So anyone going out today to catch the movie?
Mostly good reactions so far...though a couple of reviews I caught were quite disappointed.
I'll clear my mind and check it out tonight. Let us know what you think!
BATMAN BEGINS Reaction Thread
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
OK I had so much coffee yesterday that I posted my review several days ahead of time. Overall a VERY mixed bag with some really awful aspects that take away from other elements that the movie gets more "right" than either Tim Burton or especially Schumacher.
The bottom line is this is nowhere near "the greatest superhero movie ever" but it's entertaining and stylish. Christian Bale and Michael Caine were great, but Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy were both miscast, and Gary Oldman...well I'm still not sure what to think of him as "one good cop". Nice to see Rutger Hauer and even Shane Rimmer (!) back on-screen again, though...helped off-set Katie Holmes' lightweight performance (can she give any other kind?) and the overly dense soundtrack from Zimmer & Newton Howard.
I still think the movie is, for lack of a better term, so "non-fan friendly" that I think it might have an uphill battle at the box-office. Certainly the story is so convoluted and some of the terrible CGI aspects are disturbing enough that kids won't like it, nor will they understand what's happening.
One other curious aspect was the lack of attendance at my screening...the smallest opening night crowd for a 7pm show I've ever seen. Apparently similar crowds have been reported around the rest of the country, which may have something to do with how bad the trailers are and how much they moved the release date around. At any rate, that doesn't bode well for Warner's.
The bottom line is this is nowhere near "the greatest superhero movie ever" but it's entertaining and stylish. Christian Bale and Michael Caine were great, but Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy were both miscast, and Gary Oldman...well I'm still not sure what to think of him as "one good cop". Nice to see Rutger Hauer and even Shane Rimmer (!) back on-screen again, though...helped off-set Katie Holmes' lightweight performance (can she give any other kind?) and the overly dense soundtrack from Zimmer & Newton Howard.
I still think the movie is, for lack of a better term, so "non-fan friendly" that I think it might have an uphill battle at the box-office. Certainly the story is so convoluted and some of the terrible CGI aspects are disturbing enough that kids won't like it, nor will they understand what's happening.
One other curious aspect was the lack of attendance at my screening...the smallest opening night crowd for a 7pm show I've ever seen. Apparently similar crowds have been reported around the rest of the country, which may have something to do with how bad the trailers are and how much they moved the release date around. At any rate, that doesn't bode well for Warner's.
Ugh!!!
I'd like to say that my previous posting on how bad the trailer was didn't live up to how bad I thought this film was going to be - but it was far worse, for a lot of the same reasons that Andy sited. Again, it looks like they totally forgot that Bat-Man is a detective, a concept that was completely void from this film. I liked that it played it self more serious in tone than the previous film outings, but the camp was still there - from the (still) stiff looking Bat-suit to the bad guys running around in circles spouting cheesy lines. I can't believe that they used the same line out of the first Bat-man film, "Who are you?" Short pause... "I'm Bat-Man." So utterly bad. To think that was the first time the name was uttered - they could have introduced the Bat name around the time he got the idea to use his fear of Bats as his terror inducing identity to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Gosh I could go into more detail, but Andy hit upon most of it. I did like Gary Oldman's performance, though. He truly personified Commissioner Gordon and played a very good and believable likeness to him.
The score by Team Zimmer, which now includes James Newton Howard, was waaaay below standard for them. No real exciting thematic development was to be found at all. There is emotion here, but nothing that digs deep enough into the soul of the character, nor reveals anything to us that we don't already see o the surface.
Still, all this said, compared to the last two Bat-Man films... this was a slight improvement.
Best,
Scorehead
I'd like to say that my previous posting on how bad the trailer was didn't live up to how bad I thought this film was going to be - but it was far worse, for a lot of the same reasons that Andy sited. Again, it looks like they totally forgot that Bat-Man is a detective, a concept that was completely void from this film. I liked that it played it self more serious in tone than the previous film outings, but the camp was still there - from the (still) stiff looking Bat-suit to the bad guys running around in circles spouting cheesy lines. I can't believe that they used the same line out of the first Bat-man film, "Who are you?" Short pause... "I'm Bat-Man." So utterly bad. To think that was the first time the name was uttered - they could have introduced the Bat name around the time he got the idea to use his fear of Bats as his terror inducing identity to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. Gosh I could go into more detail, but Andy hit upon most of it. I did like Gary Oldman's performance, though. He truly personified Commissioner Gordon and played a very good and believable likeness to him.
The score by Team Zimmer, which now includes James Newton Howard, was waaaay below standard for them. No real exciting thematic development was to be found at all. There is emotion here, but nothing that digs deep enough into the soul of the character, nor reveals anything to us that we don't already see o the surface.
Still, all this said, compared to the last two Bat-Man films... this was a slight improvement.
Best,
Scorehead
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
What's very, very interesting is how polarized reaction seems to be on this movie...even more so than EPISODE III. I really came down in the middle here but I did enjoy the film for the most part -- at least until the end.I'd like to say that my previous posting on how bad the trailer was didn't live up to how bad I thought this film was going to be - but it was far worse, for a lot of the same reasons that Andy sited.
Another thing I really don't understand are these "this is the greatest superhero movie ever" reactions, like the few that I read on the FSM board (including the guy who thought I didn't understand what CGI effects are). I can't see how anyone would come to that conclusion -- there are so many silly elements in the film and the music is so misplaced in several sequences, I can't even rank it with SUPERMAN I/II, SPIDER-MAN I/II...heck I even liked DAREDEVIL better than this film. But why people feel this intrinsic need to defend the movie is perplexing, like you've made a personal attack on them if you don't like it (or as much as they do!).
A certain level of credit must be given to any director having the courage to take on the fan base that follows these film, which must be the most daunting aspect of getting these pictures made. Seriously, anyone who sleeps with their favorite pair of super hero under-roos tightly constricting their hips and their testicles nestled firmly between their most prized issues of X-men and Bat-Man, is a scary lot to deal with, even for a super hero of Bat-man like stature.
It's pretty incredible that the original Superman has help up as well as it has over the years, where other films of this genre have failed. I still think THE ROCKETEER was a fun, likable film and one of the best comic book adaptations ever done, both faithful to it's origins and translatable to the general public without dumbing it's self down too much. THE CROW was also another effective effort that has held it's own over time. These films also had the notion of being made when the fan base had nearly zero control of how they were going to be made - the advent of the internet and the access that fans have had for disseminating information since it's inception, is much more a factor now then when those films were made. Still, Superman surely had it's pressures at the time and it still is the gem in the hat of the superhero cannon. Time, as is always the deciding factor, will be the real test for how successful these films are. I'm betting that this NEW incarnation of The Bat-Man will fall into obscurity.
Umm... DAREDEVIL sucked, by the way. No way that film should be on anyones radar (did you catch that last joke?).
Best,
Scorehead
It's pretty incredible that the original Superman has help up as well as it has over the years, where other films of this genre have failed. I still think THE ROCKETEER was a fun, likable film and one of the best comic book adaptations ever done, both faithful to it's origins and translatable to the general public without dumbing it's self down too much. THE CROW was also another effective effort that has held it's own over time. These films also had the notion of being made when the fan base had nearly zero control of how they were going to be made - the advent of the internet and the access that fans have had for disseminating information since it's inception, is much more a factor now then when those films were made. Still, Superman surely had it's pressures at the time and it still is the gem in the hat of the superhero cannon. Time, as is always the deciding factor, will be the real test for how successful these films are. I'm betting that this NEW incarnation of The Bat-Man will fall into obscurity.
Umm... DAREDEVIL sucked, by the way. No way that film should be on anyones radar (did you catch that last joke?).
Best,
Scorehead
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
lol. Hey I liked the movie (ELEKTRA, however, did suck, in spite of Jennifer Garner's outfits) -- but I do agree with you on THE ROCKETEER (excellent) and THE CROW as well.Umm... DAREDEVIL sucked, by the way. No way that film should be on anyones radar (did you catch that last joke?).
I'm sure BATMAN BEGINS will do OK at the box-office, but I don't think it's going to be a "breakthrough" movie. It has too many aspects that I think are going to limit its appeal to the die-hard comic book crowd. I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up taking a 60% nosedive at the box-office in its second weekend.
Hey,
No need to make excuses for for guilty vices - we all have them, just some people like dog crap on their shoes, too. I might be only one of the few who liked ELECTRA (2 out of 4 stars) and thought that THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN was a pretty fun romp.
A more interesting thread here might be to comment on the decline of the superhero/comic book score, as there really hasn't been any ground breaking works done in years. Elfman re-defined the current trend 16 years ago, which has carried over into too many scores to mention, that it has dumbed down a style that was fun and inventive when it arrived in the original Bat-Man film. Horner's contribution on THE ROCKETEER was good old fashioned fun and made good use of his recycled themes, but worked fabulously on many levels. THE CROW was another good score, sparse and ambient but more than functional in relation to conveying the underlying and deeper conciseness of it's characters. Today's superhero score pretty much suck, as the new Bat-Film continues to show how (un)interesting these composers find these assignments. I love Kaman, but his X-MEN score was uninvolved and less inspiring than Ottman's efforts, and much prefer his style on THE IRON GIANT - the most under appreciated animated film in recent memory.
Anyone have any comments? I'm off my soapbox.
Best,
Scorehead
No need to make excuses for for guilty vices - we all have them, just some people like dog crap on their shoes, too. I might be only one of the few who liked ELECTRA (2 out of 4 stars) and thought that THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN was a pretty fun romp.
A more interesting thread here might be to comment on the decline of the superhero/comic book score, as there really hasn't been any ground breaking works done in years. Elfman re-defined the current trend 16 years ago, which has carried over into too many scores to mention, that it has dumbed down a style that was fun and inventive when it arrived in the original Bat-Man film. Horner's contribution on THE ROCKETEER was good old fashioned fun and made good use of his recycled themes, but worked fabulously on many levels. THE CROW was another good score, sparse and ambient but more than functional in relation to conveying the underlying and deeper conciseness of it's characters. Today's superhero score pretty much suck, as the new Bat-Film continues to show how (un)interesting these composers find these assignments. I love Kaman, but his X-MEN score was uninvolved and less inspiring than Ottman's efforts, and much prefer his style on THE IRON GIANT - the most under appreciated animated film in recent memory.
Anyone have any comments? I'm off my soapbox.
Best,
Scorehead
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
No you're right on target scorehead. ROCKETEER was one of Horner's best and I have very fond memories of seeing the movie, back in high school with my folks on a vacation trip to Toronto (saw it in a beautiful, old movie palace with outstanding sound). THE CROW is likewise exactly as you say -- an atmospheric and effective score by Revell, whose work I've never really cared for outside of that movie and THE SAINT (nice score!).
I think it all went to hell once Elfman was signed to do SPIDER-MAN. As much as I loved his work on BATMAN I just found his attachment to the Marvel hero to be totally uninspired -- as a lifelong Spidey fan I expected something upbeat and rousing and instead we got a mishmash of recycled Elfman thematic material and nothing memorable at all. HULK was even worse, though what I heard of Danna's score wasn't anything to write home about either. (On a similar note, Elfman just seems to be phoning it in lately -- with the exception of working with Tim Burton he hasn't written much of note in a long, long time).
Kamen's X-MEN score was a dud (mirroring his career of either composing a great score or a basically terrible one), but what really bugged me was after everyone wrote that his score was bad and how much Ottman said that he emulated John Williams and wanted to write strong, distinctive themes for X-MEN 2...Ottman ended up writing a similarly downbeat and forgettable score, one that I never cared to hear outside of the movie.
That's why I have this awful feeling the SUPERMAN score will be a similarly "blah" outing. It's as if we can no longer have themes with melody -- they have to be these complicated, over-orchestrated "dark" compositions with flourishes of heroism. Let's put it this way -- when was the last superhero "theme" you could actually remember and want to hear again? Yep, it's been a long, long while...and something tells me it's gonna be a while before we get another one.
I think it all went to hell once Elfman was signed to do SPIDER-MAN. As much as I loved his work on BATMAN I just found his attachment to the Marvel hero to be totally uninspired -- as a lifelong Spidey fan I expected something upbeat and rousing and instead we got a mishmash of recycled Elfman thematic material and nothing memorable at all. HULK was even worse, though what I heard of Danna's score wasn't anything to write home about either. (On a similar note, Elfman just seems to be phoning it in lately -- with the exception of working with Tim Burton he hasn't written much of note in a long, long time).
Kamen's X-MEN score was a dud (mirroring his career of either composing a great score or a basically terrible one), but what really bugged me was after everyone wrote that his score was bad and how much Ottman said that he emulated John Williams and wanted to write strong, distinctive themes for X-MEN 2...Ottman ended up writing a similarly downbeat and forgettable score, one that I never cared to hear outside of the movie.
That's why I have this awful feeling the SUPERMAN score will be a similarly "blah" outing. It's as if we can no longer have themes with melody -- they have to be these complicated, over-orchestrated "dark" compositions with flourishes of heroism. Let's put it this way -- when was the last superhero "theme" you could actually remember and want to hear again? Yep, it's been a long, long while...and something tells me it's gonna be a while before we get another one.
-
Harry Chen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:16 am
- Location: Hong Kong
Once it ended, I couldn't remember any of the music
Once the movie ended, I couldn't remember any of the music. There are no themes! A lot of Zimmer's contribution reminds me of Black Rain, but that's about it. I just got the soundtrack CD, but haven't listened to it just yet...
The movie? Better than the previous films (Burton and Schumacher) but not yet perfect, to be honest. I came out of the movie completely undecided about what I had just seen. A few things annoyed me: I didn't buy the water vaporizer emmitter thing, didn't care much for the design of Gotham (but better than the previous movies), didn't care much for the Katie Holmes character (why do all the female characters get to know Batman's true identity?!), and the sequel-friendly ending felt tacked on. Things I really liked: Bale, the way Batman looks and shows up in the movie, Gordon (Gary Oldman), and while what the Tumbler/Batmobile is nice, its design leaves something to be desired, BUT, but, at least, it didn't just show up for a minute before it was blown up (like in the previous films).
Alas, a better score would have made wonders for it.
I saw it with my wife and a female friend of hers, both of whom didn't think of Bale as a hunk.
I know Andy didn't like the "fear" effects, and I didn't care much for them either. Finally, a minor gripe: I found that there was a lot of dialogue in the first third of the movie. I don't know, but shouldn't a movie about a comic book character have more visuals and less talk? And the whole "you're a Wayne" and "the Wayne family is the only good thing to happen to Gotham" got tired after a while...
Hmmm..., should I see it again?
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
The movie? Better than the previous films (Burton and Schumacher) but not yet perfect, to be honest. I came out of the movie completely undecided about what I had just seen. A few things annoyed me: I didn't buy the water vaporizer emmitter thing, didn't care much for the design of Gotham (but better than the previous movies), didn't care much for the Katie Holmes character (why do all the female characters get to know Batman's true identity?!), and the sequel-friendly ending felt tacked on. Things I really liked: Bale, the way Batman looks and shows up in the movie, Gordon (Gary Oldman), and while what the Tumbler/Batmobile is nice, its design leaves something to be desired, BUT, but, at least, it didn't just show up for a minute before it was blown up (like in the previous films).
Alas, a better score would have made wonders for it.
I saw it with my wife and a female friend of hers, both of whom didn't think of Bale as a hunk.
I know Andy didn't like the "fear" effects, and I didn't care much for them either. Finally, a minor gripe: I found that there was a lot of dialogue in the first third of the movie. I don't know, but shouldn't a movie about a comic book character have more visuals and less talk? And the whole "you're a Wayne" and "the Wayne family is the only good thing to happen to Gotham" got tired after a while...
Hmmm..., should I see it again?
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
-
Harry Chen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:16 am
- Location: Hong Kong
About the names of the tracks on the soundtrack CD
I have asked about this in another thread, but it turns out that the names of the tracks are different species of bats, and if you take the initials of the track names four through nine, you get B-A-T-M-A-N spelled out.
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Harry I'm with you. I was really mixed on it but it had some really good elements...though after having watched it, I am not at all surprised that it's not faring well financially.Hmmm..., should I see it again?
The numbers just came out and it took in $46 mil at the US box-office -- which given the kind of movie it was and its expectations, is downright awful (MR & MRS SMITH made more over the three-day weekend last week!) Considering the cast and it being BATMAN, I'm not even sure they'll be rushing out to make another one.
I also see the movie doing a fast-fade in theaters. No repeat business except for hard-core comic book fans, and I think general audiences are going to be a lot less tolerant of the "darkness", effects and dead-serious story line than those die-hard Bat aficionados.
Also, you have to wonder why Warner relaunched the series so soon...the Burton/Schumacher movies are still fresh in viewers' minds, so I think a lot of casual viewers probably thought this was just another installment in those. The terrible trailers they ran also didn't help.
And the more I listen to the score, the more I dislike it...
Hiya Andy -
I had to post to register my strong disagreement with u on the BB debate - I think this is definitely worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the first two Supermans and towers over the Spider-Man and X-Men films. Spider-Man 2 was one of the most overrated films of the past decade in my opinion, but that's another topic. I had high expectations going into this Batman beforehand, but it still completely blew me away. I loved the Gotham set design - it was fresh and eye-popping. Bale rocked, easily the best cinematic Bat. Same for Caine, who was surprisingly terrific given his less than stellar run of roles lately. Oldman did a nice job, Holmes was tolerable but barely passable (surely she wasn't Nolan’s first choice for the role?), but I definitely think Neeson was a weak link. He was flat and unispiring during the whole film and a tad miscast in a villainous role. I didn't mind Tom Wilkinson (except for his distracting, cliched accent), but agree they should've casted a more authentic mafioso type. The real surprise was Cillian Murphy though, who took what couldn't have amounted to more than 30 minutes screen time and created a fascinating, occasionally creepy baddie, which made it possible for Nolan to include a traditional Bat-type villain while still retaining some sense of plausibility. Sure, the whole poison the water supply plot was a little lame in the end, but the motives of the villain's were a little more intriguing than simple madness. I thought the rooftop chase was gold - the Batmobile itself was perfectly done. The best thing about this was that here we finally have a Bat film that explains why Bruce Wayne does what he does (Burton's flicks completely ignored this aspect, he was simply some rich guy in a suit) - perfectly explaining Wayne's motives and reasoning of donning the cape. The only truly sore point was the Newton Howard-Zimmer score - completely forgettable. I was hoping for a dark, moody Newton Howard-Shyamalan type score but we got the usual noise-fest from Zimmer. Completely forgettable, and themeless. A real shame - wonder what scenes Newton Howard scored, it sounded like a Zimmer score through and through. Didn't mind the set-up for the sequel and thought the dialogue throughout was exceptional for a film of this kind (I didn't even mind Murphy's "The Bat-Man" line) and cringed at the dialogue only once, during Holmes and Bale's final exchange. All in all - i thought this was a truly satisfying comic book movie. And I reckon it to be the best of the decade so far. I'm surprised at the number of detractors it has - it's a shame it hasn't been universally embraced, but oh well ... PS - I saw it on the third day of release and the cinema was almost empty, so the box office here in Australia won't be of the record-breaking variety from the look of it - the lines for Madagascar which opened on the same day were much longer, which again, is a shame.
PPS - Any fans out there of one of the long, lost, forgotten superhero movies - The Phantom? Sure, it's corny and campy - but give me this any day over the likes of Daredevil and The Punisher. It's a film that scarcely deserves to be forgotten. I agree about the Rocketeer, another underrated gem!
I had to post to register my strong disagreement with u on the BB debate - I think this is definitely worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the first two Supermans and towers over the Spider-Man and X-Men films. Spider-Man 2 was one of the most overrated films of the past decade in my opinion, but that's another topic. I had high expectations going into this Batman beforehand, but it still completely blew me away. I loved the Gotham set design - it was fresh and eye-popping. Bale rocked, easily the best cinematic Bat. Same for Caine, who was surprisingly terrific given his less than stellar run of roles lately. Oldman did a nice job, Holmes was tolerable but barely passable (surely she wasn't Nolan’s first choice for the role?), but I definitely think Neeson was a weak link. He was flat and unispiring during the whole film and a tad miscast in a villainous role. I didn't mind Tom Wilkinson (except for his distracting, cliched accent), but agree they should've casted a more authentic mafioso type. The real surprise was Cillian Murphy though, who took what couldn't have amounted to more than 30 minutes screen time and created a fascinating, occasionally creepy baddie, which made it possible for Nolan to include a traditional Bat-type villain while still retaining some sense of plausibility. Sure, the whole poison the water supply plot was a little lame in the end, but the motives of the villain's were a little more intriguing than simple madness. I thought the rooftop chase was gold - the Batmobile itself was perfectly done. The best thing about this was that here we finally have a Bat film that explains why Bruce Wayne does what he does (Burton's flicks completely ignored this aspect, he was simply some rich guy in a suit) - perfectly explaining Wayne's motives and reasoning of donning the cape. The only truly sore point was the Newton Howard-Zimmer score - completely forgettable. I was hoping for a dark, moody Newton Howard-Shyamalan type score but we got the usual noise-fest from Zimmer. Completely forgettable, and themeless. A real shame - wonder what scenes Newton Howard scored, it sounded like a Zimmer score through and through. Didn't mind the set-up for the sequel and thought the dialogue throughout was exceptional for a film of this kind (I didn't even mind Murphy's "The Bat-Man" line) and cringed at the dialogue only once, during Holmes and Bale's final exchange. All in all - i thought this was a truly satisfying comic book movie. And I reckon it to be the best of the decade so far. I'm surprised at the number of detractors it has - it's a shame it hasn't been universally embraced, but oh well ... PS - I saw it on the third day of release and the cinema was almost empty, so the box office here in Australia won't be of the record-breaking variety from the look of it - the lines for Madagascar which opened on the same day were much longer, which again, is a shame.
PPS - Any fans out there of one of the long, lost, forgotten superhero movies - The Phantom? Sure, it's corny and campy - but give me this any day over the likes of Daredevil and The Punisher. It's a film that scarcely deserves to be forgotten. I agree about the Rocketeer, another underrated gem!
And they rode on ... in the frisculating dusklight
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34271
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Hi Torrance: I agree to disagree with you on the film, but I do agree with you wholeheartedly on THE PHANTOM (plus you have Kristy Swanson & Catherine Zeta-Jones together, back before anyone knew who she was!)...a box-office flop that was deserving of better. Not as strong as THE ROCKETEER, mind you, but not bad at all.
The BATMAN score certainly sounded like Zimmer's work to me as well...I'm curious if this was a situation where Newton Howard was brought in and found his work becoming less and less relevant as time went on. Certainly if you went in without knowing who did the score it would have been pretty clear that it was Team Zimmer.
The BATMAN score certainly sounded like Zimmer's work to me as well...I'm curious if this was a situation where Newton Howard was brought in and found his work becoming less and less relevant as time went on. Certainly if you went in without knowing who did the score it would have been pretty clear that it was Team Zimmer.
hi there... as a long time not-interested-in-superheroes-moviegoer I gave BB chance, mainly because of the director. Well, I agree with Adny on the most parts... I really liked the beginning, the psychological background, but when the action kicked in after an hour I thought the movie was losing it. Nothing extraordinary or exciting, badly designed effects and stuff and a horrible score. What did JNH contribute to this excepot that love theme whcih was used twice? The rest was Zimmercrap at his worst.... this guy really needs a break from those movies. Even PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN was more fun to listen to than this score.
In the end I thought this could also have been BOND BEGINS... the look and action definitely was more a bond movie...
great cast, though Holmes and Scarecrow were a bit too young...
was overall a good movie, but wont watch it again or buy the dvd...
In the end I thought this could also have been BOND BEGINS... the look and action definitely was more a bond movie...
great cast, though Holmes and Scarecrow were a bit too young...
was overall a good movie, but wont watch it again or buy the dvd...