I was dissapointed with batman begin, the batman and bruce wayne characters were no way near what I remembered. Hollywood bad!
Casino Royale was sheet hot though, a bit long and a bit of the twists were confusing to begin with. But playing poker with a villain? what a plot.
__________________
"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
As reboots Batman Begins had it extremely easy though. They could have cut two hours out of the 60s series and it would still have been endlessly better than B&R.
As movie, I do think Casino Royale might have a slight edge actually, though I found them both to be extremely entertaining and good.
Gender: Male Location: Impacting nations and generations
Wow.
Tough one. BOTH were awesome reboots that really made me love both franchises again.
Both were more realistic than their cartoony predecessors (Batman and Robin/Die Another Day) and brought a sense of realism to both the worlds of these fantastic characters, and a seriousness to the situations.
Both picked GREAT new stars to lead the new franchises and they delivered.
It's honestly a tie for me, but I gave it to Batman Begins for the amount of quality actors in it. It's not really a BETTER film, but I watch it more.
As soon as Le Chiffre died (were spoilers really neccesary?) Casino Royale just chases a plot it never catches up with. I know that because I'm an informed connoisseur, thank you Robtard. The pacing for Casino Royale is anything but solid.
Maybe I just don't like Bond films though. Maybe if they werre British I would.
The Ultimatum is the best, with Supremacy close behind. More visceral energy and economic imagination in those films than the last five bond films put together.
On another note, what Casino Royale tried to do with the character was almost ineffectual; I remember reading that they tried to take the character back to basics, that bonds masculine armour would be stripped and subsequently place back upon after a betrayal.
So he tries to get hitched and something happens to his wife, which is a variation of the end of the George Lazenby film, where his newly wed is shot. His looses his armour and martini and then chucks it back on as soon as his wife died. Although an inferior film, the Lazenby film 's end is more effective at what Casino Royale takes a whole film to communicate.
Batman Begins easily.All the other batman movies sucked and were a disgrace to the comicbook.Batman begins finally did the caped crusader justice on the big screen. Plus the Bond series really should have ended years ago after Moore retired.as long as the planet earth is here,they are never going to stop making these freaking Bond movies.
Casino Royale by far. it had way more characterizations than you normally find in an action movie and craig was awesome. BB had a great look and style to it, but despite Bale being a good actor, i thought his character was pretty dull and the action scenes were weak.
__________________ christmas... christmas dinner...dinner means death... death means carnage... CHRISTMAS MEANS CARNAGE!!!
Working with the criteria in which he judged Casino Royale above Batman Begins, Batman has the better characterisation and Bale gives sides (with help from the script) to the character that haven't been explored in the films before.
So did Daniel Craig with his character to some extent, but James Bond hasn't got a lot to work with.
Both have visceral action sequences, although Casino Royales pales in comparison to the obvious comparison of Bourne.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 31st, 2007 12:01 AM
