| |
| |
|
|
| Hate Mail Follow-Ups By: Adam Coozer |
|
Some people just don't know how to be respectful to another's opinion. We published this refreshingly honest review of Batman Begins by the acclaimed critic Adamo el Guapo, and the following are some of the small-minded, churlish responses we received.
From: Tristan
Subject: Your articles..
Sorry to be so brash.. but your movie articles.. hell your whole site makes me question my faith in the human race. Simply put, your a bunch of 9-year old idiots, and I fear for the survival of the planet.. The level of ignorance displayed on your "Reviewers" part is appalling.. its all a big joke right? RIGHT GUYS? DO SOME RESEARCH, GOD! ARRRHGRggghh
Editor's Note: If you ever had faith in the human race, YOU'RE the one that should be doing some research!
From: Ben Hart
Subject: Batman begins review
firstly, step out of detective comics, it's been 30 years since batman was portrayed (in comics or film) as a lighthearted family man.
This film was not intended to look at the comics, especially not your outdated ones. Otherwise it would have teken its plot directly from one of the MANY varied recountings of batman's origins in any of the dozens of comic series that the Dark Knight spawned. Besides, there wasn't much for Batman to 'detect' in the old days, it always happened to be that one criminally insane fellow in the make-up who ran the entire criminal underworld for that week.
Get your actors stright, Samual L. Jackson wasn't in this movie. The very talented Oscar winner Morgan Freeman played Lucius Fox, and, admittedly, Wayne aquiring the armor and car were more James-Bond like than the story of weapons being made by Alfred, however, this was FAR mor believable. and if you bothered to actually WATCH the movie, there is a lengthy montage where Bruce and Alfred devlop the costume and many weapons, and batman's first adventure (where he and Gordon first meet) is done without a completed costume.
Wayne leaves Gotham and goes to Nepal to find a place where he isn't known, so that he can understand need, he had a moral epiphany, or were you still getting pop?
If you knew anything about 'The thin guy from Momento', Christian Bale, you would see that his sociopathic-dark style was cast intentionally, he starred in American psycho, which was why he was offered the part. the whole vigialante side of batman was intended to be shown as morally wong, but justified, the actions of a sociopath.
The Joker, The Penguin, and The Riddler, couldn't have been included in this movie because they were captured later on, in movies of their own, in previous movies, the villian was the star, That is why Tim Burton consistently cast the superior actors for his movies. This movie was intended to be about batman, which is why the two villians were lesser-known, and played much less prominent roles in this plot, the fight with The Scarecrow was not fought by Batman, and was over in about 12 seconds, villians didn't matter in this one,
Fright is was batman is about, striking fear into the hearts of evil men. the dialogue throughout the movie carefully spoke about fear, and Bruce wayne's careful direct connection between fear, pain, and bats, which was his purpose in becoming batman. The Villians were supposed to be scary, that is why The Scarecrow was chosen. The plot was carefully crafted to explain why there are so many maniacs running around Gotham later on.
speaking as a true fan of batman, You're off your rocker.
-B
PS. one R in Robin, friend.
Editor's Note: I already knew there's just one "R" in Robbin. Don't treat me like a moron.
From:
Subject: (no subject)
Alright listen up.
1. BOTH of Batman's parents did die.
2. The first two Batman movie were closer to the comic then the travesty of Batman and Robin & Batman Forever.
3. Where in the hell did you think he got so skilled at fighting the local gotham YMCA.
4. Morgan Freeman played Lucious Fox not Samuel L Jackson you dumb fuck.
5. Bruce Wayne was terrfied by bats as a child it was never just out of left field that he became the Batman after both of his paraents were murdered.
6. Joker is not Zanny you are reffering to a man who raped a girl right after shooting her in the back took pictures and showed them to her father just to prove a point to the Batman. WHO THE FUCK IS MR. RIDDLES? There is a Riddler who is also a evil insane psycopath that has brutally murdered countless people.
7. Scarecrow and Ras al Goul are two villians that are deeply emersed in the COMICS of the Batman universe and there interpratations were near perfect to how they appear and act in the comics.
8. Now I could forgive all these mistakes and misconception as a simple critic who had never read a comic and only knew about the show movies but you had the nerve to call yourself a hardcore fan of the comics. THis tells me one of two things A: you were ether smoking the best dam weed ever grown while reading or you are a lying stupid little man who wanted to make himself look like a fan. O and by the way your little review I am a huge Batman fan and know quite alot of other hardcore fans and we all agree this is the best interpratation of the comic ever.
9. Now that I have said my peace go to hell you stupid little fool.
Editor's Note: If you're so smart, how come you don't know about commas?
From: nick miller
Subject: The Batman Begins Review
To whom this may concern,
As an avid reader of Batman, and a huge fan of the character, I can safely tell you that Adamo el Guapo is 100% wrong in his review of Batman Begins. First of all, NONE of his facts about the character show any research into what he's talking about. Any person who has even interviewed a Batman fan could tell you better facts about the character than the piece of garbage you people posted on your site. Second, the film is the first time that Hollywood got the character right, and the 60's TV show is best left forgotten as what it was...garbage. Finally, this brief review has shown to the the world (as I found a link to this review on the DC Comic's website), just how little journalistic skills your site employs. You are a group of hacks who need to learn how to do a bit of research before you tear into a fine film for no reason. Oh, and just to let you know, it was Morgan Freeman, not Samuel L Jackson in the movie (just one of many mistakes I caught just skimming the article the first time).
Disgusted,
Nicholas Miller
Journalism school graduate 2005
Editor's Note: Oh my gosh, a critique from a REAL LIVE journalism school graduate! Which means he'll probably be my waiter tonight.
From:
Subject: your batman review
I think your review is the sorriest thing I have ever read and you obviously know nothing of batman. I have been a fan of batman since I was 7 and to this day am still a fan and in my opinion "Batman begins" was by far the best and most accurate potrayol of Batman/Bruce Wayne.I should point out that samuel jackson was not in the movie and there is no villian in the batman mythology named "mr riddles".
thank you kind sir,
Cisco Lopez
Editor's Note: Batman mythology? Yeah, after the Odyssey and the Illiad, there's Batman comics.
From: Steve Armatys
Subject: Batman Begins Review.
I've just read Adamo el Guapos review of Batman Begins. It's quite obvious that he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter he is writing about. As if that's not bad enough, he spells Shakespeare, as well as Robin, incorrectly. As a self described "hardcore fan of the [Batman] comic books", he should have at least got the former one right. He also credits Samuel L. Jackson with appearing in the film. Mr. Jackson does not appear anywhere in Batman Begins. I would strongly suggest that Adamo el Guapo do a little research before embarrassing himself any further.
Editor's Note: A review with a couple of mistakes isn't embarrassing. But Adamo el Guapo does wet his bed.
From: John Remensperger
Subject: Opinions
You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but give the actors some credit, it is Morgan Freeman and not Samuel L. Jackson, and it is not the guy from Memento. That was Guy Pierce and this is Christian Bale.
Also, and this is just something to ponder...the Batman Comic Books have not been anything like what you described since maybe the 70s. The batman comics of the 80s and 90s were dark and menacing, and Frank Miller's Batman: Year One is one of the most popular comics ever made. It came out in 1987. So it's not like this movie was out of left field. It is a representation of the Batman comics of the time, just as the TV show you described is more like the Batman that was out at that time.
Any discussion of the previous movies I do not necessarily think is relevant to this email.
JOHN
Editor's Note: Exactly - the movie wasn't true to the original Batman! Great to hear he was this dark character all the way back in... cough... 1987! But the original Batman was about cutting loose and having fun. Do yourself a favor and read the comics.
From: Lia Redd
Subject: Concerning "Batman Begins Sucks"
Dear Mr. Editor,
Though I am probably not the first to contact you with complaints, I must say that the aforementioned article that was published on your website broke any and all laws of critical reviewing. Not only were your facts blatantly wrong, but you misspelled enough words to make me think that journalism was not, perhaps, the right choice of career for you.
Beginning with the outright ridiculous claim that Samuel L. Jackson was in Batman Begins, your article misleads the readers with the mistaken assertion that Batman was created to be campy. Batman, who first appeared not in the early forties but in the late thirties, was intended to be a darker, more human character that the usual dima-a-dozen superheroes, as was said by the creator, Bob Kane, in a 1992 interview. If one is looking for a "gadget-packed cult character," one can turn to the Green Lantern. The basic elements of Batman were not his tools, gadgets, sleek cars, or a persona as "a really nice family man with a good sense of humor." It was Batman's dark costume, his lack of superpowers, and the tragic death of his parents that shaped his character. I assume that you haven't read a Batman comic in a good many years if you believe that they protray Batman as a campy "family man."
Speaking of which, why on earth do you consider the viewing of one's parents' brutal murder not a life-changing experience? The guilt of the experience scarred young Bruce and because of that he dedicated himself to fight the evil that destroyed his family. The movie focuses on only one source of training, though the comics dictate that there were many more. The comics also tell that some of the Bat-technology was derived from prototypes at Waynetech. Alfred, having extremely limited skill in weaponry, did not make any of Batman's weapons, and I sincerely doubt that he knew how to sew kevlar. And if both of Wayne's parents didn't die, then why is it that every other source- including the campy sixties show that you hold in such high regard- portrays Bruce as an orphan?
And, frankly, despite your claims of Bat-fanship, you obviously haven't spoken to many of the fans that you supposedly represent. The fans think that this was the best representation of Batman, because it followed the guidelines of the comics and stayed true to the Batman that Bob Kane, Frank Miller, Greg Recka and other Batman-shapers created. The mistaken assertions in your article are the sort of theories that we "fans" loath, mistakes that can be blamed for the failure of the previous videos. While we all enjoy the sixties show and its fun-loving view of Batman, you would be hard-pressed to find a real fan who based their opinion of Batman on it. To put it frankly, Mr El Guapo, I as a fan am not surpirsed at the drection of Batman Begins. Batman is not a "fun family movie" subject. He is the Dark Knight, and suits the dark ambience that the movie gave him.
From a Real Fan,
Liana Redelfs
P.S. Despite your proclomations of being a Bat-fan, your inability to spell even "Robin" does little to validate your claims, further pushing your atrocious review past the brink of idiocy.
Editor's Note: Your email was too long to read, but that's adorable that you're a girl and into comics.
From:
Subject: (no subject)
Where on God's green earth did you come up with this bizarre review? Part of me thinks/hopes that it is a joke. If so, you pulled it off so well that I am unsure of the context.
Nonetheless, your errors are numerous, and your conclusion illogical and frankly, ignorant of just who Batman is supposed to be. It's okay to have the goofy opinion of Batman that you seem to have, but only if you have the facts straight. Here are your factual errors:
(1) You imply in 2nd paragraph that Bruce saw "his father" getting killed, then later in the review imply that the film showing "his parents....that's right his parents" getting killed is in error. No, no, no! It is his parents that he sees get killed in the book, and correctly portrayed in the first Batman film and the best one yet made, "Batman Begins."
(2) You state that Batman "with the help of his friend Robbin [sic]...." Not so, Robin was a ward who Bruce took on after Robin's parents died. But this was, IMO a silly stupid addition to the comics by the creators to increase comic book distributions (it doubled them). I never had a strong liking for Robin, and he sure as stink shouldn't be in the first (few) films at least.
(3) The Batman TV show first off was a ridiculous tongue in cheek, non-serious use of Batman symbolically. It really had much less to do with Batman than it did a not-so-subtle commentary on the times, a la Vietnam War, etc. It did more to damage the Batman character, IMO, than did those terrible later Batman films you claim to appreciate. You claim that the TV show " was ultimately a really nice family man with a good sense of humor." ???? WTF?? He wasn't that at all. He was a brooding man filled with anger at the deaths of his parents which motivated him to bring justice to a corrupt city. All the family playboy stuff was a rouse for public consumption to throw off the public as to his true identity. Geez man, where do you come from?
(4) You have the Batman films totally flipped! All this HAS to be some sort of joke. IMO none of the previous Batman films were what they should have been. But the first was the closest (despite the overly goofy choice of Nicholson as the Joker), the last two where bloody embarrassingly awful, overly campy (Batman should have NO CAMP whatsoever) and while some technology is important with Batman, it should not be a "gadget-fest."
(5) Batman a "fun family movie"? WTF?? Are you nuts. I keep telling myself that this is a joke on your part. Batman IS dark. It's SUPPOSED to be dark. HE is dark....the "dark knight" remember? (or didn't you know). If you missed the premise of why "for some reason, [he is led] to go to Tibet or something and learn martial arts (umm okaaay), ...." then your claim to be a Batman fan is a rouse, a farce, nay, a lie. The film laid this all out very well (and accurately with the books and proper motivation of Bruce). Go see it again and pay attention, this time.
(6) Uh, "Samuel L. Jackson"? Are you confusing Batman Begins with Star Wars? SLJ was not in this film. Okay, I see it now. You didn't really see the film at all and this phony review IS a joke. Well, you got me. Now Morgan Freeman, HE was in this film. And he didn't "make" anything. Worked for Wayne Industries in the....oh forget it. Go see the damn movie yourself....
(7) Guy from "Momento"? What are you talking about? Listen, if this is no joke, don't the knuckle heads on this site even scan these reviews? Yours is more error than not. FYI, "Momento" has in it GUY PIERCE, not CHRISTIAN BALE (who played Batman). Numbskull.
(8) "Mr. Riddles"?!? Get the frag out of here. This IS a joke, right?!? You have GOT to be kidding. You've GOT to. No one can be THIS inane.
(9) "But real fans will be surprised by the direction this movie has taken." What? How exactly are you defining "real fans"? I could see if you wrote, "real morons" or "real ignoramouses" or "real ignorant movie goers". But real Batman fans have been waiting for this film, while not perfect, all long.
Editor's Note: I'm surprised that people keep mentioning Mr. Riddles. Yes, if I remember correctly, he was also called "The Riddler," but it's like Spiderman and Spidey.
From:
Subject: Your Batman Begins review
Sir. You are an idiot. First, it's Robin, with one 'b'. Second, both of Bruce's parents had always been killed (even if his mother had a heart attack in some versions). Third, learn how to spell Shakespeare! You should be caned just for that.
Editor's Note: Hey, sorry I don't live in the 14th century.
From: Josh
Subject: Batman Begins SUCKS Review
Dear Mr. El Guapo,
I have just finished reading your review of the latest Batman film, Batman Begins. Your review, aside from being overall poorly-written, contained many glaring factual mistakes which makes me question whether or not this review was written in a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke against know-it-all fan boys who really don't know anything. I am not even trying to be rude when I say that I am not sure if your review is an earnest review or a flat-out joke.
The comics were dark, but also very fun, and that fun was accurately portrayed on tv in the 1960s.
The comic book stories started out very dark. In fact, in early stories, Batman not only used a gun, but let his enemies die. As Robin was introduced and more children began reading the stories, things lightened up. The Comic Code Authority in the early 1950's reduced Batman to a joke. To say that
Batman the tv show was a cult hit, and while the effects weren't that great, it truly showed Batman as he was originally intended - as a super detective who wasn't afraid to get into fights, but was ultimately a really nice family man with a good sense of humor
is wrong. He had no sense of humor. He was not a family man; he was originally intended to be the exact opposite.
Now Batman Begins is out, and it takes it all a giant step back. Instead of making a fun family movie, Batman Begins is the darkest one yet, and light years away from the cult comic.
Why do you want a fun family movie from one of the darkest characters in comic-dom? When was the last time that you have read a Batman comic book? Did you read Year One? The Long Halloween ? Dark Victory? If you can accuse this movie of being anything, it's NOT light years away from the comic. It's the closest that it's ever been. I'm honestly asking you: when was the last time you read any of the source material?
but real fans will be surprised by the direction this movie has taken
Once again I'm puzzled. Who are the real fans in your mind?
I would really appreciate your attention to some of my concerns. I am wondering if perhaps you made some valid points that I looked over, or if you really do not have any idea what you are talking about and simply wrote the piece to draw fans' attention to your website. Please help me understand if you were watching the same movie as I was.
Thanks.
PS: "Samuel L. Jackson"? It's Morgan Freeman, man. Or do all successful black actors look the same to you?
Editor's Note: I wish I could help you understand, but that is a journey you must make on your own. As for the Sam Jackson/Morgan Freeman thing, has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room at the same time before? Yeah, that's what I thought.
From: james
Subject: batman begins sucks
How should i begin with this ridiculous review.hmm oh yeah.
did u see the movie? cause Samuel Jackson wasnt in it. it was Morgan Freeman, (not all black people look alike) second, u obviously never saw "Memento" , cause Chritian Bale the one who played Batman was never in. it was the same director from "Memento".
Now it is obvious u know nothing of Batman from your interview, the 60's TV show was never an acurate portrayal of the Batman in comics. second Batman did go to the east for training, u can pick up "Batman, Year One" that should start u up on who batman is and his origin before u make assumptions on any comic book character. So far u have made a wild assumption of who batman is or what u remember from watching a 60's tv show that almost ruined the character in the comics and was never how batman truly was.
Even in his first appearance in the late 30's batman use to shoot villains and carry a handgun. would u like the cover to it?
Before u say that u are a stickler for consistency in comics. u should at the very least, try to pick one up. your comment of a hardcore fan of comic books, had alot of actual real comic fans laughing till we cried.
All hardcore fans of Batman have enjoyed this movie. and are finally glad that they have removed him from those horrible 60's tv shows that almost ruined the character just so they can make a well known and established dark and gritty character.
ps. that fun zanny joker u talk about, shot and paralized Barbara Gordon, aka "BATGIRL" yeah!! back in the 80's , she's been in a wheel chair for almost 20 years.
before u write a review do your research on the subject.
writing 101 or did u skip that class
Editor's Note: Yes, I skipped Writing 101. It's too bad, because I wish I could write as well as you, professor.
From:
Subject: batman begins review
douchebag
Editor's Note: What a thoughtful and nuanced counter-argument.
From:
Subject: About your great Batman review...
Dude...NEVER EVER write anything EVER AGAIN. You and people like you are the reason Batman Begins was MADE Jerkoff!!
Editor's Note: If I'm to blame for Batman Begins, and if you liked Batman Begins, shouldn't you be thanking me?
Tra Huynh
From: r u retarded!
Read your batman begins review, and all i have to say is your the most retarded writer i have ever seen. Can your facts straight!
Ps. Find another job!
Editor's Note: If you want to see a more retarded writer, simply take a look in the mirror! Cuz if it's a one-way mirror and you happen to be in a special needs school or psychiatric clinic, there might very well be a retarded person on the side, watching you. The chances of this retard being a writer may not be high, but anything's possible in this crazy topsy-turvy world, I suppose.
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: What the heck???
Don't know what Adamo el Guapo's other film reviews are like, but man, his review of BATMAN BEGINS has got to be one of the worst reviews by any critic of any film in history. I don't diss a guy's reviewing skills if I happen to like a movie and he doesn't. But el Guapo shows utter ignorance of both
the history of the Batman character and the legitimate storytelling elements of BATMAN BEGINS. He doesn't even know the star's name. He's lost all
credibility with me just on the basis of that review.
Editor's Note: Well, at least you didn't waste your time writing a huge......
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: What the heck???
Mr. el Guapo,
Hello. I was shocked at your review of BATMAN BEGINS. I imagine you're a decent chap and all, so this isn't meant personally, but I feel compelled to take apart your review, so strap yourself in.
Are you kidding me? A "family" Batman? Been done, dude: try the Animated Series from the '90s, or the newer series titled "The Batman." Both very well written and produced cartoons that even adults can enjoy - yet they're not comedic or campy like the '60s series. The stories are pretty mature, especially with the '90s cartoon series.
Now if you enjoy camp, that's fine; camp as a genre is fine, and yeah, the '60s BATMAN series is entertaining - but for different reasons than the original concept of Batman, or this year's BATMAN BEGINS, are entertaining. Why would you *assume* that Batman ought to necessarily be camp?
According to you, the '60s TV show "truly showed Batman as he was originally intended - as a super detective who wasn't afraid to get into fights, but was ultimately a really nice family man with a good sense of humor." This only shows your ignorance of the Batman character, making a sham of your claim to be "a hardcore fan of the comic books" (I couldn't believe that line by the time I got to it). While the original comic incarnation was not as "dark" as BATMAN BEGINS, it was appropriately dark for its times and its audience. It was *not* intended as camp and thus the '60s series did *not* portray the original conception.
That could be forgiveable if you just haven't followed the history of the character - yet you claim to be a "hardcore fan"!!! - and got a false impression from the old TV show. It's also fine if you enjoyed the camp of that show, because camp (very akin to satire) is a legitimate genre in its own right. But there's surely a difference between bad camp and good camp, and there are plenty of Bat-fans who get a kick out of Adam West's show while at the same time lambasting the Schumacher-directed Bat-flicks. I cannot believe you thought these were good movies. You have just lost every shred of credibility as a film reviewer.
More ignorance is evident in this assertion: "Instead of making a fun family movie, Batman Begins is the darkest one yet, and light years away from the cult comic." First, a false assumption about interpreting the character: that a Batman movie needs to be fun for the family. Not only does Batman not have to be family-oriented, your assertion also makes me wonder if you're opposed to serious movies in general. Not all films are intended (nor should they be) for the whole family, and in this sense Batman fits into the category of "all films" and doesn't have to be for the whole family.
Secondly, a false assumption about the history of the character: that this doesn't represent the original conception. The fact of the matter is, BATMAN BEGINS is the most definitive version yet of Bob Kane's concept from 1939 and the '40s. Bat-fans everywhere - among which you cannot legitimately be numbered - are lauding Nolan's vision because he finally nailed the proper nuance and development for this character.
And you go on with your false assumption that Batman "must" be campy: "The villains don't have the fun zaniness of the Joker or Mr. Riddles or the Pengiun and they're even a little scary." Uh, hello: director Christopher Nolan (did you know who the director was?) was going for as much realism as possible for this type of story. "Fun zaniness" doesn't quite cut it.
You again belie your claim to be a "hardcore" fan with this statement: "Based on Batman's origin story, the movie relives Bruce Wayne - this time as a child - as he watches both (yes, both) his parents get killed. For some reason, that leads him to go to Tibet or something and learn martial arts (umm... okaaay), making enemies along the way."
First off, this is consistent with at least a portion of the Batman mythos: that he went overseas and learned martial arts from Oriental masters. Why should this not be depicted on film? Or even if it were a new idea, why can't there be a new spin on a period of Bruce Wayne's life that hasn't been heavily documented? Secondly, it's plausible for a young man to be trying to "find himself" and to travel abroad as part of that process, especially if he has wealth at his disposal.
The following is just nonsensical: "He then decides out of the blue to become Batman, but instead of Alfred making him his costume and weapons, he hires Samuel L. Jackson to do it for him." Huh? First of all, the Batman idea doesn't come to him "out of the blue"; it's a natural outcome of his childhood fear of bats and his overseas training that involved the notion of theatricality as a method of undermining the confidence of one's opponents.
And what in the world gave you the idea that the family butler would have the knowledge and skills to design a suit oriented around body armour, and create all the equipment Batman normally uses? Not only is the use of the Lucius Fox character in BEGINS eminently plausible in the story's own context, the notion of Alfred being the source of Bruce's costume and equipment is also not true to the comicbook tradition! Good grief, man.
On the Batmobile: "Worst of all, Batman now drives some lame giant army tank instead of his normal Batmobile (which was sort of like a Lincoln Towncar with a racing stripe, tail fins and booster jets). This ugly Bat-Hummer doesn't really do much, and the CGI for it looked terrible."
"Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, so there's no use arguing about the new vehicle's aesthetics. However, this Batmobile is certainly more practical and powerful than earlier versions, and your ignorance of this film's production reveals itself here because no CGI was used for this vehicle. Several real vehicles were produced, all capable of performing the feats we see the Batmobile perform on screen. In fact, this is one of the least-CGIed big-budget movies in the last decade.
Oh. My. Word. I cannot believe this one: "Batman himself doesn't have the stocky, square-jawed appearance that we all recognize, but is played by the thin guy from Memento."
As I began reading that sentence, I thought I'd have to rib you over the non-issue of how square-jawed the actor is - as if that determines a movie's quality. But then I immediately discovered that you have no idea who Christian Bale is: he is not "the thin guy from Memento"!!! Oh my gosh, I can't believe you call yourself a film reviewer. The star of MEMENTO was Guy Pearce.
And, not only are you ignorant of Batman and apparently of filmmaking, you also don't know a thing about the fanbase: "I would say that the average joe will probably love Batman Begins, but real fans will be surprised by the direction this movie has taken." Yeah, real fans were surprised - DELIGHTFULLY surprised at the fact that, finally, we had a director take Batman seriously (even more so than Tim Burton's teasing play toward a "dark" Batman). Real fans hate the previous two Bat-films and deride Joel Schumacher at every mention of his name, yet that's the kind of Batman film you say you want, even though that's the kind of Batman film that tanked in '97 and killed the franchise.
"Hopefully, though, they'll make a Batman movie that really portrays him as the fun, gadget-packed cult character we all know and love." Who's this "we" you're referring to? It's sure not the devoted Bat-fans.
Real fans? I think you need to *get* real. Like I indicated at the beginning, this isn't a personal attack, but man, get out of reviewing movies and don't claim to be an aficianado of Batman. That review was nothing but mockable. About the only thing you got right was the movie's title.
Editor's Note: Well, at least you got it all out of your....
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: Re: What the heck???
Aaack! You don't even spell Robin's name right! It's not two 'b's!!!!!!!
Editor's Note: As I was saying, at least you...
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: Re: What the heck???
Aaaack again!! How did I miss this? "[I]nstead of Alfred making him his costume and weapons, he hires Samuel L. Jackson to do it for him." Samuel L. Jackson??? SAMUEL L. JACKSON???? It was Morgan Freeman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Editor's Note: Are you done yet?
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: Re: What the heck???
Aaack, it doesn't end!!! Who the frig is "Mr. Riddles"?? You're a "harcore fan"?????? Yeah, whatever. It's THE RIDDLER.
Editor's Note: Sir, my inbox can only handle so much....
From: Andy D. [mailto:andy@###.com]
Subject: Uh... wait a minute
If your review was intended as a joke, then forgive my rant. Either way, please do not post my email(s) on your website - or if you do, delete my name and address. Thanks!
Editor's Note: The End... Or is the best yet to come?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
