|
On July 27 2012 17:12 zoLo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 13:46 antelope591 wrote:
99% of criticism for this movie is pretty much retarted nitpicking which doesn't surprise me. I'm not defending The Avengers, but the movie had fewer problems or on the same level as The Dark Knight Rises for people to nit pick. In the end, they're both great movies that still exceeded many people's expectations. No one can deny that The Dark Knight left off at a high note, which will be hard to replicate. I liked the movie, but there were some things they felt out of character from the likes of Nolan and Goyer. I don't blame the people nit picking though since there were moments where it was pretty convenient for so and so to happen, but I didn't think too much of it.
The Avengers also took no risks and didn't diverge from the norm at all. That's why it was only a good movie and had no chance of being a great one.
|
On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it.
I had actually typed quite a long response to this, but I can't get over your use of the word fisticuffs. If you're so uptight that you would dismiss all acting for undefined reason, dismiss all of the females in the film because they managed to wear make up and not be morbidly obese, and dismiss any action scene as troglodytic fisticuffs, I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by actually going to see a movie. A superhero film, no less.
But congratulations on having at least a second brain cell, I suppose it is quite a feat to have a single neural synapse.
|
On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it.
I couldnt agree more.
Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me.
My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again.
my 2 cents.
|
i approve of this movie, i had a hard time concentrating through the 2 hours 45 minutes long film but i still enjoyed it for the most part.
|
On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents.
So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times?
Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado.....
|
On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado.....
I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed.
|
I feel like its main flaw was that it wasn't long enough.
No, I'm not trolling. A director like Nolan, even with what could be labelled a "superhero" movie, has proven the skills to make a franchise on a scale as era-defining as the Godfather trilogy, and I felt like the pacing was very awkward when a potential 200-220 minute long epic was cut down to 165 to please an audience with a deplorably short attention span. Everything I didn't like about the movie could have been fixed through a thorougher screenplay. The first hour felt so rushed. His romance with Talia was incidental at best, forced at worst, and if her plan hinged on the son of Gotham falling for her, she really flipped a coin there TBH. His recovery from his state at the beginning wasn't that rushed, but it still could have been more emphatic (just a quasi-montage scene with him running/doing pull-ups, even with a voiceover conversation to continue advancing the plot, would have been fine). My absolute least favorite part of the movie was the 90 seconds it took for him and Alfred to become estranged. I felt very little strain on the relationship preceding that scene, and Alfred's objections were written into the movie as mild concerns, and did little to create a tension in their friendship.
Also, when Blake reveals his name to be Robin, and not Dick, I felt like Nolan and Goyer slapped every actual fan of the Batman franchise in the nuts. But considering it's Hollywood, I'm willing to forgive (but CERTAINLY not forget >=( ). I'll just pretend his full name is Richard Robin Grayson, or Robin Richard Grayson.
Overall, not as good as its predecessors, which is disappointing, considering it had the potential to be the greatest of the franchise without a doubt.
But, at the end of the day, everything else about it (except for Bane's voiceover in the opening scene) was fantastic and showed ridiculous directorial skill. And your least favorite Nolan movie? Still better than most other movies ^_^
|
On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed.
By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script?
|
On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script?
There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better.
Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan.
|
On July 27 2012 18:43 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I had actually typed quite a long response to this, but I can't get over your use of the word fisticuffs. If you're so uptight that you would dismiss all acting for undefined reason, dismiss all of the females in the film because they managed to wear make up and not be morbidly obese, and dismiss any action scene as troglodytic fisticuffs, I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by actually going to see a movie. A superhero film, no less. But congratulations on having at least a second brain cell, I suppose it is quite a feat to have a single neural synapse.
Definitely seems like that guy was rather mad at the people in the actual theatre. His vocabulary reflects his superiority complex.
|
On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan.
Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie.
I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies.
|
On July 27 2012 20:30 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan. Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie. I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies.
There are many very good Hollywood movies, I haven't seen one by Nolan (granted, I haven't seen what seems to be his best one, The Prestige).
Avatar is not my favorite movie by far, but two huge qualitites : stunning visual and impressive camerawork, which are quite important for an action movie. I can't see how what Nolan does visually is even close to what Cameron did. He did manage to make one fight scene that did not look bad (Bane vs Batman), which is a first by him, but the choregraphy is so simplistic that it's easily forgetable.
|
On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it.
oh those people around you, we should all take pity on them for enjoying a movie they chosed to watch and pay for
thank good we got people like you that watch the movie even though they are way to intelligent for the whole popcorn cinema thing and than actually take the time to rant about it while using some ridicilous vocabulary
|
Someone said Avatar is GOOD movie? What? WHAT? As for Nolan, look at Memento, and its unique story telling, Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are only famous directors i know that tried innovating.
For me Cameron movies i saw SUCK, only ones i saw were Titanic and Avatar.
On July 27 2012 20:36 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 20:30 -Archangel- wrote:On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan. Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie. I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies. There are many very good Hollywood movies, I haven't seen one by Nolan (granted, I haven't seen what seems to be his best one, The Prestige). Avatar is not my favorite movie by far, but two huge qualitites : stunning visual and impressive camerawork, which are quite important for an action movie. I can't see how what Nolan does visually is even close to what Cameron did. He did manage to make one fight scene that did not look bad (Bane vs Batman), which is a first by him, but the choregraphy is so simplistic that it's easily forgetable.
Nolan didnt even try to impress you with stunning visuals, he tried to tell you story of batman set in world close to ours. Cameron took story 500 years old and put it in stunning visuals. I for one am never impressed with visuals in movies, and for example my favorite is Fight Club that has no visuals or super effects but is best peace of cinematography i ever saw.
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it.
I drank 2 bottles of beer while watching the movie and I was munching on a bag of chips. And I enjoyed the movie! I must be young and only have one brain cell.
The doucheness of some people lol.
|
On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:
I couldnt agree more.
Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me.
My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again.
my 2 cents.
So many hipsters wanting to be a unique snowflake here. You talk about "regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land" but then profess your love for Avatar of all things. To top it off, you believe Batman and Robin to be better than any of Nolan's trilogy?
On July 26 2012 17:03 Parcelleus wrote:
Batman And Robin is still the best Batman for my money. "Stay cool, Birdboy" xD
Sorry but I simply cannot take you seriously.
Edit: As for my opinions on TDKR, I felt it did very well at what it set out to do. Which is to finish the story of Nolan's Batman and entertain. Yes, it is not as good as TDK but it is by no means bad. If I rated TDK at 4/4, TDKR would be a 3/4. Maybe I'm too mainstream for some, but I enjoyed it for what it is. I knew walking in that this was a Batman film, a superhero film. I did not walk in to the cinema expecting an artistic film that aspires to some higher meaning.
Which is why I do not get why people are complaining about it being yet another "mainstream hollywood film". You knew what it was when you bought your tickets. What did you think it was going to be?
|
On July 27 2012 21:21 nonsequitur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:
I couldnt agree more.
Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me.
My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again.
my 2 cents.
So many hipsters wanting to be a unique snowflake here. You talk about "regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land" but then profess your love for Avatar of all things. To top it off, you believe Batman and Robin to be better than any of Nolan's trilogy? Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 17:03 Parcelleus wrote:
Batman And Robin is still the best Batman for my money. "Stay cool, Birdboy" xD Sorry but I simply cannot take you seriously.
No kidding.
This guy is either a troll or has the absolute strangest taste in Movies of anyone I've ever heard of.
|
James Cameron is not a better director than Nolan. The script of "Avatar" is not better than TDKR. Avatar was basically Disney's "Pocahontas", just reanimated and on a different planet. I fell asleep during that movie. Cameron used better technology, but his story-telling is not better than Nolan's in any way. Before you say something like that, watch all of Nolan's films.
Did anyone else feel like the Batman trilogy relate-able to The Presitge? As in the the three acts of a magician: The pledge, the turn, and the prestige?
From The Prestige
"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."
|
-spoilers below-
I admit that the fight scenes were not very good, and I frankly did not like the way Bale acted in this one.
That being said, comparing Nolan to Cameron is just lol.
Cameron can do nice actions scenes, but that's IT. Nothing more. Nolan has some great movies, even recently (inception was really good in many ways, way more than avatar or transformers), and don't get me started on The Prestige and Memento. Also, the Dark Knight was an extremely good movie, though it's probably 51% because of Heath's amazing performance.
As for TDKR, many actors did a fine job if you ask me, I particularly loved Hardy and the Scarecrow (i totally can't remember that guy's name and I can't be bothered to look). Also Marion was pretty pimp, though, since I know the batman story-line, I was expecting that Ra's child was a girl, so I wasn't "shocked" by the little twist at the end.
All-in-all I can say I don't regret seeing it, and it's probably one of the better movies of this year, definitely better than the amazing spiderman whch I saw last week. I'd give it a 7/10.
Edit: @GrimmJ (bleach fan?  ) while you could compare it to the three stages, you could do that with a lot of movies, such as The Dark Knight, right?
|
On July 27 2012 21:10 SRBNikola wrote:Someone said Avatar is GOOD movie? What? WHAT? As for Nolan, look at Memento, and its unique story telling, Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are only famous directors i know that tried innovating. For me Cameron movies i saw SUCK, only ones i saw were Titanic and Avatar. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 20:36 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 20:30 -Archangel- wrote:On July 27 2012 19:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 27 2012 19:49 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 19:18 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 19:08 Leach wrote:On July 27 2012 18:47 Parcelleus wrote:On July 27 2012 18:26 nepeta wrote:
So if you think this film was any good, what on earth might your frame of reference be? Stupid, wanton violence all through, completely devoid of acting save for the parts of Bruce Wayne and Alfred, the restoration line was the only one which made any sense, unfortunately it was underdevelopped in favour of random apocalyptic nonsense and troglodyte fisticuffs. The female acting seemed to consist of make-up and diet.
The people in the theater around me seemed to enjoy it enormously, and as they were drinking beer (in the theater, really?) and munching fast food all through the ordeal, I must be getting old. Or have more than one brain cell. As this was the first visit since about five years, I think my next interval will be fifty years, hopefully by that time I'll be too dead to get any more bored and disgusted by it. I couldnt agree more. Before I went to DKR, I had a feeling that I would regret venturing into mainstream hollywood movie land , but I hoped that Nolan was going to do something as interesting as Batman Begins - big let down. The way Nolan turned Batman into Independence day style just made me cringe and lacked any emersion into the Batman Universe for me. My last venture to the movies was about 5 years ago too, dont think I'll ever bother again unless its a James Cameron movie (Predator1, Aliens 2, Avatar). I recently saw Avatar on DVD, I wish I saw that in 3D, such a multi-layered masterpiece. Have to keep an eye out if it comes to a 3D theatre again. my 2 cents. So you're saying you dislike "mainstream hollywood movie land" but you're a huge fan of Avatar? Huh, how does that add up with Avatar being the most succesful and mainstram movie of all times? Please stop being a wannabe movie afficionado..... I listed some of my exceptions to the usual Hollywood stuff. I also stated that I watched Avatar on DVD , ie. not at the cinema, which shows how excited I am for most 'hollywood' bore. AVatar was a pleasent surprise indeed. By "Hollywood bore," do you mean movies in which the writers made even the slightest effort with the script? There is no doubt in my mind that Avatar is a far better movie than TDKR, and that its script, while not its strong point is better. Cameron is a by far more talented director than Nolan. Avatar is such a crap movie it cannot stand in the same sentence with any Nolan movie. I cannot take seriously people that praise Avatar but spit on other Hollywood movies. There are many very good Hollywood movies, I haven't seen one by Nolan (granted, I haven't seen what seems to be his best one, The Prestige). Avatar is not my favorite movie by far, but two huge qualitites : stunning visual and impressive camerawork, which are quite important for an action movie. I can't see how what Nolan does visually is even close to what Cameron did. He did manage to make one fight scene that did not look bad (Bane vs Batman), which is a first by him, but the choregraphy is so simplistic that it's easily forgetable. Nolan didnt even try to impress you with stunning visuals, he tried to tell you story of batman set in world close to ours. Cameron took story 500 years old and put it in stunning visuals. I for one am never impressed with visuals in movies, and for example my favorite is Fight Club that has no visuals or super effects but is best peace of cinematography i ever saw.
Memento's storytelling is far from unique.
You say that Nolan and Tarantino are innovators, I'd be interested in their innovations, please, but given that they are the only directors you know that have made innovation, it's prtty clear you don't know much about cinema history. Tarantino would himself say that he is not an innovator, he mashes lots of ideas he saw and loved together (he's pretty good at it though, I'll grant you that).
On the other hand, Titanic has tons of innovations, it was almost a revolutionnary movie for its time. The sinking scene is absolutely incredible.
In terms of storytelling, I suggest you read my TDKR critique in this thread, maybe you'll understand better how bad the scenario is, and given that the movie, as usual with Nolan, is a scenarist's movie...
Fight Club is well-filmed, far above what Nolan does. I don't like the movie that much, but the difference in rythm is incredible, and the fights are way better in Fight Club than in TDK/TDKR (not even talking about Begins here...). Maybe you do care about visual in fact, you just don't know it. Saying they don't matter in a movie is pretty stupid though : it's like saying you don't care how well written is a book or how well painted a paint is, but only about the subject. It's a very shallow vision of what art is : form and content both matters and are linked together anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
