Outstanding....also his modest statement playing down the attention on him & putting it all back on the fire fighters was very mature & commendable.

Zef, over the years we've usually liked the same premium movies & hated the same cheesy ones that are nothing more than time fillers or a chuckle on a rainy day.
In this case, you might kill me for saying it or conclude I'm wrong, it's just that it ticks a lot of the wrong boxes for me.
It's not a Batman movie (wouldn't appeal to me if it was), yet it's rife with plagiarism - the joker, Gotham city, Bruce Wayne etc. It's still a prequel with all that & therefore lacks originality, which as I get fussier & watch less & less movies, those things become real bug bears to me. On top of that, no surprise, it's thrown together by someone that specialises in Batchelor Party movies. If they kept their movie original without setting it in Gotham city or without trying to do a new take on already established characters...if....but they didn't. If it was a masterpiece, I'll take your word it is, I still wouldn't be able to give it more than 6 or 7 tops because it's flawed to me before having seen it.
The same thing is happening all over the place. I nearly spewed when I saw that Dr Who was on again this week with a new one called "Spyfall". The UK's MI5 have a major problem & have to call upon their top person because agents everywhere....whatever. People are raving about how wonderful the action scenes are etc compared to the last season, but missing the point.

Of course it's full of Batman universe names and places - it is a Joker "origin" movie you know. THAT Joker, THE Joker.  And how could it possibly be plagiarism, it's done by DC and Batman and everything that comes with it is their thing.

I don't understand what you mean.

It was your first line earlier "Just understand this is NOT a Batman movie."
And your second line "Apart from some familiar names and places it's about as far removed from a Batman movie as you could imagine."

So that & written by the Batchelor Party guy = sounded exactly like another one of the endless examples of plagiarism & prequels happening these days that lack originality.

I've got an idea nobody has every thought of - why don't we do a prequel? How about we make it dark & call it The Sound of Ouzis? Nothing like the Sound Of Music, but set in the same universe. Then a prequel of that as a TV series called Young Julie. It never ends...all I mean is I appreciate new ideas & originality. Prequels, jigging existing titles & anything close to plagiarism gets to me these days because it's already been done too often. So it ~is~ a Batman movie - that changes everything, but they've been done before as well. Maybe not this way, but nevertheless...

Can I ask you something - have you seen it?

Think he is saying it is a long way from Cesar Romero

From what I understand, you don't like it... or should I say you've pre-judged it..... (because you haven't seen it have you?) because:

It's set in the Batman universe so that makes it plagiarism (and I really don't think you understand the word plagiarism).

Because it's "plagiarism" it's unoriginal. And I think you could get a 1000 people (who've seen it) to nominate a 1000 words to describe this film and the one word you've never get is "unoriginal".

The batchelor party guy?

Sorry, it was "The Hangover" series of movies this writer did previously, not "Batchelor Party", but they're all the same. Not exactly Schindlers List... 
That alone would make me pass on all of them if someone with more capacity between the ears released something that was original.

Joaquin Phoenix was in Hotel Rwanda, bought it with no regrets, now that's an important movie with a message that had to be told. I appreciate films like that more & more than re-hashed fluff or re-used ideas. If something is fiction, it better be original or I'd be unlikely to find time for it even if it is a masterpiece.

No, I haven't seen the new Batman movie - which apparently doesn't have ACME boxes full of hair-brained schemes that are doomed to failure & not performed in a comedic way more theatrical style with words like Pow! & Ooomph! on the screen. There'd have to be nothing else original that isn't a sequel or prequel on the list in front of it before I get around to it, because I'm getting too fussy these days.

I tried to explain the same thing about that Dr Who producer & the new episode this week Spyfall/Skyfall, Bond replaced by the Dr etc. Some people like that never change & I'd expect him to think doing one on Zombies is a new idea next. My patience wears thin for people like that, so it's not having a go at you Zef, just explaining my reasons in general why & I know you'll understand after I have explained (yes, sometimes with exaggerations to make a point or 2 along the way), which is why I've bothered to explain why at all, because I know you'll get it. I'm not suggesting the new Batman is crap, just why other things are likely to be in the picking order ahead of it for me & why those original ones are likely going to wait as well, as I'm not watching many films at all recently. That's what I meant by it'd have to be something damn good, original, not a sequel or prequel etc.

I really don't understand you know.

Not that you don't like the movie or wouldn't like the movie - some people don't. And not even that you haven't even seen the movie to not like it - there's movies I won't see either.

But the reasoning you put forward - the batchelor party guy? OK so you didn't like the Hangovers, but this isn't the Hangovers, this is as far removed form the Hangovers as Hostel 1 & 2 is.

And unoriginal? It's one of the most original movies I've ever seen. Your feeling empathy for, and maybe even cheering on a little, a psychopath who finds the meaning of his life in anarchy.

I'm amazed a major studio green-lit this at all. Imagine trying to sell it - "Well there's no heros, no happy endings, no positive messages but people will relate to the major character and his journey - a psychopath in waiting."

U-N-O-R-I-G-I-N-A-L

?????????????????

I was speaking generally (not just about this movie) using those terms, including unoriginal, which is certainly my first impression of this movie, but yes Batman has been done before, prequels have been done before, doing a dark re-hash of someone elses original lighter work or ideas has been done before, so no matter how well they do it, it's been done before. No matter how differently they do it, with different angles, concepts, deeper drama, whatever - it's wasted on something that's been done before. And they're ticking multiple boxes as well, done before, done before, done before with a bit of never done before to sugar coat it. Points off for this masterpiece accordingly, max 6 out of 10. And if/when I get around to it, maybe less if I don't end up as impressed with it as you were, but giving you the benefit of the doubt - a 6. It's unfair on anything original to go higher.

Look man, after Shakespeare - EVERYTHING has been done before. Someone famous (it may have even been Shakespeare) once said there's only 12 stories in drama, the trick is how you tell them.

One of my favs and acclaimed as one of the most original horror (or is it sci-fi?) movies of all time, Alien, is just a monster chase movie. it's Frankenstein, it's Creature From The Black Lagoon, it's Dracula, it's Plan 9 From Outer Space.

It's all of them, almost a direct copy.

Yet highly original, influential and genre defining.

There's only even been one story in modern times that's NEVER been told before - Being John Malkovich.

So you may as well watch that on loop because it's the only original movie you will ever see.

There's more original movies that just that one. Also, realistic ones rate more highly to me than any fiction, deservedly so, but even the idea of doing a realistic one based on ww2 for eg has been done before, yet will always be more respectable because it's important many such stories are told, much more than the zombies are back (with only 2 possible endings, the last survivor wins or they get him/her too). Have they done the one yet where they make the zombies intellectuals that are trying to find a cure for themselves? If not, it's only a matter of time, in spite of it being predictable. Maybe it's been done with vampires trying to find a cure for themselves or werewolves, because they can't figure out an ending besides the last person standing wins or they die too. The more original or intelligent the better, the more aspects that've been done before the worse. When they do a prequel, straight away I lose confidence in them doing anything else that's original. When I see "prequel" they may as well just walk into the room & drop their guts louder than an air raid siren as far as first impressions are concerned. If it's the old horror story of picking them off one by one, at least they wont get another point deducted if what's picking them off is original, but still wont get close to 10/10. I doubt I could name a 10/10 but there's better than 6. Anyway, once in a blue moon a 7 comes along or more rarely maybe an 8, but 9's & 10's are reserved for those that can pull it off & I reckon it'll be a long wait. 

I already like it off the back of your review!
I'll let you know if I disagree, but you had me with the "no one gets out alive"

All they have to do is make a sequel to The Usual Suspects and call it.....Kayser.

Box office smash.

That's quite funny. The pick them off one by one thing & a prequel rolled into one ~almost~ original...followed by a sequel. 
At least a sequel isn't as bad as a prequel for a franchise, but either way the elusive 10/10 flies out the window before it starts.
Yet people give these things 9 or 10 out of 10, so they either mistake the real gems as lesser quality or they forgot to leave room for them.
If something as meaningless as Batman is a 10, where does that leave Schindlers List? Not good enough?

My top 5 films....

1) The Usual Suspects
2) The Wolf of Wall Street
3) The Shawshank Redemption
4) The 6th Sense
5) The Delta Force

Notice a theme here? 
They all start with "The" 

Honourable mention to What Lies Beneath....

Nothing wrong with that. If you get your $20 worth, that's the main thing.
Some do with 3 or 4's out of 10 as a time filler in the right circumstances, but just saying, doesn't mean the shallow lower quality ones rate a 10 which is what a lot of people rate stuff based on if they were able to watch it through & be entertained enough. Also you can get people going to see the classics but rate them a 1 or 2 because the coffee they were sold was cold or someone had a baby crying next to them or an empty can with a weird lingering smell under the seat etc.

The old show the end of the movie in the first 5 mins & spend the rest of the movie in prequel mode routine.... haha...
I still believe genuine 10's are possible. It'd take a wise, experienced creative force behind it with more awareness than all the amateurs. It wouldn't be easy without landing on one of Shakespears prophesised cliché's, but going close is better than ticking all the wrong boxes I suppose.

Seen the latest Rambo the other day too. Some impressive work with a hammer in there let me tell you.

I forgot to mention Blood Diamond...
In my top 10 somewhere....

Being a bit nostalgic, showing my age and admitting to being on the turps at the rissole tonight ,movies I liked among others :
Casablanca
From here to eternity
To kill a Mockingbird
For whom the Bell tolls
Good stories, good acting and not propped up by technology.

It is all in the eye of the beholder. A 10 to any of you might be a 1 to me and vice versa.

A personal preference of genre is another thing altogether. It's more about putting personal preferences aside, being unbiased & putting things in their rightful place. 
Many take a more selfish or ignorant approach. For me, just because something is a genre I have no interest in, wouldn't mean I'd rate it lower than something I actually would watch based on preferred subject matter. Credit where credit is due kind of thing.

I was reading some news pages this morning, noticed the BBC had a link to an article "TV's Dracula is like an evil James Bond".
I didn't read it because it's exactly the kind of thing that frustrates me. All I can say is I'm not surprised when one persons writing, ideas, creativity & work ends up in the hands of another person that has no idea - yet again. 

For those not able to follow the cricket...I'm not watching it all either, but I saw this bit... Warner was penalised 5 runs for ignoring the umpires warning about running on the pitch. Warner then compounded the problem (pushing his luck) by yelling "What???" at the umpire more than once. He needs to get it together, he's only just back from suspension as it is & it's clear they were about to declare, so running on the pitch is a lame tactic to make it harder for the NZ batsmen & obviously a tactic the umpires have seen before...
It took the prestige off his century, that's for sure. Silly boy. No need to try & cheat. Marnus copped a warning previously for it too.

We can move to synthetic pitches when we go to 4 days... Should protect those precious batsmen from any variation...

Will agree though, if anyone needs to err on the side of the spirit if the game its him...

YOU GET A STADIUM!
YOU GET A STADIUM 
YOU GET A STADIUM! 
YOU ALL GET A STADIUM! 
except you bulldogs you're stuck cleaning pigeon sh*t. 

It didn't sit well with me & I ended up switching it off. The country is in a bit of strife, people going through hell, over 500m animals burnt alive in excruciating deaths...and the one thing at the moment keeping a lot of peoples spirits up is cheering on those guys...that for some unknown reason, when the series is won & when this dead rubber is in such a dominating position for them, they decide that cheating & bringing shame on themselves & the country, again, is a good idea...after being warned minutes earlier.
The penalty may have only been 5 runs & maybe Langer will still praise Warner & give him an 11 out of 10, but fair dinkum...the attitude was clear & it wasn't good for anyone. 

Obviously news reaches Russia slowly... 
The year is 2038 here and the Western Bulldog Eel Sharks play out of Madison Sq Garden....
Trump Jnr is President...
Matt Lodge is Prime Minister...
Villi still can't pick talent...

Also, with this cheating attitude unveiled again in no uncertain terms, it's made me look back at the rest of the series for any other signs of it, because if they're the sort of people that would cheat one way then they'd no doubt cheat another way. The first thing that springs to mind is most of the NZ team suddenly getting infected on the eve of this match with something that prevented a lot of them taking the field. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened around the world, not just with Aus. I can't give them the benefit of the doubt now, so I'm very suss. Sounds like the series was another technical loss...