I'm Batman

[ehowton]

I have not yet seen the movie. I heard it was really good. I heard that it did very well at the box office. I'm getting a lot of 'I told you so.' Its this last part which has me confused. You hedged your bet based on speculation. As did the studio. There was no guarantee for its success.

I heard in the news the reason it did so well at the box office opening weekend was that most people went to see it because Heath Ledger died. I don't understand that. When I see it, it won't be to see some actor who later died. Why is that such a draw? There are no words I can think of to explain it. I'll want to see it because I enjoyed the first one, and I heard that this was a spectacular movie.

You said it was going to do well because it was going to be such a great movie, which, as it turned out, it was. But that's not why it did so well opening weekend. So which is it? And furthermore, how do you justify your answer?

Lastly, because I won't take my son to see The Dark Knight I bought the 1966 original Batman: The Movie I saw in theaters in the late 70s.

He'll probably hate me.

Comments

[swashbuckler332.livejournal.com]

I thought the film was very good, but I also have the reservation that there is a lot of hyperbole going around about it that would make it difficult for any movie, regardless of how good it is, to live up to. It is not flawless (parts of it are ham-handed, it is a bit too long) but it is a very intense experience.

If you're old-fashioned or new-fashioned, this is a movie for adults, not children. There are several very disturbing sequences in it, the issues being more tonal than graphic (although there is some of that as well, especially with respect to Two-Face). It is sort of Heat meets SE7EN, if that helps to explain it (SE7EN actually being a good analogy because much of the violence in that film is implied rather than shown).

I want to see the bright candy-colors of the old school Batman in high def! I'd have already gotten it, but... well... camera...