Batman : Ashes to Ashes - wow!

[1981]

Here's something I found from some indy film makers in France. A Batman movie with a Sin City feel to it. Looks amazing and very close to what a Batman comic should look like on film.

http://www.ashestoashes-themovie.com/

 

[I-T-B]

That trailer was really creepy, but in that awesome sort of way.

 

[spiderfan970]

soo...wait they murdered alfred?

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, its out. Can't link to it since there is seriously NSFW stuff on it.

Personally, I hated it.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Yeah, gotta agree with ya Lighthouse. This represents all the stuff I hate about Frank Millers work and some elements of TDK. The "ooo we're gonna be realistic by just having lots of people die in gruesome ways and show Batman as this guy who just beats people to bloody pulps".
I hate it.
The point of Batman, is that killing is never justified and Batman is (one of the better parts of TDK) truly incorruptible. No excessive violence. Batman is always in control and always holds the sanctity of life, all life, above all else. So watching this, where Batman is hunting down and killing these people who killed Alfred, is just ridiculous. Might as well be The Punisher. Because Batman does not kill.
The whole film is just an excuse to be gruesome and dark. The whole point of Batman is to show the justice and the light in darkness.

 

[Lighthouse]

Its like many other bad french films, pure style over substance. The sex scene was disturbing just for the sake of being really disturbing. Nothing made the least bit of sense, and the whole thing had this pompous arty feel to it.

 

[tehdude]

i liked it.

 

[batpawn]

I quote myself for a moment.

The full film seriously is, together with the fake "Arkham Asylum" trailer, by far my most favorite batman fan film. very well done. not only does it show how wonderful film-noir and gothic horror can work together, but also how fascinating this mixture turns out if it touches the batman franchise. brilliant.

people have to stop comparing fan films to their own vision of "what batman should be" and should start to read between the lines. all it was, was another take on the batman myth, trying to show what would happen if batman would not be the "under control" guy but more this monstrous demonic creature that kills people, like it's been said in the urban myths. it is not TRYING to be 100% accurate to the source material because it doesn't HAVE TO. It just tries to be something different, and that's in a 70 year old franchise with tons of different interpretations of the character ABSOLUTELY okay.

You don't have to like it, because noone tells you to. Heck, it's your own right to dislike it. But comparing this to other interpretations of the character doesn't make the least bit of sense. Especially since we are talking about a character that got, in- and off-continuity, so many different takes that there, in the end of the day, exists NO definitive interpretation of the character.

For example, you say batman is "always calm and incorruptible and nothing in the world could make him want to kill". I say that batman is so interesting and fascinating because he is one of the few superheroes who won't suprise me if they would go off the line and kill since, for me, batman is ALWAYS wandering on a thin line between doing the right thing and revenge. And the creators of this flick think batman would go out and kill thugs all together. All these interpretations are based on so many different takes of the character in 70 years comic history. None of them is the "right take" on the character, but none of them is necessarily wrong either since all of them work in their OWN continuity.

Dislike the film if you will, dislike it because this take on the character doesn't work for YOU, but don't dislike it for trying something different. Because that's just unfair.

And, on a side note: that's not the way I would interpret or want to see batman in continuity either. But I still like it. It works, at least for me.

P.S.: I, for one, like french movies very much.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, it's definately not my interepetation of the character (though the "find another God" bit was badass) I enjoyed watching the very professional and VERY f**ked-up imagry.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Dislike the film if you will, dislike it because this take on the character doesn't work for YOU,

I will. Thank you for giving me permission.

but don't dislike it for trying something different. Because that's just unfair.

I don't. I dislike it for being something different. Because I have to dislike it for a reason. And the very reason is that it does not portray Batman in the way that I personally like or believe to be the essence of the character. So... your whole rant, saying that we can dislike it if we want, but we shouldn't because its different, is very strange, as... the whole reason I dislike it, is because its different.

So are we allowed to dislike it, oh gracious Batpawn... or not?



In other news, there are a few small pieces I really liked. When one of the men goes to the church and says "Forgive me father for I have sinned." its totally badass when you hear "I know." and Batman's fist goes through the separator between confessionals. Awesome.

And I enjoyed the Joker throwing a temper tantrum because Batman was paying more attention to someone else. I hated how they actually did it, as in what he said and did, but I love the idea and the concept.

 

[soulonsale]

I quote myself for a moment.



people have to stop comparing fan films to their own vision of "what batman should be" and should start to read between the lines. all it was, was another take on the batman myth, trying to show what would happen if batman would not be the "under control" guy but more this monstrous demonic creature that kills people, like it's been said in the urban myths. it is not TRYING to be 100% accurate to the source material because it doesn't HAVE TO. It just tries to be something different, and that's in a 70 year old franchise with tons of different interpretations of the character ABSOLUTELY okay.

You don't have to like it, because noone tells you to. Heck, it's your own right to dislike it. But comparing this to other interpretations of the character doesn't make the least bit of sense. Especially since we are talking about a character that got, in- and off-continuity, so many different takes that there, in the end of the day, exists NO definitive interpretation of the character.

That's ludicrous. While there's nothing wrong with creating your own interpretation of Batman, there are certain fundamental traits associated with his persona that trademark the character. For instance, Batman's valiant effort to clean the streets with no intent to KILL defines him. This intent is identified with batman. Depriving Batman of this oath defies recognition of his character. Some guy that goes off killing people, bent on revenge, is NOT Batman, by definition.

 

[Bathead]

It's horrible. Not because of the way Batman et al are protrayed, but because it's pretentious artsy garbage, and just plain bad film-making.

 

[UltimateJustin]

The trailer looked dumb, but I'm perfectly fine with a Batman who rarely kills but does when he knows its for the best like TDKR. I don't get anything out of Batman recklessly letting certain people live, but he should definently not be the Punisher.

 

[Eric Brooks]

minus the whole batman killing for revenge (I'm not going to retread ground on why this was blatantly wrong), I liked it. Well, the atmosphere and style it was shot it, now if only we could get a movie in theaters similiar to this

regardless what people say, a Frank Miller helmed Batman franchise is what we need after Nolan finishes up.

 

[The Guard]

I've taken to calling it BATMAN: TORTURE PORN.

It LOOKS great. The mix of SIN CITY's style, Tim Sale's art, and a 30's setting certainly makes for interesting visuals, if nothing else.

I'm sure something was lost in the translation, but I'm almost certain that most of the dialogue was terrible. An almost constant and baffling use of metaphor or simply characters saying what they were doing.

"And although temperatures are low, my city is always in a state of fever, like a suffering little girl?"

"After all, we both lick the same woman"?

And then there are gems like this:

"Where'd you find the key?"
"Harleen got f***** for it"

I think I saw a nod to the Batpoles in Wayne Manor. I wanted to see the Batpoles, damn it, but instead Alfred got killed for some reason.

Then you've got Bruce/Batman going "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" every so often.

Literally the only compelling story element is Joker asking why Batman won't kill him. That was kind of cool, and whoever played The Joker did an interesting take on the character, sort of a vaudevillian angle.

I'm all for experimenting with Batman's character, especially in fanfilms, but I think the filmmakers were more interested in atmosphere and torturous sex acts than in a coherent script. I don't have a problem with it being a departure from what we know about Batman. I have a problem with the story being poorly constructed, and character elements almost nonexistent.

I personally feel this film ended up being a waste of talent.

 

[Travesty]

It was alright, a little to graphic, but the style was pretty good.

I remember the first time I saw Sky Captain, and I automatically wanted someone to make a Batman movie with the same style and era that Sky Captain captured.

Oh well......

 

[K.B.]

Harley looked good at the end.

Penguin looked creepy as hell.

Batman beating Joker up in the alley looked great.

Thats about it really all the rest was just bad.

 

[Blaztro]

That highly disturbed me. Also, I didn't like the visual style. It was... vaguely difficult to follow.