EPT[M] The Dark Knight Rises (SPOILERS) - Page 100
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
On a different note. Someone said something about Superman. Superman is boring plain and simple. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On December 31 2012 18:29 Cel.erity wrote: Looks like most people share my opinion, but I completely hated this movie, and I was very disappointed because I'm a huge fan of the first two (actually, I'm a huge fan of everything Batman-related up until now. IMO, even Batman & Robin was better than this). My quick and dirty spoiler-free review: -The fight scenes were terrible, and numerous. Like, 1990 WWF-style choreography. I don't get it. How could it be this much worse than the first two in the series? Sometimes you can even see that the punches aren't connecting. -The plot overall doesn't make any sense. Bane, while portrayed well, was gutted as a character compared to how badass he is in the comic books. His motives make no sense, his movie background makes no sense, and the way he carries out his plan makes even less sense than anything else. -The characters repeatedly behave in irrational ways, I won't give anything away, but it's quite distracting. +The acting is actually quite good. I think I liked every actor except for maybe Anne Hathaway, but it's not completely her fault; she was written a lot of cheesy Bond-esque one-liners. Christian Bale is outstanding in everything, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, yeah...great acting. Still didn't save this movie, though. 2/10 except it's Batman, so 4/10. Stop being so BEST EVER or WORST EVER. 2/10? really so what films fall under the 1/10 category? Be reasonable. If the acting is great, camerawork is great, directing is great, but you dont like certain aspects or the theme or whatever the fuck, then fine give it a 6/10 or 7/10. The fight scenes also were not "terrible." I think nolans films try to have story in front of the action even during the fights. 1st bane/batman fight set the tone for the rest of the movie. And I admire the camerawork behind the fights, they really have a different style to them instead of the generic side view or background/foreground. The director/cinematographer pair already created one of the most memorable fight scenes with inceptions hallway fight last year, so we can give them a break here. Im not sure why people have to be so extreme when it comes to movies or art in general, measure up the good with the bad, and dont just focus one 1 tiny thing or things that ruin a movie for you. I hated how mature the kid in Hugo acted, (especially during his emotional scenes,) compared with how effortlessly the kids acted in Slumdog, but I wouldnt give it anything less than a 6/10. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
as for TDKR... meh. I thought Bane was a cool bad guy who was again unexplored (and to some degree neutered), I thought Batman's mental struggle was lame, and his physical struggle was interesting, but again unexplored. I'm not a Nolan hater (in fact, i loved Memento), but I think he's kind of out of his league with really deep storytelling. he can piece together a pretty decent story and keep it fluid and interesting for the most part, but when it comes to really delving into the more abstract ideas behind the story, he either skips it or trips himself up. nothing really stands out in his movies and slaps you in the face as a really amazing piece of story-telling or really clever dialogue. it's all very straightforward, which normally isn't a bad thing, but in his case can become grating because of all the expository dialogue he feels it's necessary to put in. maybe I'm overestimating the audience, but I don't think everyone needs it all explained to them, some things can be figured out. I feel like he never quite learned that movies are about show, not tell. at the end of the day, I think he ruins himself by trying to be more than he is. It's better to be generic and honest about it than it is to try to hide the generic-ness with tone and setting. going half-way is always the worst choice. overall: 7/10 (same score I give the other two) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
There nothing extreme in giving TDKR 4/10... 2/10 seems harsh, but after all why not ? | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On January 01 2013 01:39 corumjhaelen wrote: The fight scenes were not terrible (that's BB), but there were nothing more than bland and average. Nolan has almost no sense of camerawork, come on, all he knows to do is to show what the movie is talking about, shot countershot, insert shots... no visual invention whatsoever, unintersesting choregraphy... That's why he tries to compensate so hard with loud music and (cheesy imo) dialogue. There nothing extreme in giving TDKR 4/10... 2/10 seems harsh, but after all why not ? Because it really doesn't make sense. If you give TDKR a 2/10, what do you give something like Catwoman, The Box, or The Grudge or some of those other terrible movies that come out every year? a -3/10? I can see 4/10 making sense if someone thinks it's average or slightly below average, but 2/10 is like... terrible. Among the worst movies ever, and I don't think it fits that at all. | ||
|
hooahah
3752 Posts
Instead what we got was a super rushed ending which consisted of a silly brawl and a terrible death for an amazing antagonist. also, felt like Nolan put too much effort into the 'plot twist' - So much time was wasted on foreshadowing the plot twist, and not enough was spent on making the 'real villain' interesting. | ||
|
shizaep
Canada2920 Posts
Not as good as the previous one but sure as hell a lot better than a lot of the other superhero movies I've sat through. For me, the plot almost felt like it came "in sections" and, like someone mentioned, the plot twists felt kinda forced. Also felt like it was oversaturated with characters and their side-stories. The whole "city under lockdown" thing was just kind of lost to me. Bane, as a character, was a bit of a letdown too. But, like I said, it's a hell of a lot better than most superhero movies that have been hitting the theaters lately. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On January 01 2013 01:19 WniO wrote: Stop being so BEST EVER or WORST EVER. 2/10? really so what films fall under the 1/10 category? Be reasonable. If the acting is great, camerawork is great, directing is great, but you dont like certain aspects or the theme or whatever the fuck, then fine give it a 6/10 or 7/10. The fight scenes also were not "terrible." Your opinion is your opinion, for me it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I couldn't stop being distracted by everything that was awful to appreciate the acting, which was the only saving grace that the movie had to offer. A 6/10 rating would mean that I thought the movie was enjoyable, above average, which I certainly did not. 4/10 is slightly below average, and 2/10 or 3/10 is terrible. This movie was terrible, so what's wrong with the rating? Also, though I agree there are other movies which are objectively "worse" that I may give a similar or better rating, that isn't really the point. Rating is based on your enjoyment of a film only. I may give some trashy romantic comedy a 4/10 because even though it sucked, at least it achieved its objective, whereas TDKR certainly did not. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:28 Cel.erity wrote: Your opinion is your opinion, for me it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I couldn't stop being distracted by everything that was awful to appreciate the acting, which was the only saving grace that the movie had to offer. A 6/10 rating would mean that I thought the movie was enjoyable, above average, which I certainly did not. 4/10 is slightly below average, and 2/10 or 3/10 is terrible. This movie was terrible, so what's wrong with the rating? Also, though I agree there are other movies which are objectively "worse" that I may give a similar or better rating, that isn't really the point. Rating is based on your enjoyment of a film only. I may give some trashy romantic comedy a 4/10 because even though it sucked, at least it achieved its objective, whereas TDKR certainly did not. That's such a strange rating that I don't feel like your explanation justifies it, frankly. I'm not going to go on a crusade against your 4/10 or anything, but I would argue that something makes you not rate this movie fairly, something ticked you off that threw off your judgment. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:31 Djzapz wrote: That's such a strange rating that I don't feel like your explanation justifies it, frankly. I'm not going to go on a crusade against your 4/10 or anything, but I would argue that something makes you not rate this movie fairly, something ticked you off that threw off your judgment. It's more like most people don't know how to rate movies, because you go to IMDB and even the worst movies have like a 6/10 user rating. They hand out 8's and 9's like candy. For me, a 5/10 means it was okay, enjoyable but nothing special. Average. A 3/10 or below is basically not worth watching. An 8/10 is great, and a 9/10 is a masterpiece. I fail to see the flaw in this rating system. | ||
|
alQahira
United States511 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:40 Cel.erity wrote: It's more like most people don't know how to rate movies, because you go to IMDB and even the worst movies have like a 6/10 user rating. They hand out 8's and 9's like candy. For me, a 5/10 means it was okay, enjoyable but nothing special. Average. A 3/10 or below is basically not worth watching. An 8/10 is great, and a 9/10 is a masterpiece. I fail to see the flaw in this rating system. The entire point of having a rating system is to have some kind of universal or at least semi-universal way of rating things. Sure it's subjective either way but come on. Number scales are a bit ridiculous in the first place but if we're going to use them, might as well try to make it functional. To say TDKR is a 2/10 or a 4/10 is unfair because despite the flaws of the movie is simply odd. If this were a non-Batman movie you'd give it 2/10 despite it being clearly a AAA title? Come on. I don't buy it. What other movies look this great and can't at least get a 6. I really do believe that you're being unfair. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:52 Djzapz wrote: The entire point of having a rating system is to have some kind of universal or at least semi-universal way of rating things. Sure it's subjective either way but come on. Number scales are a bit ridiculous in the first place but if we're going to use them, might as well try to make it functional. To say TDKR is a 2/10 or a 4/10 is unfair because despite the flaws of the movie is simply odd. If this were a non-Batman movie you'd give it 2/10 despite it being clearly a AAA title? Come on. I don't buy it. What other movies look this great and can't at least get a 6. I really do believe that you're being unfair. Like I said, your opinion is your opinion. I find that most Hollywood action movies are similarly awful and not worth watching, so trust me when I say I am not being unfair towards TDKR specifically. If it weren't Batman I would have walked out on it midway through the first corny fight scene. And really, the only important thing when reading a review is the content i.e. the opinions. The rating is just an arbitrary number that the reviewer assigns. I read other people's reviews who say the exact same thing as me, but they give the movie a 6/10 or whatever, that's fine. We both think the movie is shit, that's all that matters. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:46 alQahira wrote: I think people's ratings systems are biased by how grades in school work. So a 6/10 is like a D, or pretty terrible. That's why most people give bad movies 5s or 6s (I think). I think movie ratings are usually like fuckable scales. 10 would fuck now. 5 could fuck now, might sleep on it. 3,2,1 would not fuck. 4 would fuck once. Now replace the word "fuck" with "watch again" and now you have a movie rating system | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On January 01 2013 15:47 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I think movie ratings are usually like fuckable scales. 10 would fuck now. 5 could fuck now, might sleep on it. 3,2,1 would not fuck. 4 would fuck once. Now replace the word "fuck" with "watch again" and now you have a movie rating system I see it the same way. It's not based on comparing vs every other girl/movie out there, it's based on your own enjoyment on a scale of 1-10. For me an average looking girl is like a 6, but for someone who gets laid by models daily, that same girl may be a 2. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On January 01 2013 07:46 alQahira wrote: I think people's ratings systems are biased by how grades in school work. So a 6/10 is like a D, or pretty terrible. That's why most people give bad movies 5s or 6s (I think). yeah that's exactly how I do it. I like to look at movies as if they are a homework project, and I grade them accordingly. 70% is average, 80% is above average, 90% is excellent. 100% is the Big Lebowski. for me, if the movie is a 5/10 or below it's an utter failure, with almost zero redeeming qualities. only thing worse is a "Did not complete assignment" (Mystery Science Theater 3000 status) I use this same scale for all ratings, including girls. if a girl is a 5/10 she's pretty horrendous. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
On January 01 2013 16:10 Cel.erity wrote: I see it the same way. It's not based on comparing vs every other girl/movie out there, it's based on your own enjoyment on a scale of 1-10. For me an average looking girl is like a 6, but for someone who gets laid by models daily, that same girl may be a 2. That's why when people shouldn't say, "You think Batman is a 2? Then what are other crappy movies? Negative seven?" It's meaningless because of the spectrum: anything below a 4 is pretty much a "would not watch again." Call it negative seven for comedic effect or hyperbole, but it just means would not watch again. Like when I called Life of Pi a ZERO, all I meant was I really really didn't enjoy it. We're allowed to have different opinions. | ||
| ||
