Batutta
Major Contributor
Penetrating analysis.
The Dark Knight
- Thread starter ExtremeSleuth
- Start date
Penetrating analysis.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yeah, I mean, the way he took on the whole criminal underworld by himself. What a pussy.
Batutta
Major Contributor
See it in IMAX if you can.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
I saw TDK and was amazed so I took my wife to see it....and loved it even more the second time! This one definitely holds up for me, cant wait to see it a third time.
this movie is definitely a 10/10.
this movie is definitely a 10/10.
spidey
Shogun Assassin
not surprisingly some people have compared the two to have simularities.
spidey
Shogun Assassin
Still laughing at this one, a snapshot of a marquee as it was being changed from Hancock to The Dark Knight--
LMAO nice.
GageFX
Carbonite Member
I was misunderstood. Despite my absolute preoccupation with physical beauty, I can still separate it from what it is attached to.
She IS stunningly gorgeous, but she has become boring. She may still be beautiful, I just dont care anymore. (Her in Wanted, aside. There was nothing attractive there.)
That part is so dumb to me. But not as dumb as when he does his 180 against the building. And not as dumb as all the people in the audience that genuinely "ooooo" and "ahhhh" when it happens. It's horrible.
Wow. Bold.
Not a one. No Country will remain one of the greatest films ever, and TDK would be completely forgotten if it weren't for Heath and the box office.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
Blasphemy!
No Country is indeed stunning acting and amazing dialogue...but that's not all a movie needs to be, it also needs to be structure, of which NCFOM fails miserably. If it had been as good in structure, it could have been.
For me, TDK is as good as it gets for a comic book, you cant get better, only different.
I feel the exact same way. But, I am too lazy right now to fortify my opinion. When we left the flick my girlfriend said "that was freaking phenomenal" but I got the feeling it was more because she thought that was the opinion she was supposed to have rather than actually being swept up by it. By the time we got to the car, no one was talking about it anymore. What does that mean?
I loved the production design and many other aspects of the film. But, to be honest, when the credits rolled and the lights came up, I couldn't help but sit there thinking, "eh. it was aiight".
I guess I gotta see the movie one more time before I really know what I think. In 10 years, this movie might still be considered a brilliant flick or just one of dozens of blockbusters that lose their luster after the hype has died down. I guess time will tell.
SPZ, I completely respect your opinion. And, I don't want this thread to become an Angelina debate. I just find it so facinating how subjective opinions are based on the physical or charismatic appeal of a person. Again I respect your opinion. To me though, she hasn't lost a flippin' step. She still smolders as evidenced by this July 2008 Vanity Fair cover. wow. Someone, PLEASE tell me I aint alone? The luke-warm Angelina responses in this thread are baffling.
Hah! But I do have to do this debate!
Seriously, though, I'm going to be way, way superficial in my analysis here. I Really think Angelina is a great actress that can deliver Oscar caliber performances. She's very, very talented. And yes, she still looks good. Heck, you can compare her to Katie Holmes, for example, and, today, she still confortably wins in appeal and overall beauty. But, the thing is, we saw a much better looking Jolie before. As viewers, we saw the stunning looking Angelina in films like "The Bone Collector""Tomb Raider I and II" "Girl Interrupted"... and then came Mr and Ms Smith. In my view, this was the beginning of her "transformation". She looks different, aged, thinner and, well, less good. Alexander and Wanted just confirmed the tendency- she's not looking better.
This is subjective, of course. But the way I feel towards Jolie is - not so drastic, of course- The way I feel about Pamela Anderson. Obviously one can't compare the acting talents of one vs the other, but its because we've seen Pamela on her prime tha's very hard to accept her doing the "sexy" role looking the way she looks now. The same goes for Jolie. Its time for her to go for the more serious, award winning roles and abandon the Foxy/Sexy girl blockbuster action star roles she's been doing- leave that to the Megan Foxes.
Its time for a new shift in her career. I'm sincerely looking forward to her role in the new Clint Eastwood film. Heard she did a great performance.
PS- And lets not forget how overexposed Jolie is. She's a smart girl, involved in humanitarian work, gives fairly intelligent interviews and P.O.V's in different matters- she's probably one of the best examples of a conscious, global megastar. That's why she (and Brad) are so respected Globally. This, IMO, works against her and these types of roles. Its hard for me, as a viewer, to see this actress involved in sub-par, superficial roles portraying brainless femme fatales. I could accept it a few years ago, but not anymore. Unless, of course, its a spoof. But recently, those have been so terrible...
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I couldn't agree more with the above statement. :thumbup:
ExtremeSleuth
Veteran
People are giving this film way too much credit.
I'm getting really tired of people thinking that this film is the second coming of Christ. It's a flawed film. Did it's flaws make me not enjoy the film? No. It's still a good film. I'm really starting to get irritated when people (not here per se) get offended when the flaws of the film are pointed out. It's a movie for crying out loud!
I went into class Monday after the film was released. Everyone was praising it as the greatest film ever made. Bar none. And when I started to pick apart some of my least favorite things (Maggie Gyllenhaal, and a lot of the same points that David Jimerson made) people started getting angry at me, and said I had no idea what I was talking about, and were shocked SHOCKED that I dare pick apart their precious Dark Knight.
This is getting way out of control. It's a film! A film! People have the right not to like it. Get over it.
End Rant.
I'm getting really tired of people thinking that this film is the second coming of Christ. It's a flawed film. Did it's flaws make me not enjoy the film? No. It's still a good film. I'm really starting to get irritated when people (not here per se) get offended when the flaws of the film are pointed out. It's a movie for crying out loud!
I went into class Monday after the film was released. Everyone was praising it as the greatest film ever made. Bar none. And when I started to pick apart some of my least favorite things (Maggie Gyllenhaal, and a lot of the same points that David Jimerson made) people started getting angry at me, and said I had no idea what I was talking about, and were shocked SHOCKED that I dare pick apart their precious Dark Knight.
This is getting way out of control. It's a film! A film! People have the right not to like it. Get over it.
End Rant.
astigmatic
Well-known member
Originally Posted by GageFX
I think No Country was pure brilliance. Not faltering in any area, least of all structure.
It wasn't typical, and it wasn't "by the book", but that's part of it's brilliance. It broke the rules to perfection.
wow, I couldn't disagree more. NCFOM will be remembered as the Postmodern last stand in film, the final gasp of breath on it's long over due death bed. The deconstruction of the "climax" and ending left me with a big "so what". Maybe back in the day there were conventions worth destroying or confronting, but with NCFOM I can't help but see it as freaken pointless exercise. I mean in the end, where the feeling of irony is pretty much the only thing you're left with.. there's got to be something wrong. Now There Will Be Blood is the movie from that period that will be remembered as something great. TWBB's honest and sincere exploration of the human condition heavily contrasts and exposes NCFOM's sophistic exploration of humanity and "fate" as complete hogwash.
that's just my opinion though, please dont' hate me.
As for batman, it was bleh, like I said earlier, it could have been a Die Hard movie, the structure was the same and when you go "real" with a comic superhero, die hard is pretty much what one can expect to get.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
You think people are mad at you for this movie? I've been giving Nolan and Bale crap since the first installment, and will wait for this to come out on DVD before I watch it.
You mention the BatPod sequence, and it reminds me of the Tumbler. It was unmanuverable to start. But they had to have a really cool toy tie-in that cost several million to put on the screen. And to put the frosting on the cake, the whole 45 second sequence where Batman puts it into battle mode? The seat leans forward and slides him under the dash so that he can shoot a missile? Holy waste of BatFilm!
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I hate you!
j/k
NCFOM will be remembered as a great movie that stepped out from the refuse of cookie cutter Hollwood and stood among the few, and the truly exceptional.
Not only in terms of story telling, but by also removing music from their film completely. They shattered the mold in more ways than one and most people were caught completely off guard.
I loved it.
If only more filmmakers would do this. I for one am sick of knowing exactly how a movie is going to play out long before it is revealed to me on screen.
Let's get back on topic though. You can dig up the NCFOM thread if you want to.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
There was no music at all in No Country?