Batman Begins Upon repeated viewings, this is the best movie I've EVER seen.

[CConn]

BB I don't think will ever have a major impact. It's not the flawless piece of cinema that people make it out to be. The problems with it are ultimately minor, but they nonetheless detract it from being as perfect as some of the ultra obsessive fanboys make it out to be.

Oh, I agree entirely.

And yes, I do agree on Superman: The Movie in that it did essentially invent the comic book movie genre. It's undoubtedly the most important comic book movie ever made, and it's unlikely any other film in the genre will ever have as much an impact.

Yet, IMO at least, there's much, much better comic book movies out there.
I completely disagree with you. Brando was never better IMO than in The Godfather. I've seen his early work, and it's no doubt incredible, but his performance as Don Corleone is generally regarded as the greatest performance of all time.[/quote]But some. And for others, it's Travis Bickle, or Atticus Finch, or some other great character and great performance. That's my point exactly; it's all just opinion.

Plus, in addition to Pacino, when have most of the rest of the cast been any better? Granted, Keaton had Annie Hall, and Duvall had Apocolypse Now, but James Caan and John Cazale, among others, have never been better.

Exactly. Duvall had Apocolypse Now and Keaton had Annie Hall. You said every performance had to be the actor's best, didn't you?

Well, yes, it's opinion. But you have to consider why so many people share that opinion. Citizen Kane and The Godfather both managed to have an impact on cinema that went beyond that of most films.

I do acknowledge why so many people share that opinion. I don't go trying to make up fancy rules on why this movie's great, and that move isn't. If I sit down, and think it's a great movie, and a lot of other people agree with me, then yeah, it's a great movie. Simple as that. But then again, that's just my opinion.

 

[The Chairman]

Well, I to agree that there are many btter comic bookmovies than S: TM. But as far as importance goes, S: TM has them beat. It invente the genre.

As for the performances in The Godfather, I truly feel all the actors did their best work in it. Yes, Keaton and Duvall both had the other films I mentioned, but I still feel they were at their best in The Godfather, as was everyone else involved. It's my opinion, and a lot of people do feel that way.

And yes, there are many performances that people feel are the best ever. But Brando as Vito Corleone is the one that is generally mentioned the most. Bickle and Finch porbably are both second.

And for the most part, I don't think there are certain qualifications that make a movie great. A great movie is a great movie. But in order to be considered among the best, even if it is opinion, I do think there are certain qulaifications a film needs to have to be held in such high regard.

 

[Cryogenic]

Obviously, but the standards you gave, they're highly flawed. For instance...

"It has to make have a legitamte influence upon the filmmaking world, which it surely didn't have."

BB has been out only a year an a half. No where near enough time to tell if it has influenced anyone. Granted, it probably won't, but we don't know that for sure. Not to mention, a movie like Superman: The Movie did have a great influence upon filmmaking and superhero movies. Does that make it one of the greatest movies ever? Better than Citizen Kane? IMO, it doesn't at all.

"It has to feature every actor at the top of their game, and every actor in the film has been done better work. These are just two I can think of. BB has neither."

How about a film like the Godfather? Pacino may have been at his best. But I'd argue Brando's earlier work was superior to what he did in The Godfather. Likewise for Diane Keaton, and a few others. Does that mean The Godfather isn't a great movie? Isn't a classic? Of course not.

I'm not trying to argue BB is one of the best movies ever. I don't believe it is. But, IMO at least, the only reason The Godfather or Citizen Kane is considered the best movie ever is because that's simply what most people say. It's all opinion. And the only thing nearing fact is the majority opinion.

I got what the original poster was saying, and I also get what you're saying.

There are no hard and fast rules for evaluating the artistic merits of films.

But I think the things that were asserted constitute a decent yardstick.

Although Brando might have done more defining work earlier in his career (e.g. "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On The Waterfront"), his mark on "The Godfather" is indelible and might be his all-round best work. Don Corleone has so many facets to him. And Brando brought them all out -- perfectly timed and moderated every step of the way. The way he weeps at seeing Sonny's body or the sudden streak of anger he lets out at the meeting of the dons is simply incredible. Pacino, too, was magnificent. Utterly magnificent. But this puts "The Godfather, Part II" in an interesting position, since I don't think you can rightly call it DeNiro's best work, even though it brought him attention. He would go on to bigger and better things in "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" (an astonishing performance if ever there was one). "The Godfather" itself was also profoundly influential. According to his daughter, Kubrick watched it many times and mused that it was probably the greatest film ever made. STANLEY KUBRICK! It no doubt stirred and started many other filmmaking careers in one sense or another. I think I'm right in saying that it was really the first film of its kind to feature that kind of violence, the operatic editing in its climax and bring a Shakespearean grandeur to a modern day phenomenom (i.e. Mafia).

Essentially, for something to be a great film, a TRULY GREAT film, I think you have to have all the elements working together. And they have to work together so profoundly as to make the finished work seem almost supernatural. Such is the case in the bountiful greats listed herein. But in no way can this be said about "Batman Begins". There are so many aspects that exempt it. I honestly don't know where to begin. As much as I love "Superman", for example, and as much of an accomplished film as I regard it to be, it stumbles in several places, and for that, true greatness eludes it. It's a bit like the Salieri of the comic book world next to the true cinematic giants -- it wants to be in their company, and indeed lurks in their shadow, but it is inherently bound by its flawed nature to remain in their shadow and never to entirely step from it. It's a classic, of a sort, but not a masterpiece.

 

[Mac_Hine]

Best ever may be an exaggeration, but I believe it indeed works very well on repeat viewing, maybe even better than Spidey 2 ou X2 or STM.

I agree with this. It definitely holds up WAY better than those movies on repeat viewings. Batman Begins was an awesome movie, my favorite Bats movie so far (MotP is percentage points behind it) and if Nolan can fix the little quirks that it had, TDK should be even better!

 

[Castlewood]

Well, I mean... look at this list for example:

Crash (2005)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King (2003)
Chicago (2002)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Gladiator (2000)
American Beauty (1999)
Shakespeare In Love (1998)
Titanic (1997)
The English Patient (1996)
Braveheart (1995)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)
Dances With Wolves (1990)

What do they all have in common? They were all winners for Best Picture at the Oscars in the past 16 years. Now, if you want to be literal about it, that means that "Titanic" is claimed to be the BEST movie of 1997, and that "Crash" was the BEST movie of 2005. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? Do you honestly believe that "Shakespeare in Love" deserved to be named the BEST movie of 1998?? Didn't YOU think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a million times better?

So why are they all named "the best"? I mean, "Crash" came out the same year as "Batman Begins".... but isn't it painfully obvious which movie is faaar superior??

HINT: Batman Begins.

Honestly, I agree with less than HALF of that list. These were the only "true" winners, in my opinion:


Gladiator (2000)
Braveheart (1995)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)

Everything else is very arguable.

So what's my damn point? The point is, these "classics"... these "best movies" are simply based on a bunch of old guys voting, and they're called "The Academy", and it's all based on **THEIR OPINIONS**. Who are they to say that "Shakepeare In Love" deserved to be named Best Picture, when "Batman Begins" gets nothing 7 years later?? MAYBE it's because one movie has "Shakespeare" in the title, and the other one has "Batman" in it. It's a f***ing conspiracy.

And really... when you look at that list, it's looking back at you with it's overrated eyes, and it's saying "We're the BEST from the past 16 years!!!" which means that they rank on a bigger list of "greatest movies EVER." .... but do you think that "Titanic" is one of the greatest movies of ALL-TIME??? Fu** no!! Nobody really believes that. They just saw it a bunch of times because it was a good date movie and because Leo was in it. Big deal. There's no doubt in MY mind that Batman Begins was a superior FILM... it just didn't have superior SUCCESS.

F*** those other movies. Best of 2005?? It was Batman Begins. What else came out?? Nothing. Is that my opinion? Yes, much like the Academy's. My argument is... the Academy has shi**y opinions.


http://www.oscar.com/legacy/bestpictureposter/?g=1&i=9

 

[Bat Attack]

Misery should have won Best Picture for '90.

 

[Castlewood]

Misery should have won Best Picture for '90.

See? Your opinion versus theirs. There is no "fact" either way.


... although I agree with you, lol.

 

[GoogleMe94]

i think this movie is over-rated rubbish. should have stuck with the original formula, not this over-realism soap opera stuff. i hate it when ppl create threads saying "this is THE BEST MOVIE EVER IN THE HOSTORY OF THE WOOORLD!!" ugh. pathetic. its far from it. and no, i dont think Titanic is upthere either.

 

[Bat Attack]

Batwing6655?

 

[Castlewood]

i think this movie is over-rated rubbish. should have stuck with the original formula, not this over-realism soap opera stuff. i hate it when ppl create threads saying "this is THE BEST MOVIE EVER IN THE HOSTORY OF THE WOOORLD!!" ugh. pathetic. its far from it. and no, i dont think Titanic is upthere either.

I think you're up there, GoogleMe94. :heart: Call me.



Oh, and this is your friend:

 

[GoogleMe94]

ooo i spelled a word wrong, oooo aaah soo scary! and yes, its possible for someone not to like this movie. its called being an individual and not another clone of someone else.

why are the begins fans so nuts? i didnt try to start a fight. i simply stated my opinion. nothin wrong with that.

but maybe thats different on a begins board...

 

[Castlewood]

Because you said "Ugh. Pathetic" as if to say that my choice in a good movie is pathetic.... in other words, calling ME pathetic.

Practice what you preach, my friend. I have my opinions... you have yours.

 

[CConn]

Because you said "Ugh. Pathetic" as if to say that my choice in a good movie is pathetic.... in other words, calling ME pathetic.

Practice what you preach, my friend. I have my opinions... you have yours.

Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BB

 

[zer00]

Crash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BB

A lot of things>BB

 

[Cryogenic]

Well, I mean... look at this list for example:

Crash (2005)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King (2003)
Chicago (2002)
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Gladiator (2000)
American Beauty (1999)
Shakespeare In Love (1998)
Titanic (1997)
The English Patient (1996)
Braveheart (1995)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)
Dances With Wolves (1990)

What do they all have in common? They were all winners for Best Picture at the Oscars in the past 16 years. Now, if you want to be literal about it, that means that "Titanic" is claimed to be the BEST movie of 1997, and that "Crash" was the BEST movie of 2005. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? Do you honestly believe that "Shakespeare in Love" deserved to be named the BEST movie of 1998?? Didn't YOU think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a million times better?

So why are they all named "the best"? I mean, "Crash" came out the same year as "Batman Begins".... but isn't it painfully obvious which movie is faaar superior??

HINT: Batman Begins.

Honestly, I agree with less than HALF of that list. These were the only "true" winners, in my opinion:


Gladiator (2000)
Braveheart (1995)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)

Everything else is very arguable.

It's ALL arguable.

In my opinion, and that of many, many others, the Academy routinely overlooks the best films and filmmakers, only occasionally getting it right.

Of the official nominees in each year, this is what my list of winners would look like:

Brokeback Mountain (2006)
Sideways (2005)
Lost In Translation (2004)
The Pianist (2003)
In The Bedroom (2002)
Traffic (2001)
American Beauty (2000)
Life Is Beautiful (1999)
L.A. Confidential (1998)
Fargo (1997)
The Postman (1996)
Pulp Fiction (1995)
The Piano (1993)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)
Goodfellas (1990)

You can see that I agree with the Academy in a few places. The main problem with the insitution is that it tends to award "heavy" films -- like "Schindler's List", "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" -- over quieter, subtler, more introspective, more daring, more artful works.

So what's my damn point? The point is, these "classics"... these "best movies" are simply based on a bunch of old guys voting, and they're called "The Academy", and it's all based on **THEIR OPINIONS**. Who are they to say that "Shakepeare In Love" deserved to be named Best Picture, when "Batman Begins" gets nothing 7 years later?? MAYBE it's because one movie has "Shakespeare" in the title, and the other one has "Batman" in it. It's a f***ing conspiracy.

And really... when you look at that list, it's looking back at you with it's overrated eyes, and it's saying "We're the BEST from the past 16 years!!!" which means that they rank on a bigger list of "greatest movies EVER." .... but do you think that "Titanic" is one of the greatest movies of ALL-TIME??? Fu** no!! Nobody really believes that. They just saw it a bunch of times because it was a good date movie and because Leo was in it. Big deal. There's no doubt in MY mind that Batman Begins was a superior FILM... it just didn't have superior SUCCESS.

F*** those other movies. Best of 2005?? It was Batman Begins. What else came out?? Nothing. Is that my opinion? Yes, much like the Academy's. My argument is... the Academy has shi**y opinions.

http://www.oscar.com/legacy/bestpictureposter/?g=1&i=9

With all due respect, I don't think there's EVER been a comic adaptation deserving of "Best Picture", least of all "Batman Begins". While you can see that I kicked "Titanic" out in favour of "L.A. Confidential", I do think that it was still a strong contender, especially given the way Cameron used Jack and Rose to represent the totality of life on the ship, and the stunning final act. I don't begrudge its victory. "Titanic" next to "Batman Begins"? I think you have to respect the scale of Cameron's filmmaking and the staggering way he portrayed the sinking of the ship; BB can't hold a candle to it. But, as I think you may have been advocating, to each his own.

 

[The Kid]

Batman

still

can't

turn

his

head.

 

[Damiean Dark]

You BB die hards advocating it for an oscar crack me up.

 

[Damiean Dark]

You BB die hards advocating it for an oscar crack me up

 

[Castlewood]

It deserved it.

 

[itsthebatman]

Forrest Gump (1994)


Everything else is very arguable.

I agree with your overall viewpoint, but no way was Forrest Gump the best picture of 1994. God I hated it. Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption were both vastly superior.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

With all due respect, I don't think there's EVER been a comic adaptation deserving of "Best Picture", least of all "Batman Begins".

"History of Violence" got a nomination for Best screenplay and won several awards worldwide.

 

[The Only Woj]

the Academy has clearly stated all films making reference to microwaver emitters are to be exempt from consideration

 

[Castlewood]

the Academy has clearly stated all films making reference to microwaver emitters are to be exempt from consideration

LMAO!!t:

 

[Cryogenic]

Batman

still

can't

turn

his

head.

LOL!

A flaw of that magnitude -- or quirk, if you're being kind -- is exactly the sort of thing that automatically places "Batman Begins" outside of loftier Oscar territory. There's no way a film could earn "Best Picture" with such awkward costuming, bland music, faulty editing, pretentious dialogue, OTT antics and the like. It got one nomination for its cinematography and it was well deserved (though much of the framing, especially due to unsympathetic editing, was not too remarkable; rather, I think it was the actual lighting and film processing that was impressive). If BB deserved any other recongition, then it would have been for Michael Caine as Alfred. He brought such a wonderful human dimension to the picture, but there were too many problems around him to save the film, in my opinion.

"History of Violence" got a nomination for Best screenplay and won several awards worldwide.

Erm...

AND?

While I can't think of another comic adaptation that's been nominated for "Best Screenplay", others have been nominated and won in various other categories. The most notable nominee / recipient is "Dick Tracy", which earnt nominations in 1991 for "Best Sound", "Best Cinematography", "Best Costume Design" and "Best Actor In A Supporting Role" (Al Pacino), and WON for "Best Art / Set Direction", "Best Makeup" and "Best Music". In 1979, Superman made in-roads for comic book adaptations by winning the "Special Achievement Award" for its visual effects (before the "Best Visual Effects" award was introduced), and also getting nominatations for "Best Film Editing", "Best Music" and "Best Sound" (I also firmly believe it should have been nominated for "Best Cinematography", "Best Art / Set Direction", "Best Screenplay" and "Best Actor In A Supporting Role" [Gene Hackman]). Other entires include "Batman" in 1990 (won for "Best Art / Set Decoration"; should also have been nominated for "Best Music" and "Best Actor In A Supporting Role" [Jack Nicholson]), "Batman Returns" in 1993 (nominated for "Best Visual Effects" and "Best Makeup"), "The Mask" in 1995 (nominated for "Best Visual Effects"), "Batman Forever" in 1996 (nominated for "Best Cinematography", "Best Sound" and "Best Sound Effects Editing"), "Spider-Man" in 2003 (nominated for "Best Visual Effects" and "Best Sound"), "Spider-Man 2" in 2005 (won for "Best Achievement In Visual Effects" and nominated for "Best Achievement In Sound Editing" and "Best Achievement In Sound Mixing") and "Batman Begins" in 2006 (nominated for "Best Achievement In Cinematography").

Perhaps the nomination for "Best Screenplay" for "A History Of Violence" can be considered a milestone, but that film is significantly less fantastical than previous adaptations (i.e. those featuring "superheroes" / non-human characters / fantasy worlds), and the venerable "Best Picture" and "Best Director" categories have eluded every single comic adaptation to date.

the Academy has clearly stated all films making reference to microwaver emitters are to be exempt from consideration

I don't care who you are, that's funny!!! t:

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman Begins is the greatest film I have ever seen. My favorite film in the whole wide world.

If Batman Begins were a woman....well, I'd be taken....ladies. But, it's and and I'm not....so, <wink,wink>.

Seriously, I love this film alot. I think I might have a Batman Begins Obsession Disorder.

BBOD, it's called.