The Batman : Absolutely woeful

A dark superhero movie for the sake of it. There's absolutely nothing good about this at all - it's just utter garbage. I left the cinema taking nothing from this.

Nolan's TDK trilogy was a masterpiece, and tbf 'Joker' was pretty damn good too. This though, is terrible. Delete, move on etc.

It's just fucking awful in every way.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

Rob was no good?

Not really no. I like him a lot but this movie is pointless and shouldn't exist.

I think the main problem is it was made by a hack. If they wanted to maintain the same level of quality as Nolan they would have needed something better than some nerd who made planet of the apes movies.

And Let Me In was utter shit compared to the Swedish original

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

I absolutely agree about Let Me In. It's a very poor copy of the amazing original movie.

I absolutely agree about Let Me In. It's a very poor copy of the amazing original movie.

It's fine if you don't like it, but don't make the mistake of calling it a copy. It isn't. It is just a different interpretation of the same novel the Swedish film adapted, and even includes things from the novel that the Swedish film cut out. (I personally thought it was better.)

Yea, it was just a coincidence that an American version with a hack director came out shortly after the hugely successful Swedish original.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

Yea, it was just a coincidence that an American version with a hack director came out shortly after the hugely successful Swedish original.

It was simply inevitable that Hollywood would make a film out of it whether someone did the same in Sweden first or not. When a novel sells a ton of copies and gets enthusiastically endorsed by Stephen King, Hollywood tends to notice.

Uh-huh

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

It's an exact copy. You come as someone who didn't see the American version. The original is a classic and the remake shit for shot was pointless.

Even the original though left put an insane amount of stuff from the book. Because unlike you I actually read the book.

---

The only poster who had his account banned 4 times without ever breaking any rules each of those times.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

It's an exact copy.

No it isn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. There's an entire minor subplot in the American version that is specific to American culture of the 1980's that isn't in the book or Swedish version.

Get your head out of your ass.

You come as someone who didn't see the American version.

You also aren't making any kind of sense.

Because unlike you I actually read the book.

I read the book before the Swedish or American adaptations had ever been made, shit for brains.

The Magnificent Steve Lake 1 Mongopole 0

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

It is more or less shot for shot LTROI, except that the American version left out a hugely important plot point.

It was a pointless, pointless remake which brought nothing new to the table except an insult to the audience.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely everything you have stated is a bold faced lie.

Nah. They're right and you're wrong.

---

My password is password

You don't even have the beginning of a concept of what either "right" or "wrong" mean.

I do, and I just told you what right and wrong is. They = right, you = wrong. Any questions, retard?

---

My password is password

You couldn't articulate why if your life depended on it, fuckwit.

Autismo lol

---

My password is password

Calm down! I "literally" do have an idea What I'm talking about, having read the book and seen both films. What am I lying about?


The Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways. There is a real connection between Oskar and Eli which is unfortunately missing In Let me In. It also includes the very important plot point I mentioned in my previous post. You must know what I'm talking about?

In the American version there are several identical scenes which are almost shot for shot. This has been observed by many people, viewers and critics alike, including respected film critic Mark Kermode. So it's pretty much indisputable.

What am I lying about?

"Shot by shot remake" is just complete bullshit. Note that once I called you out on this nonsense, you finally toned down your hysterical take to "several" identical scenes. Even if true, this is not a criticism–Reeves could have been doing this as an homage.

The Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways. There is a real connection between Oskar and Eli which is unfortunately missing In Let me In.

Completely and utterly subjective, impossible to back up with objective facts. Period. I think the American version is actually better, but unlike you I am not so stupid and arrogant to immediately assume my own personal impressions are the rule of law.

It also includes the very important plot point I mentioned in my previous post.

Having read the book before seeing either version of the film, I can say that this "important" plot point isn't really that important. Sorry you have such a pathetic attachment to fidelity to the source material.

Are you crying just now? You're so aggressive!

---

My password is password

Wow, you go from 0-60 with the anger!

Note that once I called you out on this nonsense, you finally toned down your hysterical take to "several" identical scenes

Nope, this was my first post on the subject in this thread.


It is more or less shot for shot LTROI, except that the American version left out a hugely important plot point.
It was a pointless, pointless remake which brought nothing new to the table except an insult to the audience.

Nothing hysterical there, so stop making things up.

Even if true, this is not a criticism–Reeves could have been doing this as an homage.

Homage? Doubtful, the film came out 2 years after LTROI!
Lazy copy intended for audiences too lazy to read subtitles is more accurate. Cashing in on the success of a beautiful film? Definitely.

Completely and utterly subjective, impossible to back up with objective facts.

My apologies, in my opinion the Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways.

I think the American version is actually better, but unlike you I am not so stupid and arrogant to immediately assume my own personal impressions are the rule of law.

Yet here you insulting and exaggerating your way through the conversation, having a childish tantrum because several posters disagree with you!
By the way , "rule of law"? Grow up, I was merely expressing why the remake was pointless.

Having read the book before seeing either version of the film, I can say that this "important" plot point isn't really that important. Sorry you have such a pathetic attachment to fidelity to the source material.

Yes, you read the book we get it. There you go again with the insults, do you talk to people like this in your real life? I don't have a attachment to the source material, some sub-plots like zombie Hakan are elements I didn't miss. However, that Eli was originally a male was without doubt important to the film. It transcends their love from a mere not meets girl.

Nope, this was my first post on the subject in this thread.


It is more or less shot for shot LTROI,. . .

Again, this is an absolute hysterical lie. Only a meaningless handful of sequences can be said to duplicate the original. This is just a fact.

It was a pointless, pointless remake which brought nothing new to the table. . .

A. It was stylistically far more adventurous than the first adaptation. The Father's epic failure scene has no parallel in the original, for instance.

B. The addition of the 1980's Satanic Panic obsession held by the cop was a genius addition to the screenplay to add uniquely American historical context. He couldn't use the 1980's Swedish culture detail, so this was a brilliant substitute.

Homage? Doubtful, the film came out 2 years after LTROI!

Congratulations for making absolutely no sense. How do you infer logically from "two years later" to "not homage"? I'd like to see the steps of clown logic you took in that mind of yours.

Lazy copy intended for audiences too lazy to read subtitles is more accurate.

A new take on the material by an artist who loved the book fits better with all the facts we have.

However, that Eli was originally a male was without doubt important to the film.

No, cupcake, the only thing that is important to the film is what is inside of the film and internally consistent. Reeves obviously decided that he wanted to tell a version of the story without that twist, which no one was going to miss who had never read the book or seen the first adaptation. And sadly, in America that's 90% of his target audience.(Arguably, even the Swedish version downplayed the third act reveal.)

It would be a fair criticism to say that he went with typical American schmaltz to have the ending remain a somewhat sweet love story instead of diving into implications suggesting more cruelty and manipulation on the part of Abby, and part of me sort of wishes Reeve had left it in, but I'm ultimately okay with his choice.

Long story short–it's adorable that you like the first adaptation so much. I love it, too. But it is just childish of you to become so attached to it that you are forced to pit both versions against each other as if there is some sort of contest where a winner has to be picked and the virtues of one film ignored. Very pathetic.

Again, this is an absolute hysterical lie.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you get hysterical from
"It is more or less shot for shot LTROI".
Your reaction, on the other hand IS hysterical!

Congratulations for making absolutely no sense. How do you infer logically from "two years later" to "not homage"? I'd like to see the steps of clown logic you took in that mind of yours.

Oh behave and stop being disingenuous, you know as well as I that in terms of film an homage is a tribute to an earlier film or collection of films. For example, Duncan Jones' Moon pays homage to 70's Sci-Fi films.

Long story short–it's adorable that you like the first adaptation so much. I love it, too. But it is just childish of you to become so attached to it that you are forced to pit both versions against each other as if there is some sort of contest where a winner has to be picked and the virtues of one film ignored. Very pathetic.

Well firstly, you are making stuff up again, you should try to stop that! Secondly, obviously the two films are going to be compared, it would be crazy to believe otherwise. I compared the two and found the remake to be superfluous.

LMI is (in my opinion) a pointless remake when it is so similar to the original and that's basically all I've said. Your own "hysterical" reaction, with the insults (I mean "cupcake"? Fuck off with that patronising shit) tells me that you're the one who can't tolerate different opinions.

Toodle pip.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you get hysterical from
"It is more or less shot for shot LTROI".

Because this is a crazed lie, period. It is not in any reasonable sense a shot for shot remake. Any claim to that effect is just pure lunacy.

If you really believe this and aren't just engaging in childish hyperbole to attack the second film, you are exactly like the crackpots who think they see Jesus in the mold on their walls.

Oh behave and stop being disingenuous, you know as well as I that in terms of film an homage is a tribute to an earlier film or collection of films.

You are the one being disingenuous, here. If Reeves really did consciously duplicate some scenes from the original out of admiration for what the other director did, that's still an example of homage.

MI is (in my opinion) a pointless remake when it is so similar to the original and that's basically all I've said.

No, you couldn't just say that. You had to lie, accusing it of being so close to the first adaptation that it is more or less a shot for shot duplicate. This is utter bullshit completely divorced from objective reality.

Both films adapt the same novel and that is the primary source of the similarities. Almost no one in America was ever going to see the Swedish version or read the book, so making an English language version serves the completely reasonable function of bringing the story to new audiences.

And guess what–the vast majority of critics loved the second try, making your negative assessment a mere fringe minority take. You are welcome to it, but other than lying about the film or making unreasonable claims that no one should have adapted it a second time, you offer no coherent reason for thinking Reeves dropped the ball. Indeed, as a critic you leave a lot to be desired.

You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.

I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.

This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.

Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over.

nemesis said... You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.

I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.

This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.

Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over.

expand

Again, you are welcome to your completely uninformed, out of touch, utterly fringe minority opinion. Too bad you have to make up lies to justify yourself. What a clown.

A dark superhero movie for the sake of it.

It was dark because the source material has been dark for literally decades, not just "for the sake of it". It is more faithful to the tone and mood you find in the best modern comic books and graphic novels than any other live action adaptation has ever been, and that's why, despite your hate, it is going to go down as a classic take on the character of Batman for decades to come.

There is nothing classic about this, sweetie. It's being panned and rightly so.

This is paint by numbers, cookie cutter dirge for the ignorant morons who know no better, laddie.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

It's being panned and rightly so.

On planet Earth, where I come from, it has been very favorably reviewed by a solid majority of film critics.

What planet do you come from?

It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.

Are you going to melt down and throw Nelson Muntz style pejoratives now like you normally do?

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.

I hate to break it too you, cupcake, but most filmmakers would kill to get the kind of critical reception this one is getting. You are simply out of touch.

I'm a filmmaker myself and considered the main movie expert this website has. I was taught by J Neil Schulman himself.

I'm sorry, sugar, but this monstrosity has been panned and you need to accept this.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

I'm a filmmaker myself and considered the main movie expert this website has.

Okay, status as narcissistic, deranged lunatic fully established. Got it.

It's a statement of fact.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

I think it has been pretty solidly established that you couldn't tell what a fact is if your life depended on it.

The only solid here is the turd I smell every time you post.

What is it that you dispute? That I'm a filmmaker or that I'm the main movie expert here?

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

That I'm a filmmaker or that I'm the main movie expert here?

No one as dumb as you is ever going to be an expert in anything let alone a filmmaker who makes anything other than something you upload on YT with your iPhone. So yeah, I dispute both claims as utter bullshit.

No one as dumb as you is ever going to be an expert in anything let alone a filmmaker who makes anything other than something you upload on YT with your iPhone.

You ok there m8?

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

Your surrender is accepted btw

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

most filmmakers would kill to get the kind of critical reception this one is getting. You are simply out of touch.

F<>k you're such an out of touch and brainwashed Moronpole! You do realize these critics have been bought off.

This was the most drawn out, lifeless, ponderous and B O R I N G piece of dreck to grace the DC world.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I hated Nolan’s Batman movies. No idea what people saw in them, they seemed excessively mediocre to me. Probably won’t see this one just because we’ve been overdosed on Batman and comic book media for the past couple decades, and Twilight Boy just isn’t a very good actor.

You're clearly clueless.

Blocked.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

I was blocked because You Can’t Handle the Truth!!!

I agree that the story of Batman has been stretched pretty thin over the past couple of decades. We've had so many of them. While I wasn't super crazy about this year's The Batman, I appreciated the fact that it seemed like less of a "superhero movie" and more of noir-ish murder mystery. This, I liked and thought it was well done.

In terms of "Twilight boy", I would recommend watching Good Time and The Lighthouse. Both of these films allow him to show his range.

Oh really? That bad.,.

Yes indeedy.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home

What specifically didn’t you like? Was going to see this but your review is vague, orson.

---

Good talk.

Amazing, astounding, bewildering, breathtaking, extraordinary, impressive, marvelous, miraculous, spectacular, staggering, startling, striking, stunning, stupefying, stupendous, wonderful, wondrous, astonishing, awe-inspiring, awesome, exciting, hair-raising, heart-stirring, impressive, magnificent, moving, overwhelming, spine-tingling, stunning, thrilling, boss, curious, darb, exceptional, fab, fantastic, flash, gnarly, heavy, inconceivable, incredible, odd, outstanding, particular, peculiar, phenomenal, primo, rare, remarkable, singular, special, strange, stupendous, surprising, terrific, uncommon, unfamiliar, unheard-of, unimaginable, unique, unprecedented, unthinkable, unusual, weird, wicked, arousing.

These words quickly crossed my mind after the first 4 minutes of this ground-breaking, genre-busting feast for the senses. The way this film opened with the immensely suspenseful scene featuring the pretty blond woman and the reptilian monster, (drinking the evil elixir), immediately grabbed my attention and it didn't let go. J Neil Schulman then innovatively broke the fourth-wall at the end of this scene, with a direct appeal to his audience to have a "Blast" watching his film and also to not "FORGET" the masterpiece they are about to experience, by imploring them to concentrate and upgrade their memory no less than 3 times. This left me exhausted with excitement and anticipation. So much so, I tried to call J Neil Schulman on the phone number that he subliminally flashed up on screen, to congratulate him on such a brilliant first scene. Unfortunately he wasn't there. Unusually, the girl (who I presumed to be his secretary), then tried to sell me sexual dysfunction pills. I bought 14 bottles. The rest of the film never quite reaches the heights achieved in the blonde lady/lizard man scene, but it is still better than anything else you will see this or any other year. The casting is sublime. All the actors and actresses are obvious masters of their craft, in particular the Elvis impersonator in the buffet song featured in the end credits. I really thought he WAS Elvis. J Neil Schulman was the best actor in the film, (of course). He FILLED the screen with his presence. His performance was HUGE and FAT with subtle nuances and charisma. He gave immense WEIGHT to the character of Alistair, plus he was VORACIOUS in his CONSUMPTION of the viewer's attention. J Neil Schulman DINED OUT on the masterful script and GORGED the lines on offer. Never has an actor shown so much GUTS on screen. A masterful performance. We must also mention the superb writing in this film. An IRS agent working for the Federal Air Marshals inspects a Muslim man and gets in trouble so they send him to a brothel full of wonderful whores and a linebacker who are also actresses, plus Uhura, in Pahrump. The whores and the linebacker and Uhura often sing in casino car-parks because they like to show they are not only great actresses but also great car park singers. Back at the brothel, by an amazing coincidence, the IRS agent sees the same Muslim man from before, who then plays a violin and kills one of the whores (but unfortunately not the linebacker) and then visits Hoover Dam to take an exciting ride down a long rope. The IRS agent then follows the Muslim man to a hospital, with Uhura and the surviving whores and the linebacker, but not before the Muslim man shoots J Neil Schulman with a ketchup bottle and speaks to Cat Stevens. Uhura then shoots the Muslim man with a small gun ( which she had kept it hidden in her pink velvet pouch) and the whores lurk around looking gorgeous whilst showing off their exquisite acting abilities and some schmoo. They then go to a buffet restaurant and take the last fried drumstick before Elvis gets to it, (because Elvis has a cholesterol problem and needs to cut back). All in all this is the greatest film I have ever seen in my entire life and it therefore is number #1 in my eyes! Accordingly, I just went and gave it a vote of 1, because its NUMBER #1!!! HOORAY for J Neil Schulman. Without him my life would be a tiny bit less full than it already is. He entertains like few men before him and I am so so happy I discovered his wonderful talents and his endless ability to entertain. J Neil Schulman is the best. I mean that in all sincerity.

---

Well, this is a tomb. I'll make them feel at home