Gotta be the best!!!
Added 11/13/2009
There just cant be any better?! THe colors are awesome!! Better than theater release i dare say! Plus the extra bonus features are endless!! Music videos of each movie. Theater trailers & more!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
i got this set for 39.99 at costco canada
Added 10/12/2009
i wanted this set but i got the dvd box set single disc set when it was 100$ then i had to buy the double disc dvds lucky i got them for 6$ each at best buy then last week i got the batman book blu ray for [...]
so i picked up this dvd set i hope its the last time i need to buy batman movies lol
cant wait to watch it but the batman book blu ray i seen last week it was great picture and full screen i love full screen on ps3 and hd tv
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
I'm sure the transfer is great, but garbage in high-def is still just that...
Added 10/4/2009
Let me make one thing ABUNDANTLY clear. I am a huge Batman fan. I've seen all of the silver screen and small screen incarnations of him, for better or worse. And the simple fact of the matter is that Tim Burton's BATMAN is one of the worst superhero films ever made. It looks cheap and thrown together in a mish-mash of steam-filled, dilapitated buildings, streets and factories. Aside from Anton Furst's art direction, which is superb and matches a maintains a good goth-noir attitude, the sets just look like they were built with papier-mache; it doesn't work as any kind of a story that stays true to the original comic (Batman sure kills a lot of people in this film and seems to be totally okay with that. But what Burton and writer Sam Hamm seemed to forget is that Batman DOESN'T kill. EVER.); the set pieces of the film, like the Art Museum and the ensuing Batmobile chase, and the parade and the Batwing attack (please freeze-frame the moments where Batman is flicking toggle-switches in the Batwing... especially in Blu Ray... because you will very clearly see a toggle marked "VOLUME". They took apart a stereo and made a control panel... ugh) are terribly unsatisfying, and the worst of the lot is the Cathedral finale... Tim, I know that you want to be the voice for all the goth/emo kids out there, so I can appreciate that you had to give it the full sturm und drang with that scene, but did you have to make it plod on like some kind of soap opera? The script is sub-par even for a "comic book" movie. It actually felt like these guys had never read a single issue. Oh, and the performances are just horrific. There isn't a single moment that any of these actors have that seem real for their characters. And Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne was just awful casting for such a great actor. There wasn't a second I bought him as either Wayne or Batman. He's distant, boring, and charmless as Wayne, and incredibly stiff as Batman. Kim Basinger... well, come on. Need I say more? Jack was the worst of the lot, chewing the scenery like every piece of drywall was covered in chocolate. I'm all for an over-the-top bad guy, but that was almost as bad as Hopkins in the Hannibal Lecter role. Just all wrong. In every way. The only other high point other than Anton Furst? Danny Elfman's score is still great to this day. It's iconic and super-heroic. It's the anti-John Williams SUPERMAN score, and that works because it's Batman. But PRINCE??? No... I'm not even going there.
RETURNS suffers from many of the same problems as the first film: Tim Burton's desire to turn every character into some kind of freakshow; the cheapness of the sets, the poorly-constructed and directed action set pieces. But it improves in two ways: The script, mostly reworked by Daniel Waters actually has a great deal of dark humor and wit, which makes the film more entertaining to sit through. And the performances are better. Michelle Pfieffer is wonderful as Catwoman (although it has nothing to do with who Selina Kyle is in the actual comics, I was okay with this interpretation), and Christopher Walken as Max Schreck is grand entertainment. DeVito as The Penguin seemed like perfect casting, but he still plays it like he's a horny Burgess Meredith impersonator. The reason that some of his scenes work pretty well is thanks to Waters' writing. An extremely flawed film, but nowhere near as bad as the first one.
Well, I'm done ripping into these films in detail. But I actually will watch the Schumacher-directed films before I'd ever watch either of the Burton films again. BATMAN FOREVER, no matter what people say, at least has a good Batman and a good Bruce Wayne. The Batman in the Schmacher films is athletic and dynamic, as opposed to the Robo-Bat that Burton showed us. And Val Kilmer was a good Wayne as well. He has a lot more wit and charm. Yes, Carrey is as annoying as ever; Tommy Lee Jones was horribly miscast as Two-Face; Chris O'Donnell... Hot Knife and a Wet Paper Bag should give a few clues. Nicole Kidman has never looked sexier than she did in FOREVER, though.
BATMAN AND ROBIN is such an amazing train-wreck of a film that its watchability is almost hypnotic. As you watch it, you can't BELIEVE that someone actually agreed to put that script and those performances to film, but you just can't look away. It should have cult film status.
0 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
does anyone know how to make this blu ray appear on ps3 as widescreen? I absolutely hate a full screen movie -- help...
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
WAY OVERPRICED!
Added 7/3/2009
First of all, let me tell you that I like to watch these movies from time to time, even the last two, which (with all due respect to the people involved in their production) were two bombs. So to put it in perspective, let's compare it to another high profile catalog movie franchise, namelly the "Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection". Although a lot of people are complaining about the use of DNR (digital noise reduction) on some of the Star Trek titles, the fact is, those movies have NEVER looked so good. Speaking of the films themselves, only the fifth is generally considered bad. So there you have a box with five great films and a bad one for $69.49, which means each film for $11.58 (if you only buy it for the good films, then it would be $13.90 per film). Now, here we have the Batman films, which have been released in special edition DVDs a relatively short time ago (so the improvement in quality is not as noticeable as with the Star Trek films) which contains two great films and two bombs for $83.49, meaning each film for $20.87 (if you only buy it for the good films, it would mean $41.74 per film). I imagine that most of the people who ever intended to purchase these films heve already purchased the SE DVDs. Of course, the Blu-ray editions are an overall improvement and I do intend to buy them, but NOT at this price. So, Warner Video, I realize you only care about numbers, so here are some numbers for you to consider:
Batman Anthology
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #5,319 in Movies & TV
Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #179 in Movies & TV
I believe that clearly makes my point, doesn't it?
5 out of 8 people found this helpful.
|
