Because Gary Oldman says it's on:
Oldman, who was at Comic-Con to promote "The Book of Eli," was reportedly asked by a Comic-Con attendee when the next film in the series would begin shooting. He told the crowd that the film would go before cameras in 2010, and then quickly added, "But you didn't hear that from me."...This isn't the first time Oldman has possibly spoken out of turn about a forthcoming "Batman" film. While promoting "The Dark Knight," Oldman was quoted as saying, "Maybe we don't need the Joker. Because we'll have the Riddler."
...
This isn't the first time Oldman has possibly spoken out of turn about a forthcoming "Batman" film. While promoting "The Dark Knight," Oldman was quoted as saying, "Maybe we don't need the Joker. Because we'll have the Riddler."
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 July 2009 19:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
please please please don't use the Riddler
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
A sinister Riddler or Penguin might be pretty excellent. (I thought both Carrey and DeVito did excellent jobs at the campy versions, although I HATED Carrey's costumer.)
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
That campy tone would be out of place for the new series. I've heard about other villians, not Riddler. Can't recall their names now. . . Dark Mask, maybe? Something about a mask melted onto the villian's face.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 19:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
DeVito did way better than I would've expected with the character, but even so there's some basic psychology behind that character that provides for some essential drama (he's an archetypal deformed outcast, etc.) The Riddler's got none of that. He's a one-dimensional gag villain, there's no way to make the character plausible or emotionally engaging, because his central characteristic (that he's a compulsive leaver of convoluted clues) is basically really fucking stupid.
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Something about a mask melted onto the villian's face.
holding out hope for Clayface
but then most of the moviegoing public are totally unfamiliar with that character
Looks like I was wrong: Riddler (Johnny Depp) and Penguin (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh, and Cloris Leachman as Catwoman. Oh! Sorry, I meant Cher, maybe.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you pare The Riddler down to his core, he's basically the dude who's convinced he is smarter than everyone else around him to the degree where he arrogantly thinks he can leave riddles that, when deciphered, will tell people exactly what he's doing but that the people opposed to him are too stupid to figure them out in time. Add onto that some more realistic trappings like maybe the "Die Hard With A Vengeance" diversion idea where the riddles actually lead people AWAY from him rather than towards him and you've got more than enough meat to make a more plausible version of the character than you would expect given his comic book silliness.
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
probably not going to happen, but I thought that the guy playing Scarecrow in the first one was the best part of this whole franchise ... why doesn't he get a whole movie?
― tylerw, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Uh, he got most of the first one and a minor chunk of the second, what more do you want!
Depp as The Riddler also opens up an entire avenue for the character to get over on a combination of intellect and charm, making him more plausible as well.
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
zack galifinakis as the riddler and seth rogen as the penguin
― highway to sarahel (J0rdan S.), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh, just seemed like he was on the periphery of the first one (main baddie was Liam Neeson, right?) and was barely in the second. xpost
― tylerw, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you pare The Riddler down to his core, he's basically the dude who's convinced he is smarter than everyone else around him to the degree where he arrogantly thinks he can leave riddles that, when deciphered, will tell people exactly what he's doing but that the people opposed to him are too stupid to figure them out in time
why are you talking shit about Morbs when he's not around?
― Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
If it's The Riddler, I expect the moviemakers to take the character to an evil, twisted place (the way they did with The Joker, who was -- admittedly -- a much more menacing character than The Riddler was, but The Riddler could be a wiry, insane little villian too, with the right script and actor).
BTW, Scarecrow was awesome, and they should have given him a bigger role.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry if I'm (more) incoherent (than usual). On vacation. Had a drink.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Daniel, Esq.
please those were "rumored" since TDK went into production. How can they have villains chosen and cast before they have a writer and director signed on?
― master of karate and friendship for everyone (musically), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, biggest laugh/biggest scare in the whole series for me is that "would you like to see my mask" scarecrow scene ...
― tylerw, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I did not think Scarecrow was a minor character in "Batman Begins" at all!
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
So, Depp is going from the Mad Hatter to The Riddler. I think that Depp needs a more low-key role...something that shows he's still ADEPPT at doing a more nuanced, subtle thing. Not another larger-than-life weirdo. It's getting stale. How about Paul Giammatti (spelling?) as the Penguin?
― SourPatchCorpse, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
as a villain, I definitely liked the Scarecrow more than Ras Al Guhl... but it would seem weird to resort to him as the central villain for the third film, would be kinda taking a step backward/treading water.
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I did not think Scarecrow was a minor character in "Batman Begins" at all!not minor, but certainly not the center of the action in the way the joker was ...
― tylerw, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
BTW, I saw The Riddler, at his core, as a paranoid, hyperactive, insecure socoipath. To me, the riddles were a gimmick that fed his ego, and helped him deal with his insecurities and a constant sense of dread and paranoid. To me, he was Batman's most unhinged, insane enemy (now, obv., I think of The Joker in that role, but mostly b/c of the movies).
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
he was a guy in a question mark costume who told riddles
― goole, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
fuckin english majors!
I think the Joker should be in it if only for one scene, like they did for Scarecrow in Dark Knight. A Johnny Depp cameo as the Joker would be pretty awesome I think.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dan/Daniel - I would assume they would make the Riddler a darker/more twisted character as well, (certainly the rich tradition of films with serial killers leaving compulsive clues behind - se7en, Zodiac, tons of others - springs to mind), but they would really have to make the character into a violent psychopath who's not in control of his behavior for that to work... and that's already such ridiculous, well-travelled ground that I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. That would basically make it a Dirty Harry movie. With costumes.
x-posts
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean I can see it now...
Gordon: Batman! There's a mysterious serial killer on the loose and he's left clues behind, scrawled in blood on the wall!Batman: I'm on my way
Me: zzzzzzz
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i do not believe these Depp/Hoffman rumours. Too on-the-nose for Nolan.
― sean gramophone, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
I remember Mr. Freeze being really awesome on the cartoon Batman show. Scary, tragic.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Even in terms of fictional deaths you're jaded, Shakey Mo.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe they'd make the riddler another rich high tech playboy dude but instead of an insane vigilante he's a goofball who steals stuff, i'd be into that
― goole, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
i always liked this guy when i was a kid
― tylerw, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha! Pitt should be the riddler, in his Twelve Monkeys guise
― Great Scott! It's Molecular Man. (Ste), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
would assume they would make the Riddler a darker/more twisted character as well, (certainly the rich tradition of films with serial killers leaving compulsive clues behind - se7en, Zodiac, tons of others - springs to mind), but they would really have to make the character into a violent psychopath who's not in control of his behavior for that to work... and that's already such ridiculous, well-travelled ground that I don't think it would be particularly satisfying. That would basically make it a Dirty Harry movie. With costumes.
wtf are you talking about?
Why can't they take The Riddler in the direction of the "Die Hard" example I gave, namely a smart, ruthless guy who sets up these elaborate riddles and death traps that all lead AWAY from the prosaic-but-audacious-in-size bank robbery that is his real goal? Not everything has to be about psychos eating eyeballs.
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
also goole OTM: maybe the prosaic turn is to actually keep a lighter tone but make him more of a thrillseeker thief rather than a tortured baby-spiker
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha now i'm waiting for this: the gotham public likes its new lighthearted costumed villain more than its dour costumed protector who, maybe a reality-show celeb media satire vibe (ok no)
― goole, Friday, 24 July 2009 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hoffman could do his Capote voice as the Penguin.
― mile high guy (brownie), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Actually, since Batman is taking the fall for the Two-Face rampage and the death of Harvey Dent, maybe you have one villain be the standard crook and the other one be a vigilante going after Batman for being a menace.
― Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dan's riddler would have to spend most of the movie getting foiled and/or caught then in the finale switcheroo be successful to work as described. That would mean villain wins. Don't know if that would work. Maybe.
― For other uses, see Cornhole (disambiguation). (Oilyrags), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also kudos to danielesque for posting links to rumors from a year ago.
― For other uses, see Cornhole (disambiguation). (Oilyrags), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
ty, ty.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
There were new to me!
yup.
also in this: http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Snow-Dan-Curtis-Johnson/dp/1401212654
― Ømår Littel (Jordan), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm inclined to think this Depp/Hoffman rumor is bullshit because a) as noted this rumor has been around since before DK was even out, and b) its way more likely that Gyllenhaal will be in the third movie as Catwoman - she's already under contract for three movies, it would fit into the personal transformation/unintended consequences thread of the existing narrative, you don't SEE her die ("cats have 9 lives" lolz). Plus the cat joke/ref in DK.
By all means there could be another villain, but I'll be very surprised if there's no Gyllenhaal as Catwoman.
― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Depp would be completely non-threatening as the Riddler imo, the best thing about the first two movies was Gary Oldham so as long as he's in the next one i'm happy.
― same dog, different leg action (Mr Raif), Friday, 24 July 2009 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
but I'll be very surprised if there's no Gyllenhaal as Catwoman
(a) would look good in costume; (b) would allow her to play the opposite of the character she played in Secretary.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 24 July 2009 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
not minor, but certainly not the center of the action in the way the joker was ...
― tylerw, Friday, July 24, 2009 4:17 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
...which was about two-face as much as it was about the joker in exactly the same way as the first one was about ras al ghul as much as it was about the scarecrow!
― julien schNAGL (s1ocki), Saturday, 25 July 2009 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Panera - Vulgar Display Of Flour (latebloomer), Saturday, 25 July 2009 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
only logical choice imo
guys he is called batman, if his car isn't shaped like a giant bat then I just don't know what to say
― but actually it is impossible to have a penis on the body of a mermaid (dyao), Friday, 12 March 2010 02:18 (5 months ago) Permalink
if I was batman you'd better believe that my dutch oven is going to be shaped like a bat
― but actually it is impossible to have a penis on the body of a mermaid (dyao), Friday, 12 March 2010 02:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
honestly i wouldn't mind if they treated the next batman movie kind of like the 1st spider-man movie, that is, a kind of straightforward extension of the basic premise of the franchise/classic narrative, not some psuedointellectual psuedorelevant overpsychologized stuff.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 12 March 2010 07:10 (5 months ago) Permalink
but with nolan onboard that's probably a vain hope.
actually i don't know why i'm posting here; i don't really give a shit.
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 12 March 2010 07:11 (5 months ago) Permalink
YOU WANNA GET NUTS?! COME ON - LET'S GET NUTS!!!
Bale couldn't pull this off in a million years.
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 12 March 2010 07:57 (5 months ago) Permalink
Also
THIS TOWN NEEDS AN ENEMA!!!
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 12 March 2010 07:58 (5 months ago) Permalink
michael keaton is a much better actor than xian bale
― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 12 March 2010 09:12 (5 months ago) Permalink
^^^^ I might have argued against this before seeing "Terminator: Salvation".
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 18:37 (5 months ago) Permalink
Bale's made a bunch of shit but let's be fair here so has Keaton. They do different things, not sure who I'd really say is "better" as an overall actor but Bale is definitely a better/more convincing Batman. Never once believed Keaton was capable of psychotically beating up criminals, nor could he successfully pull off the vacant yuppie thing that's essential to Bruce Wayne
― Get the Flaps Out (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 March 2010 18:50 (5 months ago) Permalink
I thought you were supposed to believe in Bruce Wayne's "psychic wounds" or some such nonsense, and in this Keaton was excellent.
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 18:53 (5 months ago) Permalink
btw Batmanis the only post=Beetlejuice Tim Burton film I can watch.
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 18:54 (5 months ago) Permalink
I thought the Burton films were good at the time, but there's a lot of characters standing around mugging for the camera. Maybe it's because the age I saw them at, but they seem a lot more cartoony.
Hooray! So far only the first two X-Men movies have managed the serious tip.
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 18:55 (5 months ago) Permalink
i think bale works just fine, cos the implication is that there is just not much to the guy.
― goole, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:00 (5 months ago) Permalink
With Nolan directing there's not much to the comic either.
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:00 (5 months ago) Permalink
I really do think the first Burton Batman is just unbelievably ugly - day-glo color schemes, shoulder pads, consistently poor use of shadows and steam to evoke some kind of urban/nighttime environment that never feels believable, cheap shit architecture that looks terribly fake... the whole thing looks like its shot on a series of poorly designed soundstages and it shows. not once is the environment believable or immersive, it all feels false. when people tell me they like this movie I just assume they haven't actually seen it in 20 years.
and this is in addition to the shitty acting, a script riddled with plotholes, etc.
― Get the Flaps Out (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:01 (5 months ago) Permalink
One thing I think Bale did much, much better than Keaton was portray a palpable sense of self-loathing within Bruce Wayne; I don't know how much of this was due to directorial tone and how much was due to Bale actually hating himself and that bleeding through into his performance (it seems like a very common thread through the characters he's portrayed).
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:02 (5 months ago) Permalink
Keaton did a much better job of portraying Bruce as someone who could conceivably fit the mold of someone who was the head of a wildly successful technological research company, though; Bale's take seems like a little too much of a fuckup without the proven core of competence shown by RDJ in his (100% spot-on) portrayal of Tony Stark.
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:04 (5 months ago) Permalink
Bale just looked vaguely petulant. Keaton genuinely looked as if it hurt him to pucker his mouth in that soul-weary manner.
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:05 (5 months ago) Permalink
the burton movies are unwatchable imo
― call all destroyer, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:06 (5 months ago) Permalink
I think the second one's great. the first one's an abortion.
― Get the Flaps Out (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:07 (5 months ago) Permalink
nah
The first one has some pacing problems but is a very good visualization of a live-action cartoon; the second is more of the same with much better antagonists.
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:08 (5 months ago) Permalink
(and better pacing, oops)
The Schumacher movies are interesting mostly because they only really succeed when the antagonists don't do flat-out Joker impersonations (which is why Carey's Riddler works better than Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy was the best villain out of all of them).
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:10 (5 months ago) Permalink
I think we can all agree that if they continue on with the Nolan version, they either better keep him as the director or do some serious quality control. The Burton-originated series got... well, we all know what happened there.
x-post, and apparently Dan is somehow defending any part of the Schumacher crap
― mh, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:11 (5 months ago) Permalink
basically i think the nolan batmans are the best just b/c i dig the scope and style and the villains are all pretty dope. the burton ones maybe looked kinda cool at the time but now i have no use for them. the schumacher ones...batman forever i remember as competent some of the time but i think that's only because it's not a total mess like b&r.
― ('_') (omar little), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:13 (5 months ago) Permalink
Val Kilmer was fine as Wayne/Batman. He didn't fit the role nearly as well as Keaton but he did a good-enough job of continuing the tone and he was removed enough to make the Robin situation seem a lot less like gross creepy pedophilia. Tommy Lee Jones did Two-Face completely wrong and no one involved in the film had any idea of what the character was actually supposed to be, so he ended up being a budget Joker. The Riddler was also verging on budget Joker, but since the original character is also kind of a budget Joker, it wasn't as off-putting.
"Batman and Robin" was ill-conceived on almost every level. A smarmy, self-satisfied Batman is never a good one, Chris O'Donnell was way too old to play Robin as so much of a whiny bitch, Alicia Silverstone was completely disengaged from the movie and Arnold played Mr. Freeze less like a scientist and more like The Terminator. Uma Thurman seemed to be the only one who read the script, looked at the costumes and sets and went, "hookay, in order for this to work at all, I need to out-camp the 60s series" and, as a result, her part was the only one that seemed like it matched the movie they were trying to make. Still wasn't enough to save the movie, though.
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:17 (5 months ago) Permalink
(sometime I should rewatch all of these movies to shore up my arguments, lol)
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
Still wasn't enough to save the movie, though.
need to put this in the understatement hall of fame
― call all destroyer, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
there was a weird period of time where chris o'donnell was actually a *star*, which i find kind of unbelievable.
― ('_') (omar little), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:20 (5 months ago) Permalink
mid 90s was a weird time
― call all destroyer, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:21 (5 months ago) Permalink
ha, is it really understatement to say "the one performance that seemed like it actually belonged in the film couldn't make up for the horribly misconceived portrayals of every other major character"?
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:22 (5 months ago) Permalink
I mean, the second best character in the movie is a tie between Alfred and BANE
Love the screenshots throughout:
http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Batman___Robin_1997.aspx
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:24 (5 months ago) Permalink
lol no no it was just kinda funny after thinking about the litany of things that are wrong with b&r (many of which you listed) that one could casually drop that thurman's performance (which i agree with you on) was not enough to save the movie.
― call all destroyer, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:25 (5 months ago) Permalink
Nicole Kidman's in there somewhere, no?
― The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:29 (5 months ago) Permalink
haha it says a lot for the impact/caliber of Nicole Kidman's character/performance that I completely forgot she was in this movie
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:32 (5 months ago) Permalink
i remember her because i was watching it with my dad and some older kids in the theatre kept yelling "fuck her! fuck her!" when she showed up in her nightgown and i was very embarrassed
― sonderangerbot, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:33 (5 months ago) Permalink
oh my god, reading that recap is showing me that my mind was trying to protect me from how goddamned stupid this movie is
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:39 (5 months ago) Permalink
wait, she was in batman forever
― ('_') (omar little), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:41 (5 months ago) Permalink
xpost -- Kidman is in Forever. And yes, that recap brings back the pain.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:41 (5 months ago) Permalink
Don't worry, they do that too:
http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Batman_Forever_1995.aspx
okay phew I am not as crazy as I thought I was
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:50 (5 months ago) Permalink
Which film was it that had the scene where Chris O'Donnell storms off in the Batmobile, is cruising for chicks, and then has to fight a bunch of thugs with a neon-light backdrop? That was some great material, there.
(My scorn for these films, so much scorn)
― mh, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:52 (5 months ago) Permalink
That was Forever.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:52 (5 months ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:53 (5 months ago) Permalink
She rubs up against Batman and tells him to "send Junior home" because she's got some "wild oats to sow!" [?] If this is supposed to be a plant-related pun, they are really, really reaching now. Then she slides over to Robin, saying that "On the other hand, youth does have its advantages!" She calls Batman "geriatric" and tells Robin that "My garden needs tending!" Ew. No thanks.
She grabs the diamond from Commissioner Gordon and puts it around her neck, then announces to the entire crowd that "some lucky boy's about to hit the honey pot!" Okay, that's the second plant-themed allusion she's made to her genitalia in about half a minute. This is a witty script, no? She then basically offers her body to the highest bidder, and the men all start yelling out dollar amounts at a feverish pace. If you're wondering why Ivy is attempting to become the highest-paid prostitute ever, keep watching.
holy hell
― we call him black Nev coz he's black & his names Neville (HI DERE), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:56 (5 months ago) Permalink
― ('_') (omar little), Friday, 12 March 2010 19:58 (5 months ago) Permalink
All of the promo posters and stills have Jim Carrey mugging with weird body language and facial expressions, just so you know this is a 90s Jim Carrey film with his totally awesome physical comedy and jokes.
― mh, Friday, 12 March 2010 19:59 (5 months ago) Permalink
I was a kid when I saw the Jim Carrey Riddler one and I really liked it for about a week or so. Batman & Robin is a movie so bad that it can't even be saved by the Rifftrax. Most of the movie they just sit in silence at how awful it is.
― Adam Bruneau, Friday, 12 March 2010 21:14 (5 months ago) Permalink
i was worried i'd hate the burton batman when i rewatched it recently, but it was really fun. i might take over dark knight as a whole - fewer ponderous speeches even if TDK has fresher "fuck YEAH" moments
― da croupier, Friday, 12 March 2010 21:28 (5 months ago) Permalink