hmmmm......
i take issue with these assertions
Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) vs Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman)
Both of them didn't really do a good job. I'll say these are about even.
....no, Pat Hingle looked and acted nothing like Commisioner Gordon. He's one jellyroll away from being Chief Wiggum : D
His Gordon had no significant relationship to Keaton's Batman, he just assumes this mystery man will appear when he shines a light in the sky. Oldman's version was much more collaborative and is obviously helping Batman solve crimes. He let's Bats in on crime scenes before the CSI teams get there. He runs interference when other cops want to arrest him. He's basically enabling Batman in a war on crime, which is exactly what comic book Gordon does. He even has the 70's stash. Gary Oldman gets my vote for best Gordon (TV show included)
Alfred (Michael Gough) vs Alfred (Michael Caine)
Gough did a better job. He still could of done better, but Caine doesn't even resemble or act like Alfred in the slightest.
Gough did a better job. He still could of done better, but Caine doesn't even resemble or act like Alfred in the slightest.
Michael Gough was a quintessential Alfred the butler, twinkling eyes and all. That was my only issue with him; he just seemed kindly and doddering. And Schumacher did him no favors with that death bed crap in Batman and Robin.
Michael Caine is Michael Caine. He brings gravitas and irreverence to the role. He chokes me up just listening to his Alfred choking up in the trailer...."I promised to take care of you. And I haven't! (as his voice cracks)". I prefer Caine's more grounded movie butler, always with a wise crack and witty reply ("you've known Rachel her whole life?", "Not yet, sir")
As for the plots of the two Burton films vs. Nolan's first two.......I don't care if it follows the comic book series to the letter. Comic book creators are always tinkering with things to fit their plot lines. And a movie has to work as a movie. It's not a comic book. Watchmen the movie was no improvement on the original stories by Alan Moore. Why would you waste 2.5 hours watching what was more satisfying in illustrated book form?
Nolan got the essentials right, Joe Chill, a random thug, killed the Waynes. Had nothing to do with the Joker. It always bothered me that part of Batman's motivation to stop the Joker would be personal. It becomes a personal issue in TDK, but the Joker doesn't quite know this. He loves pushing buttons and getting under everyone's collective skin. The Scarecrow fit perfectly into Ra's Al Ghul's plot to destroy Gotham. I don't care if they know each other in the comics (why don't they know each other?); I did think that the execution of the final plot in Begins was dumb and the sets, and effects were subpar. TDK 86'ed all of the dumb comic book aesthetic that weighed down the first film. It was essentially a crime thriller featuring crazy men in masks.
The less I remember of Tim Burton's films, the better. They don't hold up well, imo. All one liners and sexual double entendres. It seems that Burton believes that all Bruce needs is to get laid and he'll be all right. And talking about characters not adding up to their comic book versions? Since when is Selina Kyle a mousy secretary to a fright wig wearing moron? I also didn't know that the Penguin was raised in a sewer and had flippers for hands or ate raw fish! wtf? Burton completely twisted the characters to fit his usual misfit storyline. I'm just glad he;s not making anymore Batman films, or we'd have Johnny Depp in fright make up, talking in a wacky accent, wearing a cape and mincing about like an idiot
Log in to comment