View Poll Results: Rate and Comment on "Batman: Assault on Arkham"
- 18. You may not vote on this poll
None taken. My point is just that this is a heist movie, and central to any heist movie is the plan. The plan is always over-complicated and, if there's a theft involved, may sometimes look like it costs more than what's being stolen, but that's just the way the game is played. I can live with all those things. I can also live with plans that have holes in them (especially because the other part of the fun in heist films is watching what happens when the plan goes wrong, either because you have someone on the team out to screw everyone else or because of the unexpected).
Originally Posted by -batmat-
The Plan in Batman: Assault on Arkham sucks very badly. It's hard for me to enjoy it as a proper heist film as a result. I can get behind the idea of a "shut your brain off and enjoy the ride" movie, but I just don't think heist films are a very good place to do it. And, as I said in the review, "Task Force X" managed to create and execute a better plan in a third of the time, but with the late great Dwayne McDuffie behind the story and Darwyn Cooke behind the script, I'd have been surprised if they didn't.
They make that clear in the movie (and, TBH, I think it was also a way to suggest that she's naked again), but that's not the issue. How were they going to cover the eventualities when the Riddler's body is found? Is she going to freeze and shatter the Riddler and then let him melt away to nothing? That might work, maybe, and maybe Arkham is lax enough to say, "Oh, well, the Riddler just vanished, who's getting his cell?" but that goes against the idea that it's such a tightly guarded and controlled place that it requires a plan like, "Let's hide Killer Frost as a corpse to get her in."
Originally Posted by TheVileOne
Edward Liu | Disney Forum moderator | Toon Zone News Interviews Editor
"...ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Lackluster film. To many characters, confusing plotholes, awkward nude scenes and Batman gets to little screentime. Harley should have been a secondary character instead of a main one. She gets annoying fast and works best in moderate doses. The new Joker voiceactor was okay, but I would have preferred it if he had done his own original take on Joker's voice rather than a Hamill impression.
I also wish they had given us more backstory on the Suicide Squad members. Aside from Harley, they were all obscure characters to me and Deadshot was the only one I learned anything significant about.
Good things: Great animation. Splendid performance from Kevin Conroy as expected and most of the action scenes were well staged and suspenseful. I liked the references to other Batman films and the scene where Joker tries to shoot Deadshot at the asylum was fun.
We can debate whether the movie successfully captured the spirit of the game, but it would've been less successful if he didn't emulate Hamill's Joker.
Originally Posted by Itchy
Troy Baker's not even new as Joker, he's just reprising his role from Arkham Origins where he played a younger Joker with the same voice .
It would've been more appropriate to get Mark Hamill back, especially considering the timeframe, but Hamill's effectively retired from the role and won't come back unless it's a Killing Joke adaption so Troy was the next best choice for Arkham Joker .
Not any significantly less successful. It is part of a hugely popular video game series and comic franchise, so they wouldn't have lost any massive amounts of sales by letting the new guy do a original Joker interpretation.
Originally Posted by BigFatHairyDeal
Last edited by Itchy; 08-18-2014 at 05:48 PM.
Reason: Typo, if you absolutely must know.
You know I've spent somewhere between $150 to $200 on movies this summer and not a single one made me laugh, pump my fist and say "daaaaamn!" as much as this film. First off, forget the title. This was a Suicide Squad movie. I understand why they put Batman on the cover. He sells plain and simple. So if WB/DC has to mislead consumers a little to give other DC characters a chance to shine then so be it.
Anyway here's why I loved it.
1) Great voice acting - I felt everyone brought their A game. No one phoned it in.
2) Characterization - Since the main characters were bad guys, there wasn't much that was likable about them but they were all very human. The moments of kinship between Killer Frost and King Shark, Harley's rage toward the Joker were all great touches.
3) The violence, the raunchiness - It was like watching an animated Tarantino film. Now, I can understand that's why some wouldn't like this but you have to remember the stars of the film are villains. One would expect them steal, kill, curse and heavens forbid....have sex.
My only two nitpicks:
1) I felt Killer Frost, Boomerang and Deadshot all turning on each other to get to the helicopter was stupid. The three of them working together could have made short work of the cops and the other Arkham inmates. Once they got out of Gotham or at least far enough from the bomb, they could've all gone their separate ways.
2) Harley and Joker just seemed to magically appear at the back of the helicopter. There was no indication that there was a separate compartment where they could've hid when Deadshot and later Boomerang entered the copter.
The DC Universe line of movies have been released at an alarming pace since September 2007. That's just over 7 years and an astounding 21 movies later (With no end in sight). It's been a hugely successful venture for the most part, but sadly 2014 has not been one of it's better years. It would perhaps be unfair to point the finger at James Tucker as being the main reason for the dip in quality, but something is definitely off and, frankly, it started once he began overseeing the line. Thankfully, Batman: Assault on Arkham is the most entertaining and interesting of the 2014 slate. The film is a loose tie-in of sorts to the popular Batman: Arkham videogame franchise, but focuses on characters who haven't received much of the spotlight so far.
If the truth be told, this movie should have been called Suicide Squad: Assault on Arkham, as it's really their story and not Batman's, but hey, we all know that wouldn't sell. WB and DC seem intent on pushing the Suicide Squad on us and this may as well be the starter course, considering all the rumours of an upcoming videogame and the fully-fledged live-action movie adaptation. So, yes, it's actual connection to the Arkham games is more of a marketing ploy than a natural progression from the series, but at least WB are trying to expose other characters from the DC library. If slapping the Batman brand on the front cover sells a few thousand more copies, then who can blame WB for being mindful of better business.
The story takes on the guise of an Ocean Eleven's tale gone bad. Amanda Waller (''The Wall'') assembles a group of dangerous and devious criminals, under the protocol 'Task Force X' and instructs them to break into Arkham Asylum to retrieve sensitive information that The Riddler has stolen from her. Meanwhile, Batman is on the trail of a dirty bomb that The Joker has planted somewhere in the city. Naturally, he too winds up in Arkham, where we are treated to twists, turns, mayhem and violence galore.
Batman is essentially the antagonist of the movie, interrupting and jeopardizing our ''heroes'' mission. Despite his lack of screentime, Batman's appearances throughout the movie are intense, potent and often quite badass. This is definitely the strong, forceful and no nonsense Dark Knight that we saw in Rocksteady's games. Batman's various fight sequences are wonderfully staged. There was a tremendous sense of kinetic energy that was missing from the last few DVD's. Sadly, due to the limited screentime, Kevin Conroy didn't exactly have a lot to do. It's always a joy to hear him, but I wish he would get meatier material. I suppose that's a selfish request after 23 years of him (almost) dominating the role but if he's going to be used it would be nice to see him in a more substantial project. Regardless, he was great in this movie.
I personally don't know an awful lot about the suicide squad, so I don't know how faithful this team formation is to the source material. Despite this, it seems like the filmmakers choose the appropriate characters. Deadshot was a natural, charismatic leader. Captain Boomerang and Harley Quinn brought the humour, while Killer Frost and King Shark delivered some ferocity. Only Black Spider seemed really expendable and I can't say I'll miss him all that much. This brings up an interesting question for me with these characters. They provided something fresh for 75 minutes but would they sustain more movies like this? Apart from Deadshot, we aren't exactly invited to learn about any back stories.
Jay Oliva has stated many times that he wanted to approach this movie differently, more like a Guy Ritchie production and he certainly achieves that. The atypical opening, the split screens, wildly energetic music and above all, the sex and violence. They definitely push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating and I must admit, seeing Harley stark naked (even from the back) looking for sex was a little unsettling. Where is the cute, funny girl that use to bounce around episodes of Batman: The Animated Series? I don't think it's out of character but it was quite the odd moment. The violence was much more gratuitous, although I suppose if they have to blow up people heads multiple times... this is the project to do it with.
One of the major elements I was disappointed with was the climax of the film. Once again The Joker frees the patients of the Asylum in a mass breakout. It was fun in a game setting a few years ago but it's kind of been done to death now. I understand it was crafted to produce a bigger action set piece and villain cameos but truthfully, I could have done without it.
The animation from Moi was quite typical of their usual excellent standard. The characters moved with fluidity and always kept their shape. The only negative aspect (more of a nitpick) was that sometimes the mouth movements were a little off, never quite matching up to the dialogue at times. It's a minor thing but it's becoming more and more frequent in these productions (Son of Batman being particularly guilty).
The voice actors deserve a lot of praise. The stand outs were most assuredly Hynden Walch and Troy Baker. In my opinion, Walch is the rightful successor to Arleen Sorkin. She pulls off a much more sincere Harley than Tara Strong, who I find far too whiny and high-pitched. Walch's voice, coupled with a great design, produced an excellent version of Harley. Arguably the most enjoyable version since Sorkin left the role. She completely stole the show. Everyone else gave stellar performances, except for Chris Cox as Gordon, who seemed woefully miscast. Matthew Gray Gubler deserves a special mention for capturing Riddler's arrogance with ease.
Robert J Kral did an exceptional job with the music. A nice hybrid of classic superhero scoring and a more electronic/techno vibe, resulting in an enthralling score that I'll be more than happy to listen to once I purchase the CD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Kral reuse his Batman theme from Gotham Knight? It sounded quite familiar.
It's hard to know who to recommend Batman: Assault on Arkham to. There's not an awful lot here for Batman fans to chew on (He's either chasing a bomb madly or in incognito for most of it). Fans of the Arkham series might be somewhat disappointed as, outside of a possible sequel to Arkham Origins, it doesn't really add all that much to the universe. I suppose it is nice to see this design of Arkham again. This film will no doubt be very divisive, but I say stick it on and simply see if it does anything for you. It entertained me well enough for 75 minutes. At least the filmmakers tried to do something different and deserve to be commended. However, Tucker and Co. really need to step it up with the next batch of films if the line is to regain any kind of assured quality. Batman: Assault on Arkham is a fun, violent little romp that's well worth at least one viewing... even if it is only for some great Bat-action and a Harley Quinn that steals the show.
I finally got around to Redboxing this movie last night. It was ok. I would definitely recommend this movie to rent, but I just haven't decided yet if it's one that I want to purchase to watch again. I really liked Troy Baker's Joker and Hynden Walch's Harley Quinn. I honestly couldn't believe that it wasn't Mark Hamill and Arleen Sorkin that I was hearing. Kevin Conroy and C.C.H. Pounder were exactly what I've come to expect as Batman and Amanda Waller. I think what I liked most about the movie was the sexy Harley Quinn and Killer Frost designs.
What bored me a little with the movie was that it was primarily focused on Deadshot. I get the impression that I was supposed to be rooting for him in the film. But given that basically the only exposure that I have to the character is the version featured in Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, me rooting for him isn't very likely to happen. I still like the concept of the movie though, and I liked that Batman was kind of a secondary character. There's plenty of these DC Universe movies with Batman as the main character, so it's kinda nice for others to get the spot light. And given that there's as much as there is about the movie that I liked, I wouldn't be surprised if I do end up purchasing it. However, I might wait to do so until it's on sale for like $7.99 rather than paying the full price.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO