"which incidentally is so much better than blah blah blah"You just threw out any credibility you have as a Batman critic. Please shut the fuck up and don't mention anything about Batman ever again.
Well that was a little rude but understandable. Lets make something clear hear. Batman was a HORRIBLE show. Not just because it wasn't similar to it's source material. It was horrible because it was terribly written and stupid. The only enjoyment that can be had from it is if you're a person who likes campy silly stuff which in that case it's understandable. But viewed objectively, it was perhaps the worst show to ever gain mainstream success. As bad or possibly worse than Full House.
@TribeWhat are you DENSE? Are you RETARDED or something? Who the hell do you THINK he is? He's the goddamn MOVIEBOB
@ PsyckidNot trying to be rude here, but have you ever read a comic from the Silver Age? If anything the show was less silly than some of the shit they did in the comics. Yes the show was indeed bad. However, it's one of those things that's so awesomely bad it swings around to being good. It's a lot of fun to watch. Hey, I love the Nolan films and the darker interpretations way better. But I'll still defend the 60's Batman show all the way to the gallows.
To psyckidYou basically put to words what I couldn't. Its not that the show wasn't gritty, its that the show sucked.
I think critics take this a bit more seriously than nessisary. I never saw it as anything more than a goofy superhero spoof and was not surprised to find the truth in that. We all knew Hornet wasn't going to be great, but I think it was legitimatly enjoyable. Stupid, immature and crazy, yes. But enjoyable.As to the original Batman: It's dumb entertainment. It's goofy and campy, but enjoyable if viewed with the right mindset. Certainly not the smartest show on TV ever, but far from the worst.Also, I actually watched some episodes of the Green Hornet before seening this movie to get ready for it. You know what, It's a great show. Severely underrated and way better than Batman.I doubt Green hornet will make a big splash in the history of Superhero movies, but I think it's still worth a look.
It's got better reviews than I thought it would, but not by much that's for sure.That's to bad about the 3D though, kinda seemed like that might of been the only thing it had going for it.Interesting that Gondry was behind this, wasn't aware of that.Now that I know that, I may be inclined to watch this when it hit's my Netflix.I will be avoiding it at the theater though, now that I know the 3D is bad, there is no way I would pay 15+ dollars to see this.Thanks for the heads up Bob.
Erh.. people.. The Adam West Batman was a comedy show on purpose, and as such it succeeds, I mean come on, when they crawled up buildings, celebrities, most infamously Jerry Lewis who did it multiple times, would pop up and make comments about Bats and Robin crawling out there. It's meant to be comedy, and it is meant to be straight up fun. The Bat movie, scene with the bomb where he can't throw it anywhere? people? And of cause, not everyone is able to laugh at the show, we all have different kinds of humour, but you are going over this all wrong if you have the slightest pretension that the Batman series was supposed to be taken seriously. Then on the other hand, I don't think Bob quite get that the hornet in oppose was actually supposed to be taken seriously, so that makes it an entire other kind of show entirely. Meh, it's all opinions.
Bob...wow, I tell ya'...I have to disagree here.I'm not usually one to question you, or to use the usual douchebag-defense for bombastic films without substance but...I seriously enjoyed this movie.I mean, yeah, it's rife with cliches and from what you're saying it sounds like Rogan shoved his square piece into Hornet's round hole...But from the perspective of a moviegoer, while I wanted more when it was over, it was for a good reason. I had a ton of fun. The simple concept of the Hornet as shown here just felt all-sorts of kickass to me. That tank of a car has got to be one of the most singularly awesome hero-vehicles I've ever seen. The motif all the tech went for just reeks of "holy shit, I want one of those!", even down to the villain's double-barrel pistol-thing.I know this is a weak defense against your doubtless insight into the infrastructure of the movie, but at LEAST I have to refute your claim that none of it was memorable.This in no way says that I'll be doing anything but rifftracking the showing of "Dark of the Moon" (Christ, what a stupid title) that I'll see in order to properly mock it. Don't worry though; I work at a movie theater, and thus, I see movies free.
I am so mad today. As of now, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare multiplayer is dead. It is nearly impossible to get into a game that is not glitched or hacked. It has killed this game. To anyone who does this, you're an asshole, you're ruining one of the greatest games ever made. And to all of you FPS haters who are laughing you're ass off, and gonna pull it out of your ass as an example of why multiplayer should not be the focus of a game consider this. How would you feel if one of your favorite franchises falls. Say Mario started sucking. Then you would know how I, and many of my feel. But who am I kidding, Bob will probably be laughing his ass off and use as an example of why multiplayer should not be the focus of a game, and why all FPS players are douchebags, and why he thinks FPS's suck overall.
I hope I gave everyone something to think about.
Really? I still play the PS3 version where it's fine.
This is going to be one of those few times I disagree with you about a movie, Bob. I had a great time at the show. In fact, I was really impressed that it had some of the best action scenes in recent memory. It managed to avoid most of the excesses of modern action movies: not much obvious CGI, no obvious green-screen, a much smaller number of cuts, and no obnoxious shaky cam, except in the car chase/fight sequence, where it was somewhat justified. All that, and I managed to laugh my ass off the whole time as well. It did run a bit long and Christoph Waltz was criminally underused (pun intended), and I would have preferred to see it in 2D, but otherwise, great fun.PS: Hey 60s Batman haters! Can you find another TV series from the same era that had the level of "grittiness" you'd expect from Batman? Get Smart, maybe? Man from UNCLE? Dragnet?
I like Rogan enough and I like the genre enough to go see this in theaters sometime in the next few weeks. I will opt out of 3D.Looking forward to it.Also, I keep meaning to Catch The Science of Sleep... I was about to type that I haven't had the time but today i watched Paycheck. So there's that. :P
@Everyone: What Sophie said. It's not that the '60s Batman was a horrible show (it was). It's that it wasn't actually meant to be taken seriously as a Batman show. It was done for the purpose of being a spoof, but strangely enough it caught on and was popular amongst kids growing up in that era.@Bob: So..... what your review here is really saying is that this is actually the perfect Green Hornet movie? I dunno..... seems your assessment of the franchise is spot-on with your assessment of the movie......But actually your comment about the "new origin" lacks a bit of critical information: in the CURRENT Green Hornet comics (published by Dynamite Comics), the Green Hornet is actually the son of the previous GH. The film takes a few cues from the current comics here and there, that being one example.Oh, and the new Kato is a chick. And her outfit is kinda hot. Take a looksie: http://bookhound.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/green-hornet-01-cover.jpg?w=450&h=691As far as the CGI conversion goes.....Bullshit. Actually the CGI conversion is - from a technical standpoint - better than any other upcoming movie being shown in 3D having been converted from 2D (not including the Dreamworks and Pixar CGI toon movies, like Rio). Here's the rundown:Transformers 3 - horrible layering and poor parsing of the foreground and background separations, annoying and blinding lens flareGreen Lantern - Higher resolution of film after conversion increases uncanny valley effect, minimal separation of foreground and background, compressed layeringPirates 4 - This one's almost on-par with GH, except when things are foreshortened too close to the camera. Instead of extending outward in 3D they actually blur and compress, which is weird and straining on the eyesIf you're going to criticize the 3D conversion on a technical level, perhaps you should identify where it went wrong? I mean, you could say that the directing wasn't quite your fancy and that may have impacted the way in which the 3D and CGI were used, but on a technical level the conversion was pretty damn impressive.But yeah, GH was a movie meant to be dumb fun, and perhaps to sell some GH merchandise and garner interest in the new *ahem* hawt Kato in the comics, whose back-story seems to be of greater importance to the narrative than the Hornet himself.Think of it as a trope of the story: the sidekick is cooler and more important/central to the plot than the titular character. Other than that it's dumb fun and sex appeal. My childhood ain't quite ruined by this one, folks ;) I'd give it a B+
Post a Comment