Batman Begins

[Mark]

I'm really looking forward to this one.

Me, too! I haven't minded any of the actors who have played Batman but. at the same time, none of them have struck me as the ultimate Batman portrayal yet.

 

[DonTadow]

Too old?!?!?!!! Based on what? The next leading actor play to play Batman, Val "I coulda been a 21 Jumpstreet cop" Kilmer?


Sorry, bro, but director Tim Burton casted Keaton right in the first place.

UM... based off of the comic book , batmans not some 40 year old geaser. HE's a freaking built like a house genious . The closer you get to that the more accurate you are.

Keaton was balding with the physique of a 45 year old whom jogs every now and then. Sure he acted well but visually i never bought him in the part.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Ditto on Keaton not working. IMO Tim Burton was the worst thing to happen to Batman...Schumacher just took what he started and ran it into the ground

I was really dissapointed with Clooney. When he was announced, I had visions of Seth from From Dusk til Dawn. He was a convincing badass and Clooney already showed how charming he could be in movies like Out of Sight.

Then I saw the movie. The horror. At least I didn't pay to see it.

Not his fault IMO, I think he got screwed over by Shumacher and co. He had the potential to easily be the best Batman.

 

[EricNoah]

I liked the Burton/Keaton films; was so-so on the Kilmer one, and was extremely disappointed in the Clooney one. Looking forward to viewing this new film.

 

[DonTadow]

"I didnt need some molded chest... that was all West... and what ever happened to the battootsy"- Adam West

 

[Ranger REG]

Keaton as Batman was bad. Pouting lips do not an intimidating expression make. Plus the script had Batman killing, which isn't a very Batman thing to do.

As Bruce Wayne he wasn't much better either. He looked to distracted, too bumbling (even when he was alone with Alfred).

And theres the phisique du role. He just didn't look the part, and it hurt his performance.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, Keaton was spot on, Kilmer was too young, and Clooney had the chin (so's Patrick Warburton but he's The Tick) but Jim Carrey as Riddler (not Ahnold as Mr. Freeze) mangled that third film.

-- not a Jim Carrey fan.

 

[Klaus]

Agreeing to Disagreeing here.

And let's not forget Tommy Lee Jones totally unappropriate portrayal of Two-Face!

 

[Felon]

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. To me, Keaton was spot on.

Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.

"Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.

A lot of folks really have their blinders on when it comes to the Burton's Batman. We had Keaton running around in a stiff-necked outfit as Batman for a few minutes, with the majority of his scenes in his Bruce Wayne alter ego, where he portrayed that side of the character as a Bob-Newhartesque bumbling, stammering socially-retarded twit. Then we had Nicholson's fat, frumpy Joker, wearing some cool outfits but not saying anything particularly witty or doing anything particularly humorous.

A very goofy movie, with way too much winking at the camera.

 

[DonTadow]

Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.

"Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.

A lot of folks really have their blinders on when it comes to the Burton's Batman. We had Keaton running around in a stiff-necked outfit as Batman for a few minutes, with the majority of his scenes in his Bruce Wayne alter ego, where he portrayed that side of the character as a Bob-Newhartesque bumbling, stammering socially-retarded twit. Then we had Nicholson's fat, frumpy Joker, wearing some cool outfits but not saying anything particularly witty or doing anything particularly humorous.

A very goofy movie, with way too much winking at the camera.

I'd have to agree to agree

I think it was the less of 4 evils but evil none the less. I enjoyed the first two films but it wasn't the batman I had read. OH my, I disagree with whomever said the quips about mr. freeze and riddler (both were terrible but not hte worst). The worst was man in black as two faced. Two faced is such a great character and a great character for a movie and it was totally destroyed. The makeup was horrible (his face is not evenly divided in the comic) and there was no sense of humanity vs. monster that hte comic portrays.

 

[Ranger REG]

Spot on, despite all of the things that have been mentioned--the pouty lips, the weak voice, the shortness, the age, and in general a physique that couldn't even begin to be described as athletic. Do you disagree that Keaton possessed these attributes, or do you simply feel Batman doesn't need a strong visage, a powerful voice, or a heroic physique? Both are equally impossible positions to defend.

"Agree to disagree" is probably the best stance for you take. There's no way you can actually back up an assessment of "spot on" for something so horribly off the mark.

A lot of folks really have their blinders on when it comes to the Burton's Batman.

Is that an attack against me? A Felon wants to attack me?