ago
I loved the film, but as usual the reel geezers are spot in in their criticisms. She's right that it plays down to the audience, she's right that it is a little pretentious in it's broad political undertones. The plot point she critiqued about Bruce Wayne's house is irrifutable.
epstone1 3 years ago
watch batman begins and maybe you wouldn't be so confused, and the movie wasn't made for an old woman
tailgtr24 3 years ago
You assume that just because she is an old woman, she lacks the sophistication to critique the movie on its merits. All art is subjective, you have the right not to agree, but to dismiss her opinion simply because of her age is simple prejudice. I believe its called ageism. FYI. Im a 48 year old male.
UberAnglo 3 years ago 3
there is a reason old people hate No Country for Old Men and The Dark Knight, they can't take pessimism.
3SirCrimson3 3 years ago
Dark Knight=Best Movie Ever
pooop64 3 years ago
is the lady fucking lost?
randyf10 3 years ago
Does this guy have a Rock Shox sticker on his cane. I've watched it several times and feel it really is. That is honestly more funny than their skewed movie review.
therighttobeararms 3 years ago
Honestly, though, I really didn't see ANY flaws WHATSOEVER with this movie. Everyone should see this movie at least 10 times before they die.
rockfictionaire 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It was boring. The plot was confuswd.The cinematography was lousy. The sets were stark.Two face was a better performance than Joker. Batmans voice sucked.The costume did not make me believe it was anything other than a guy in rubber,The direction SHOWED the director was an ex art house guy. people only made this a big hit becuse the medis TOLD them to . Sheep
TrueDavebucket 3 years ago
it sounds like your trying hard to invent reasons to knock the movie just 'cause you want to be controversial because people liked it. Grow up.
Kimnes86 3 years ago 5
You know what, you're absolutely right. It was too hyped up. Honestly, when I saw it, I thought it was a good movie, but I was a little confused at times. Sometimes the plot was too rushed and convoluted. However, I think that if you're a DC comics fan, specifically of Batman, then the movie would make more sense to you and appeal to you more. For people like me, who really aren't familiar with the details about the comic book world of Batman, we don't get that feeling when watching it.
shrubhuntertran13578 3 years ago
Two face was a better performance than Joker ? Ha ha ha ha ha. Eckhart played himself.. same voice, same everything. Ledger drastically changed every little detail about himself for the role. Eckhart was good, Ledger was great.
kthevsd 2 years ago
Awful movie.
LickMyCuntMoFo 2 years ago
Awful ? Maybe in your opinion, 8 oscar noms speak for themselves.
BrandoAndDeNiro 2 years ago
Uh, those 8 NOMS., besides Heath Ledger's Nom, where in techinal categories, that doesn't make it good, that makes it well made. Dumbass.
And besides, the movie deserves nothing. Except someone to take a pile of shit on the celluloid.
LickMyCuntMoFo 2 years ago
Uh buddy everyone including critics and people in the film world consider it a great film... it's even being recognized by the AFI and BFI. Get over it. Nobody cares about your opinion and nobody will remember it.
BrandoAndDeNiro 2 years ago
exactly
this is the best superhero film ever made
its script is soooo clever and it gets better with repeat viewings
xboyo123 2 years ago
You must have a lot of time on your hands.
sharonz113 3 years ago
you bet
rockfictionaire 3 years ago
These guys couldn't have missed the point more. I like them, and Lorenzo is very smart, but I have to disagree. The reason that Bruce Wayne's penthouse is the safest place in the city is because he's the motherfucking Batman. It took him about four seconds to subdue The Joker's men the last time they found their way there. Also, almost all of the marketing was based on Ledger before his death, and after his death the focus was taken off of Ledger out of respect. The film is not sophomoric at all
rockufaler 3 years ago 3
i hate to bad mouth these ppl but, it seems to me, and im sure other ppl would agree with me, that you guys are OUT OF TOUCH with today's movies.
To the rest of us this batman movie was not confusing, excellent plot, acting, chirography, and down right entertaining. Best batman ever made. The older batmans were too simplistic and redundant, I'm glad to see batman all grown up.
Morcridx1 3 years ago 5
this movie has been rated at 94%
this is the best batman movie ever made.
great movie
Morcridx1 3 years ago
you are dumbasses, more proof the older you get the more out of touch you get
anwsers08 3 years ago
Normally, I like your reviews. On this one, I don't know.
First, Batman disguises his voice so that no one can tell it's him. Esp nowadays with voice regognition stuff out there. It makes sense. Also, the place Joker infiltrated wasn't wayne manor, but Wanye Enterprises office party.
Joker is psychopath who escaped Archam asylum in the first movie. No political statements were trying to be made. It was just Batman. The Vigilantee point is right on though. BTW: thanks God there's no Robin!
afewgoodclips 3 years ago
These reel geezers are so great. I haven't agreed with them yet, but I love their insight. She's wonderful at picking out undeniable plot flaws, while he has a real sense of what's acceptable thematically. These two are treasures of you tube.
epstone1 3 years ago 2
I love your reviews... but the joker didn't invade Bruce Wayne's house. He invaded what looked like an office
pswinford8 3 years ago
Jesus sky-diving Christ, this is possibly the worst review I have ever seen for a movie on youtube.
dmlr1 3 years ago
'it was too confusing'
'THEY EXPLAIN EVERYTHING 5 TIMES'
these are the worst old people to ever live on this planet.
HELLOPEOPLEPEOPLEHI 3 years ago
THANK YOU for taking a level head to this movie. people got way too caught up in the hype and some of the moving scenes but failed to see how confused and intellectually 'sophomoric' as you say this was as a whole. great job again
tuttidog 3 years ago
Personaly I agree Koroko, the old lady didnt understand the movie at all, and the old man wanted to see his original crappy batman on the big screen. All I can say is they already tried the happy go-lucky batman twice....IT FAILED
UnderDProductions 3 years ago
why would the joker come back to bruce wayne penthouse when he thinks harvey dent is batman, the joker wants to go after harvey dent not bruce wayne , pay attention to the movie then you might understand it.
kylesteven724 3 years ago
this is a great review. Though I think the movie is great too.
good point that "bruce's apartment is the safest place to be".. is pretty stupid considering the joker JUST broke into it.
and they're right about people wanting the dark perspective
thparadox 3 years ago
bruce's apartment WAS the safest place to be because Bruce also happens to be Batman
poobustank 3 years ago
In case they are way out of touch with the Batman legacy. In Batman's first comic book appearances the Batman had a gun. Batman overall was a dark character. It was the comic book company who decided to add a Robin character for one reason to get more Young boys to read.
dkminion 3 years ago 2
These two are way too old to understand this movie. The guy is stuck in the past and the lady just had no idea what was going on.
Bad review.
KorokoMaoriBoy 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah the joker is really the only good thing about this movie. Hes brillient.
racsonam 3 years ago
I normally love and completely agree with these two, but in this review i don't think they really grasped what was happening in the movie. Lorenzo is stuck in the past, and can't accept that batman as changed (the old shows were totally ridiculous btw), and Marcia's negative points were more due to her lack of understanding. The joker never got into Bruce's penthouse, and i found the action incredibly easy to follow. Of course I'm a lot younger than she is.
Tremblay343 3 years ago 3
I think they made very good points...still, for me, the movie was fun and entertaining. In the end thats what people want when they go to the movies.. to be entertained ,,and DK did just that.
Mousea1a 3 years ago
Oh goodness! I love these reviews and I love reading the comments!!! These are the hilariously jaded old-Hollywood types that we should look at as almost fossils. I LOVE hearing their venomous rantings about how things have changed for the worse and it really amuses me how people take this sort of thing seriously. Movies are just as trite and cliched as they've always been and yet we constantly flock to the theater.
ieashaluv 3 years ago
This ol' fucker is in love with his craptastic Adam West Batman, he just admitted he's one of the fucks who screwed up Batman for the last 40 plus years.
deemar325 3 years ago 2
excellent review!
reddropdrop 3 years ago
Excellent?
This guy had Batman in the 60s fighting a shark with fuckin 'Bat Shark repellent' just look at this asshat's body of work Hamburger Hill? please he's no differnet than the idiots who wanted to turn Superman into Nic Cage with Tim Burton directing.
deemar325 3 years ago
I think the movie is made for comic book fans who like their comics serious and dark rather than bright like the old Batman series. Maybe you think Batman should be campy like it used to be, and that's a valid sentiment. But I think the idea here was, "We know Batman couldn't really exist, but IF HE COULD, let's make THAT movie." The idea is to pretend he exists in our reality (maybe in 50 years, though). Is it any sillier than the rubber exploding shark in the Batman movie from the 60s? No.
jupitertronic 3 years ago 4
I agree with the reelgeezers 100%. Great review. The second half with Two Face was simply laughable.
Xenu 3 years ago
except for the fact that it was
you know
perfect.
HELLOPEOPLEPEOPLEHI 3 years ago 2
yeah
Bale was released from jail after 4 hours because it was verbal assault (against his drunk sister and mother who were bashing him too, apparently) and there was no evidence.
HELLOPEOPLEPEOPLEHI 3 years ago
if you were reviewing your own tv show you would say it was bland and cliched, today generation can deal with more dark movies, and btw what the hell is that crap about Nolan playing on the tragedy of 9/11 absolute crap
soccerboysteve78 3 years ago
The choice of the makers of the dark knight to make batman a darker character was indeed to satisfy the younger generation of people. While the movie didn't follow the original comic books as devotedly or give a friendly feeling, it fit into this new era of movies that were tailored to be crowd pleasers. No matter how original, how intriguing your movie ideas are, if they aren't what the general public wants, they become failures.
justtv321 3 years ago
Didn't follow the comics? A large part of the inspiration for the story and characters portrayals were taken from Batman #1 (1940), The Killing Joke (1988), Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989) and The Long Halloween (1996). They lifted at least one scene directly from the latter as well. Begins/TDK were much much closer to the source material than any previous live action Batman movies.
lPHOENIXZEROl 3 years ago 6
It has nothing to do with the "younger generation". Batman was always meant to be dark. The only, ONLY time he wasn't in the character's nearly 70 year history was from the mid to late 50s with the adding of silly Sci-Fi and fantasy elements and the comic code. It only lasted until around 1969 when Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams came on and basically saved the character from the camp insanity.
I'll give the show credit for bringing more attention to Batman though IMO it hurt the character as well.
lPHOENIXZEROl 3 years ago 3
Exactly
deemar325 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I can't take anything Lorenzo Semple Jr. Has to say about Batman seriously.