Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

I don't think so. It was better than the hype it was given and the only people who could in theory give it a bad review are people who hate batman so much that they wouldn't go in the first place.

No one who wanted to go see it actually hated it.

There was nothing wrong with that film except for Maggie's face.



Yeah well that scene set quite a few things up. ***SPOILER***

The joker robs a mob bank, give the money to the guy he's going to set up as the fall guy for why the mob should follow him?

I think this movie was beyond well constructed, this was labored over and I can't say one terrible thing about it.

As for it being relevant in 30 years, well thats primarily dependent on how topical it was for the time I think. Part of making the characters last over time is them representing a sentiment within society. The characters are as complex and emotionally entangled as it gets and the subjectivity of their emotions allow them to shift from one side of the coin to the other, still holding their ground, but showing that we can't place a black and white analysis on any emotional disposition. I think it will hold up just fine. The godfathers no different.

The kid in the godfather (i don't remember names) wants to stand for honor and whats right, and he comes home from war to find that the "just" are corrupted as well and theres no difference between the cops and the criminals. In fact its closer to batman than I originally thought.

As for his "****ty acting." I'm not sure whats so bad about it. Batman's always spoken with that terrible fake voice. Its supposed to be obviously bad. He's in a giant ****ing bat suit, did you expect him to be serious sounding? Its not Sifl & Olly. (/avoids "why so serious" comment)

And as Bruce Wayne, Bail was untouchable.