DVD's and Films You Have Watched Recently

[LaGoosh]

Really? I thought they were very different from eachother.

[hitman89762000]

Really? I thought they were very different from eachother.

I cant really explain it just certain mannerisms etc just made me think of nicholsons version thats all.Its certainly not a oscar worthy performance from ledger, I think people are letting the fact he's dead cloud their look a bit objectively wise.

[KFR42]

As i wasn't invisted to join in on this temporary forum, I'm quite intested to hear what these holes and flaws are in the dark knight. I can't say I noticed anything glaringly obvious,

[Steveo2007]

As i wasn't invisted to join in on this temporary forum, I'm quite intested to hear what these holes and flaws are in the dark knight. I can't say I noticed anything glaringly obvious,

Me too. Although I am aware there were the odd continuity error here and there, it was nothing that would ruin the film for me. Nevertheless I know some people like to blow stuff out of proportion and make out like a minor flaw is a big deal. One such flaw I think people may be talking about is when the lorry the joker was in was flipped over. You could see the gas clouds from the cannisters that actually flipped the lorry. Personally such a thing is minor and took nothing away from the film. If you look out for these things then you're bound to feel differently towards them. You notice them more, therefore thinking they're a bigger deal than they actually are.Sorry I know that's a crap way to explain it, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it.

[DEF]

The Mist

 

I feel like I've just had my mind raped. Do your self a favour and don't go and see this badly acted, badly written, badly edited, badly CGI'd, Badly executed, badly conceived load of nonsense. I don't know why I thought this might be worth giving a crack, Stephen King adaptations rarely shine on the big screen but I thought considering it was written and directed by Frank Darabont, director of the Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption. Two of the best King adaptations, It might be worth a shot (in fairness I'll go and see any old rubbish but I genuinely did think this might be worthwhile).

 

I'd love for someone to try and explain why it deserves 7.5 on the imdb. Frankly the only way I can conceive how it could have got the rating is if King and Darabont are the only two people who have voted for it. I could list what's wrong with it until the cows come home but it will just annoy me more. What really pisses me off is that underneath it somewhere there could have been a decent little horror film, trust me its hard to find.

Edited August 2, 2008 by DEF

[wrestleme]

saw the dark knight in the cinema earlier its good real good i just had this feeling that heath ledger was ''ripping off'' jack nicholsons version of the joker.

Nah theyre both very different but perfectly valid versions of The Joker . Nicholson's Joker was an insane maniac who saw crime as a high form of art , who thought he was brilliant to the point of loving himself and liked to kill people using souped-up versions of practical jokes , he's appeared in many many comics exactly like that . Ledger's Joker was more fucked up pure evil and a force of total anarchy and chaos , again a portrayal of The Joker that has faced Batman many times . Neither actor to my eyes is the definitive Joker , they were both brilliant in their own ways in their own films , and if you were looking for the real Joker hes somewhere in between Nicholson and Ledgers , in actions , mindset and in looks . Edited August 2, 2008 by wrestleme

[LaGoosh]

I agree with you DEF. I thought The Mist was incredibly shit and overrated. People are going on about the ending as "the most sad and depressing ending ever" but I thought it was hilarious, and not in a good way.I watched Die Hard 4.0. tonight. It was pretty fucking shit.

[Mr. Seven]

Unsuprisingly, Seven's wrong again. The Dark Knight deserves all the praise it gets.

I have so much to respond to here, but you're definitely first. You know what? I've had just about enough of you. I understand I rub people the wrong way in the things that I say, but here's the difference between me and you. I actually (this might shock you) back up my opinions. You on the other hand, are the worst type of fencesitter. You're the guy who shuffles up in the middle of an argument and goes "I disagree" or "You're wrong" and then you fuck back off from the rock you crawled out from, never once actually offering up reasons for what you say. Why should anyone give a fuck what you think, you stupid, worthless fucking cunt?

I feel sorry for Seven, why pick holes in a great film? Who the fuck cares if there was holes (which I personally didn't notice AT ALL) when a film is so good?

Because it's not a great film. It's a good film. Huge difference, but hey, the masses don't seem to care.

Unsuprisingly, Seven's wrong again. The Dark Knight deserves all the praise it gets.

Seven's not wrong he just sees thing differently. His post on the temp forum had loads of very valid criticisms, which if they were to annoy you would absolutely lower your enjoyment of the film.

Why is it amazing? It's full of holes and riddled with problems. It's a good film, nothing more.

I feel that films should be celebrated, using one adjective to some up how a person feels about a film they liked over another is Tamato/Tomato. It serves little purpose maligning a film for no reason other than to antagonise people that did enjoy it. Your review on the other forum was a good read and will have led readers to draw there own conclusions and opinions from your thoughts. Your initial swipe at it in this thread was designed to do little more than unfairly attack the film. You probably would be better served reposting the original post over here than posting something that a great number of people will look at think you are being childish and spouting nonsense. Discussion and articulation is far more interesting than knee jerk sensationalism. Of course that can be applied exactly to the initial 'Fucking Awesome' statement Steveo2007 made but that wasn't intended to provoke nearly as much of a response.

You think films should be celebrated. This confuses me. All films should be celebrated? Is that really what you're saying? Just like any other form of art or entertainment, there's varying degrees of quality. Some films are truly wonderful, others are great, good, average, mediocre and flat out fucking terrible. Surely you agree with that? I didn't come in here and take a swipe. Someone said the movie was "FUCKING AMAZING" and yeah, I found it irritating as it was presented in such a manner that I was stunned there was no "nuff said" after it. I intend to repost my review from the other board at the end of this post, so please don't try and label me as some random bully kicking sand in the faces of the Batman fans, because I resent the implication.

It's the best superhero film ever made. And I grew up reading comics and am a sucker for superhero films even when they're a bit shit...So on that basis alone, ie it being genre defining, means it's more than just 'a good film'. Yeah, there's a bunch of problems that you pointed out and you like to analyse and pick holes and stuff and that's fun for you. But for a genre that's really exploded in this decade just because it has become possible to make these kind of films with the technology they have these days this film is a real fucking milestone.Whatever problems you have with it I think you need to recognise that it is more than 'just another decent film' that's been undeservedly hyped to shit.

People want to have their cake and eat it too. Some people are trying to say it's not a superhero movie, but a "crime drama" that just happens to have a superhero in it. Others are saying it's the best superhero film ever. My reaction? Who gives a shit? A film is a film, and this one doesn't deserve extra credit simply because of where it's background is. If Max Payne turns out to be a good movie, should we call it a great one and add a star because it's the best video game to film adapatation? No, because that would be retarded.For the record, this isn't a case of a film not living up to it's hype, it's a case of a film being horribly overrated. It's the number one rated movie in the IMDB for fuck sake! People are talking about Oscars for it! It's a good film, but that's it. Compare it to truly great films, real classics, and watch it fall. As promised, here's what I wrote on the other forum after seeing the film:

Definitely much better than Begins. I LOVED!:The pencil trick.Ledger in general. He was so amazing in every scene that recasting The Joker for a future film may well just prove impossible. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Great job from a great and previously little known actor. He managed to establish Dent as an interesting and respectable character even in the massive shadow of Joker. For an actor who usually plays absolute pricks, it was great to see him actually be a hero for once, up to a point of course.The surprising emotional resonance of certain scenes, namely the fallout from Rachel's death. The letter, Bruce's naive reaction to her death, Alfred's decision to burn it and protect Bruce from the truth, the shot of Batman looking down at her death scene. All really powerful. Also, the standoff with Two-Face and Gordon's family. Oldman was terrific here, and Batman's "Because you were the best of us!" line in response to Dent's bemused "Why me?" speech was a real hairs on the neck moment. Eric Roberts!Some surprising subtlety. The people I went to the cinema with didn't get the bit when Batman said he was going for Rachel and ended up with Dent. They didn't realise that Joker lied to him, rather than Batman made a different choice and went for Dent in the end. I like that Nolan didn't hammer us over the head with it.The acting. Pretty much all around, everyone was great, with the exception of...I DIDN'T LOVE!: Christian Bale. As with Ed Norton before him, I'm starting to have doubts about just how supposedly great Bale is. As Bruce Wayne, well he's just Patrick Bateman isn't he? As Batman, he's Triple H cutting a promo. I'm a big fan of the cartoon Batman, and I can't really remember Bruce Wayne being a bit of a cocky cunt in them, nor the comics so much. I remember in the first film he acts like a prick because he's insecure about Rachel and other things, and to save people from getting killed in his mansion, but in this film he's the same. It's just not terribly endearing and Wayne/Batman was probably the character in this I had the least time for. I do like where they're going with him though, that he's starting to feel really guilty about things and is almost starting to hate himself. Maybe this will lead to something exciting, but I wish Bale would get a hold on the character. Can't get away from the stupid Batman voice though. Why did he put the voice on when talking to Morgan Freeman WHO KNOWS WHO HE IS? Overall Bale was the movie's weak link, and more people need to call him on it. Michael Keaton will always be Batman for me.Two-Face. Ok, not that I didn't like him, but I was disappointed. I prefer his character to Joker. Always have. I felt they built up Dent perfectly, but the execution of Two Face was slightly underwhelming. The make up was too cartoonish for one. Also, christ. He can't be dead can he? I mean they didn't just do a fucking Venom did they? First off, it breaks Batman's "I don't kill" rule, and then it leaves the third film with no villain. I understand they're going for Dent being Batman's biggest failure, but Two Face deserves more than 15 minutes of screentime. Minor characters having too much dialogue. Like the guy in the SWAT van who wouldn't shut the fuck up. "THIS IS BAD! THIS IS REALLY BAD!" and "A BAZOOKA?? I DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THIS!!". Unneccessary. That stupid scene where Batman gets a guy's fingerprints off the inside of a wall where a bullet passed through. In fact, the sonar thingy was a bit dumb too. 12A restricting things somewhat, chief example being Joker killing Gamble only I have no idea how. Did he slash his throat? Break his neck? Answers on a postcard please.The copycat Batmen. I found it too distracting.Batman goes to Hong Kong was a bit pointless.It's too long. The final scene with the boats just went fucking on and on, and led to stupid characters making stupid decisions. The noble prisoner? Fuck off.THINGS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND! The notion that Maggie Gyllenhal did something wonderful with the Rachel character that Katie Holmes couldn't. Don't get me wrong, Holmes is no Holly Hunter but she was fine in the first film, despite the wave of criticism for her. Rachel is less a character and more of a device and the series is better off without her. Scarecrow returning for 10 seconds. Yeah it's comicbook, yeah it's a loose end and yeah had he stuck around it would have been villain overkill, but I felt we could have gotten another scene with the awesome Cillian Murphy. It didn't bother me, but it didn't do much for me either. Gordon faking his death was a bit far-fetched.So yeah overall, despite all I've written above, I did really like it. It's definitely a better film than Batman Begins, but there are problems. It's not a five star classic, and it's not flawless. I want to see it again though.

And an addendum:

Ugh. The more I think about this, the more problems I have. There's just way too much silly stuff going on in it. For example:The scene where Harvey disarms the mob guy in court and punches him out is ridiculous. I honestly expected to hear someone yell "Cut!" and see sets go up as it's revealed that he's shooting a commericial, as it's so divorced from reality.Speaking of Harvey, why does he put back on his burnt suit? What's the point? How does he manage to survive a car crash completely unharmed?The chief ridiculous scene though has to be the Batman employee who twigs who Batman is because he was having a look through the archives and just stumbled on DESIGNS FOR THE BATMOBILE. Retarded. I don't know if I should go see this again, because I have a feeling I will come out with a list as long as my arm of stuff I hated.Bottom line, if you take this, and Begins, there's a really good 90 minute film in there somewhere. There are moments in both films, especially this one, where they NAIL things and get them so right it hurts, but the ball is dropped repeatedly.

Edited August 2, 2008 by Mr. Seven

[LaGoosh]

People want to have their cake and eat it too. Some people are trying to say it's not a superhero movie, but a "crime drama" that just happens to have a superhero in it.

That shit has been pissing me off too. It's not a crime drama, it's a fucking comic book movie. Just because it's not colourful and takes itself seriously everyone starts acting like it's "above" comic book movies and is now a crime drama. Heat is a crime drama. The Usual Suspects is a crime drama. The Dark Knight features a guy in a costume flying about and fighting with a guy dressed up like a clown. It's based on a comic book so it's a fucking comic book movie and fuck you to whoever says otherwise.

[Mr. Seven]

Exactly. It's hilarious snobbery at it's finest.

 

Also, one thing I left out of my earlier posts. For the people who think I go to films with a notepad and pen and get a jolt for writing down mistakes? Honestly, that's not my approach at all. I'm a passionate guy with a large attention span. Most people only remember the last 10 minutes of a film, but I take it all in, and I like to talk about it afterwards, so don't make the mistake of painting me as some guy who watches films purely to take them down, because it isn't true. I liked a lot of things in Dark Knight, I'm just frankly astonished at the level of praise it's getting and the attitude of people being aghast that anybody has anything negative to say about it.

 

Also, I can't have been the only one, who when confronted with the final shot of Batman running with his cape flying about behind him, who immediately thought of "DE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE-NE-NE-NE-NE-NE-NE BAAAAAATMAAAAAAAAN!!!!!" and promptly pissed themselves.

[hitman89762000]

seven dya think heaths overrated in this?

[Mr. Seven]

No, I think he was absolutely perfect, but at the same time, now I've given it some thought, I don't believe what he did cannot be done by another actor. Infact, I have a shortlist of potential new Jokers, which I posted on the other forum before:Actors I think could do as good a job as Ledger:Brady Corbet - see Funny Games.Leonardio DiCaprio - one of the best actors of his generation, unfairly ridiculed for being good looking, has more depth than Johnny Depp.Crispin Glover - looks the part, is a bit mental anyway.Robert Downey Jr - because he can do pretty much anything and has relentless charisma.Michael Keaton (!) - too old probably, but we've all seen him play an unhinged killer clown in Beetlejuice so we know he can do it, plus it would be a nice twist given his Batman history. Casey Affleck would be a good shout too.And to anyone who suggests Johnny Depp, kindly fuck off.

[Astro Hollywood]

What's wrong with Johnny Depp?Lee Evans as the next Joker? That seems insane if you're only familiar with his stand-up or Something About Mary, but he's a really capable performer - see Freeze Frame - and God knows, he can do jittery and unhinged. Considering how often he was brought up as a possible Rorshach (it was rumoured he'd been cast at one point, in the Hayter days), it's mildly surprising that I've never, ever seen his name even suggested on a forum as a possibility.

[Vito]

It seems to be your classic sympathy story. Y'know, when someone dies and all of a sudden they become a beloved figure for a while and nobody dares say anything negative about them, no matter how justified it may be because it might be perceived as insensitive, or whatever. I've heard mixed reviews about the Batman movie and up until the Heath Ledger hysteria started I was really looking forward to seeing it, now I'll probably wait until it comes out on DVD when, hopefully, everybody forgets about it and the wailing banshees with their crocodile tears move on to the next trend.

[Chest Rockwell]

Exactly. It's hilarious snobbery at it's finest.

No, this is hilarious snobbery at its finest:

Because it's not a great film. It's a good film. Huge difference, but hey, the masses don't seem to care.

Will come back to your actual response to me about the film tomorrow; I'm off to bed.