Movies you've just watched

[Moniker]

All I can say is, you guys turning your noses up at Last Crusade better NEVER start talking about how the Star Trek reboots aren't that bad!

Well, Last Crusade is certainly better than the ST reboots by a healthy margin, yeah. Can I like them anyway?

[GaijinPunch]

Well, Last Crusade is certainly better than the ST reboots by a healthy margin, yeah. Can I like them anyway?

I like the reboots. I'd eat Uhuru's ass like a pizza. Sorry, that's worth something in my book.

[emphatic]

Well, Last Crusade is certainly better than the ST reboots by a healthy margin, yeah. Can I like them anyway?

I like the reboots. I'd eat Uhuru's ass like a pizza. Sorry, that's worth something in my book.

^^This man has the right idea.

[Never_Scurred]

So, according to my "friends", disliking The Dark Knight is unfathomable. Guess what everyone decided to watch for movie night?
I hated The Dark Knight, thought the movie sucked, it was too long, dull, the characters were completely unlikeable, I got sick and tired of The Joker philosophizing to the audience, that fucking dock scene, that fucking dock scene, the batmobile looks like a huge metal pile of shit with wheels, the movie had like, what, 10 fucking endings and plot twists. Jesus, people. This movie is Heat with two weirdos in costumes and makeup, but at least Heat had the shootout, Val Kilmer, Tone Loc, and that face-to-face in the restaurant between Deniro and Pacineo. Somehow, TDK movie makes Batman Forever actually fun and entertaining to watch. I hated this movie when it came out, but OH NO, all opinions not to the favor of TDK are invalid in the face of frothing fanboy nerd nazis. Fuck this movie and fuck my bullshit ass friends. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, just the most annoying. A hard 1 out of 4.

[spadgy]

I finally watched The Quatermass Experiment. Am I being daft in that it reminded me of District 9? Great movie, either way.

[lilmanjs]

Safe House
I haven't seen this movie in years, and finally saw it used to buy so I grabbed it. It is as good as I remember it back when I was a kid. Sir Patrick does a great job in the movie, and the acting is done quite well. Shows off his comedy side a little bit in the movie before the twist ending that I won't spoil. Still I'm glad he hasn't turned out like the guy in the movie who slowly degrades into almost nothingness.

[BulletMagnet]

I'd eat Uhuru's ass like a pizza.

You'd make Captain Kirk proud, GP.

[boagman]

So, according to my "friends", disliking The Dark Knight is unfathomable. Guess what everyone decided to watch for movie night?
I hated The Dark Knight, thought the movie sucked, it was too long, dull, the characters were completely unlikeable, I got sick and tired of The Joker philosophizing to the audience, that fucking dock scene, that fucking dock scene, the batmobile looks like a huge metal pile of shit with wheels, the movie had like, what, 10 fucking endings and plot twists. Jesus, people. This movie is Heat with two weirdos in costumes and makeup, but at least Heat had the shootout, Val Kilmer, Tone Loc, and that face-to-face in the restaurant between Deniro and Pacineo. Somehow, TDK movie makes Batman Forever actually fun and entertaining to watch. I hated this movie when it came out, but OH NO, all opinions not to the favor of TDK are invalid in the face of frothing fanboy nerd nazis. Fuck this movie and fuck my bullshit ass friends. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, just the most annoying. A hard 1 out of 4.

I think, based not only on this, but on the previous discussion regarding the IJ series, that you and I just have basically 180 degree views of what makes movies good. Ergo, it's just not worth the typing, methinks.

[Skykid]

I disliked TDK on initial theatre viewing bar Ledger's performance. There's a ton of stupidity in it, daft character motivations and general weaknesses.

However it improves on repeat viewings once you know the dumb parts and you're no longer taken by surprise by them.

Personally I think it's the best of Nolans's trilogy, but that's not saying an awful lot. They're entertaining, but flawed movies. Casting Christian Bale in anything is always your first problem since he's such a crappy actor.

[Never_Scurred]

I disliked TDK on initial theatre viewing bar Ledger's performance. There's a ton of stupidity in it, daft character motivations and general weaknesses.

However it improves on repeat viewings once you know the dumb parts and you're no longer taken by surprise by them.

That was my mindset going into this again, "It can't be as bad as I remembered it in theatres. Naaah, SURELY there has to be something about it that I will enjoy." This is coming from the guy who, until 7 years ago, did not like the Wrath of Khan. Watched that bitch again after after the abomination that was Nemesis and discovered a MUCH greater film than I originally did not give it credit for. I'd fuck the Wrath of Khan if I could, great film. TDK, on the other hand, annoyed me, when it wasn't boring me. I'm not the biggest comicfag, but WHY didn't Batman just fucking shoot the Joker in the face and get it over with? And what the hell was up with Bruce's ex and her damn pussy games and shit? I wouldn't have saved her ass...I would have gone for Harvey, and been like "deuces, bitch". Flaws aside, I wish they would have gone for a slightly campier approach and not took this Batman shit so seriously. As bad as the Schumacher one were, at least they were entertaining and did not take themselves so super-seriously.

[Skykid]

I have to aggressively disagree that the Schumacher films have a shred of value. They're horrible abominations from a horrible hack director and I wouldn't wipe my ass with them for fear of losing brain cells by osmosis.

But yes, there are many, many idiotic issues with TDK. I have problems with Rachel being far too ugly to command a love triangle, which is an error in casting, and Harvey Dent's transformation being under ridiculous circumstances and overly forced. There's also nothing stupider than the about face turn of a boat full of hardened convicts sparing the lives of rich white folk and Batboy having access to the worlds most impressive CCTV device (spying on teens showering) but only using it the once before destroying it for 'moral' reasons - because that insane technology wouldn't have made his job 95% easier and more productive.

But then Nolan. Whatever.

[boagman]

But then Nolan. Whatever.

Really? Is that a complete dismissal of his collective work?

[Skykid]

But then Nolan. Whatever.

Really? Is that a complete dismissal of his collective work?

No, but he's hugely overrated.

[boagman]

But then Nolan. Whatever.

Really? Is that a complete dismissal of his collective work?

No, but he's hugely overrated.

I can disagree with you on that...I tend to think he's earned his stripes, though obviously not everything he does is necessarily ideal. I just couldn't believe that you were just waving your hand at everything he's done and dismissing it as garbage. I'm certainly not one to defend everything he's done, nor even everything he does in particular movies that I may happen to like very much, but I can't see someone just writing him off on general principle.

[Skykid]

I can disagree with you on that...I tend to think he's earned his stripes, though obviously not everything he does is necessarily ideal. I just couldn't believe that you were just waving your hand at everything he's done and dismissing it as garbage. I'm certainly not one to defend everything he's done, nor even everything he does in particular movies that I may happen to like very much, but I can't see someone just writing him off on general principle.

Why would I write anyone off on general principle?

I'd write them off based on the quality or lack thereof in their work. Nolan's got style and energy, but he consistently makes trivial errors in key areas of production.

Earned his stripes? Yes, within his field. He has a limit within the Hollywood sphere and he's probably nearing its ceiling. But he's no Boorman, Welles, Kubrick, Tarantino, hence the overrate.

I wouldn't even say he's a Fincher, and that guy's made some incredibly subjective stuff of late.

[boagman]

Why would I write anyone off on general principle?

I'd write them off based on the quality or lack thereof in their work. Nolan's got style and energy, but he consistently makes trivial errors in key areas of production.

Earned his stripes? Yes, within his field. He has a limit within the Hollywood sphere and he's probably nearing its ceiling. But he's no Boorman, Welles, Kubrick, Tarantino, hence the overrate.

I wouldn't even say he's a Fincher, and that guy's made some incredibly subjective stuff of late.

Well, but he's quite a bit more than just a director, yes? He's a writer, and a pretty good one at that. He brings a lot more to the table than just being a show runner, to my way of thinking. His ability to bring a package to fruition, not simply to cherry pick a project for him to bring his "style" to, elevates him a bit. Does it elevate him to the levels of those you've mentioned, or others such as Hitchcock? Maybe not...yet. I do think that at least a couple of the ones you've mentioned are overrated themselves.

I'm not sure that he's hit the ceiling at all...he may yet be showing the ability to blow the roof off the joint. We can disagree on it, though. I'm certainly looking forward to "Interstellar", though.

[CMoon]

Having debated with you (Skykid) a long time about Nolan, I gotta say my attitude on his films has shifted over the years. It really comes down to his all-important Dark Knight and the recognition that it is a 'really good' film, probably among the best films from that period, but it is still bloated with its intentions written too large at times for its own good. I really didn't grasp this until the third film, where like the third LotR film, the director's mistakes started becoming much more apparent. I still prefer the first as the leanest and most visceral of the three films. They're certainly the best super-hero films ever made, but perhaps I get where you're coming from: When people say 'great', you want something that is genuinely great.

A lot of films today suffer from over-production and long running times...both are things that distance the audience from the story. You might think that 2.5 hour movie requires every second, but most long films today are padded heavily. Nolan is guilty of this sort of thing along with a lot of other critical darlings. The best long films are few and far between, like say Seven Samurai where every second of the film is precious.

I'm happy to argue with Skykid about that value of Nolan as a big mainstream commercial director making films for a studio system completely devoid of life, but I hate having to make my stand on the 'beggers can't be choosers' platform. Nolan isn't faultless and during a better decade he wouldn't be remembered so fondly.

TLDR: Film making has been in the dumps since the mid 80's, and a lot of modern films aren't new classics, but just one heck of a lot better than the mire we're sunk in.

[Skykid]

Nolan isn't faultless and during a better decade he wouldn't be remembered so fondly.

Oh absolutely. It's not even remembered fondly as much as it is recognised or referenced. He's made nothing on par with even Conan the Barbarian, and who fondly remembers that director?

Well, but he's quite a bit more than just a director, yes? He's a writer, and a pretty good one at that.

You mean in terms of concepts and imagination? Yes, he's got some ideas.

In terms of dialogue writing? He goes from average to very poor. I don't consider him a writing talent whatsoever, more a lucky lucky man.

If you've ever seen his debut film school piece, Following, it's all spelled out: a good idea with good elements, miscast and full of sloppy directorial decisions masquerading as flair.

He's been the same ever since.

[Never_Scurred]

Nolan isn't faultless and during a better decade he wouldn't be remembered so fondly.

Oh absolutely. It's not even remembered fondly as much as it is recognised or referenced. He's made nothing on par with even Conan the Barbarian, and who fondly remembers that director?

Well, but he's quite a bit more than just a director, yes? He's a writer, and a pretty good one at that.

You mean in terms of concepts and imagination? Yes, he's got some ideas.

In terms of dialogue writing? He goes from average to very poor. I don't consider him a writing talent whatsoever, more a lucky lucky man.

If you've ever seen his debut film school piece, Following, it's all spelled out: a good idea with good elements, miscast and full of sloppy directorial decisions masquerading as flair.

He's been the same ever since.

I was saying this years ago and then....The Dark Knight happened and now all these fanboys wanna hop on the dillznills like Following wasn't some fresh-out-of-film school, Sundance-baiting borefest, Memento wasn't some basic ass story with a lame hook and Insomnia was an unappreciated work of genius. I don't hate Nolan, and I actually liked Memento BUT the Nolan bandwagoning was ridiculous at the time. I need to see Inception....but I dunno. If Batman Begins or TDKR is anything like TDK-I have no desire to watch them.

[CMoon]

Nolan isn't faultless and during a better decade he wouldn't be remembered so fondly.

Oh absolutely. It's not even remembered fondly as much as it is recognised or referenced. He's made nothing on par with even Conan the Barbarian, and who fondly remembers that director?

Actually John Milius is super important and basically got snubbed by hollywood. Now we mostly remember him for being the inspiration for Walter from The Big Lebowski. Pity.

[Acid King]

Actually John Milius is super important and basically got snubbed by hollywood. Now we mostly remember him for being the inspiration for Walter from The Big Lebowski. Pity.

I was just about to post this. Dude wrote Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, Jeremiah Johnson and Apocalypse Now, plus the excellent HBO series Rome.

[Moniker]

There's actually a documentary about him on Netflix right now. I think it's just called 'Milius.' Might have to give it a watch.

[Moniker]

I disliked TDK on initial theatre viewing bar Ledger's performance. There's a ton of stupidity in it, daft character motivations and general weaknesses.

However it improves on repeat viewings once you know the dumb parts and you're no longer taken by surprise by them.

Personally I think it's the best of Nolans's trilogy, but that's not saying an awful lot. They're entertaining, but flawed movies. Casting Christian Bale in anything is always your first problem since he's such a crappy actor.

The thing I really admire about The Dark Knight, and this is something that I haven't seen anyone else pick up on, is that its mythology is based on Paradise Lost (yeah, the 17th century John Milton epic poem, coincidentally my concentration in grad school).

The short and sweet of it is that the Joker is Satan, Batman is the Son (of God), and Harvey Dent is Man. That sounds kind of corny on its own, but Nolan really injected the intricacies of Milton's mythos to work. Batman and the Joker are battling for the soul of Harvey Dent (guess who wins). The Joker claims to be an agent of chaos, and a non-planner, but he is also the original liar. His entire essence is lies (cf his various conflicting origin stories). Everything he does is fully planned out. And his aim is to turn Man against God. The tragedy, in the film as in the poem, is that he largely succeeds. In the end, Batman decides to take on the sins of Dent so that humanity (Gotham) may enjoy the virtue of virtue.

I'm not doing the analogy proper justice (kinda drunk) but it's incredibly interesting if you've got some knowledge of Milton.

[Never_Scurred]

I disliked TDK on initial theatre viewing bar Ledger's performance. There's a ton of stupidity in it, daft character motivations and general weaknesses.

However it improves on repeat viewings once you know the dumb parts and you're no longer taken by surprise by them.

Personally I think it's the best of Nolans's trilogy, but that's not saying an awful lot. They're entertaining, but flawed movies. Casting Christian Bale in anything is always your first problem since he's such a crappy actor.

The thing I really admire about The Dark Knight, and this is something that I haven't seen anyone else pick up on, is that its mythology is based on Paradise Lost (yeah, the 17th century John Milton epic poem, coincidentally my concentration in grad school).

The short and sweet of it is that the Joker is Satan, Batman is the Son (of God), and Harvey Dent is Man. That sounds kind of corny on its own, but Nolan really injected the intricacies of Milton's mythos to work. Batman and the Joker are battling for the soul of Harvey Dent (guess who wins). The Joker claims to be an agent of chaos, and a non-planner, but he is also the original liar. His entire essence is lies (cf his various conflicting origin stories). Everything he does is fully planned out. And his aim is to turn Man against God. The tragedy, in the film as in the poem, is that he largely succeeds. In the end, Batman decides to take on the sins of Dent so that humanity (Gotham) may enjoy the virtue of virtue.

I'm not doing the analogy proper justice (kinda drunk) but it's incredibly interesting if you've got some knowledge of Milton.

Nice analysis, man. It makes sense when you see it like that. Movie still sucks, IMO.

[CMoon]

Again, I really like the Dark Knight. I think it is a 4 out of 5 movie. But that doesn't mean I love every aspect of it, and it isn't IMO highly rewatchable. What I loved about it was how well it reflected our current moment of ethical ambiguity, and in that sense I think it captured the 00's really well. It is a better film because it encapsulated a point in time where we couldn't say who the good guy was and all roads seemed to lead toward something worse. America was waking up to a much more complex world than its' post WW2 mentality (how did Vietnam not break that?) and TDK does capture this atmosphere. For me, that was enough to make it a really good movie--especially since it somehow took a super hero movie and turned it into some sort of commentary about the war on terror. The problem is, with repeated viewings, it became more of a labor to watch, and not really fun.

I mention all this because I didn't see the Paradise Lost connection, I want to point out the other more obvious connection toward the then current political/global awakening of America where it couldn't just wave the bars and stars and be the good guy. Cool there's more to it than that. Of Nolan's strengths, one of them is making films that at least attempt to be complex.

Look forward to Skykid tearing my thoughts apart

[Mischief Maker]

The Dark Knight is the only movie I liked from the Nolan trilogy because it was about a superhero battling a supervillain instead of a rich prick battling himself.

[Skykid]

Look forward to Skykid tearing my thoughts apart

Like is said, I don't think it's a bad movie within its sphere. I think it's the best of the trilogy (superior to Begins) and definitely a better superhero movie than the tirade of plastic nonsense we have otherwise.

Honestly, if Captain America 2 and the Iron Man series are considered high end superhero movies, then Nolan's Batman is leagues ahead. It at least comes with a modicum of intelligence, and I did identify the themes you mentioned - it's hard to miss the Chinese paranoia and banker payback, or the battle of fellow Americans to do a "Go Spidey Go!" and become pacifists when tied into a warped explosive game.

But it's the film making I have to scrutinise. Paradise Lost as a subtext - whether or not confirmed by the director - doesn't make it Paradise Lost.

There's no doubt in my mind that Nolan has imagination and effectiveness up his sleeve that's freshened up the Hollywood meat factory with a few key offerings - he's just not a great director. He has limits that are obvious to me.

As an example, I said Fincher has gone a little fail in recent years. I didn't like Benjamin Button, and although I really liked the directorial quality of Zodiac I thought the assembly and editing needed attention.

Social Network told its story well though.

The point I'm getting at is Fincher is stronger when it comes to sanding down rough edges. I watched Seven again the other day, for the umpteenth time, and I'm convinced Nolan will never make anything that good. That's the type of film that hits the Hollywood ceiling: one that threatens to break through.

As an aside I forgot Milius scribed Apocalypse Now - I knew that. But he's hardly a household name.

[Xyga]

I watched Seven again the other day, for the umpteenth time, and I'm convinced Nolan will never make anything that good. That's the type of film that hits the Hollywood ceiling: one that threatens to break through.

One does not simply Kevin Spacey.

[boagman]

Memento wasn't some basic ass story with a lame hook

I will *never* agree with you on this. "Memento" was a game-changer, and it's one of my favorites. Loved it then, love it now.

[Some-Mist]

saw Jodorowsky's Dune at the music box theater last month. pretty interesting documentary about the failed attempt to create the greatest masterpiece in filmmaking based on the masterpiece itself, Dune. Without spoiling to much, many of the artists working on this went on to create fantastic work and much of what Dune represented has influenced a lot of films today (i.e. "blade runner wouldn't exist", the matrix, swordfights in starwars, cyborg pov in the terminator, galaxy opening shots in contact which all originated in the story boards of Dune, visualized by Moebius, Giger, and Jodorowsky). kind of crazy how this failed film went on to inspire so much in the movie industry.

got me really excited to see Jodorowsky's (more-than-likely final (semi-autobiographical) film) Dance of Reality (2013) since it's releasing in the US this month.