Udderdude wrote:I'm afraid your point here falls flat on it's face.
Udderdude wrote:
Besides, with all the hype this movie is getting, I wasn't going to go easy on it ..
That was my point. You flat out said you were going to judge it more harshly because of it's hype ( i can't blame you for losing interest in the hype, but in this case it has cost you your objectivity).
I'm done arguing the semantics of a comic book movie. I could name half a dozen times in Iron-Man, all the Spider-Mans, and the X-Men movies (half a dozen EACH) which aren't "realistic" and it wouldn't make them any better or worse. You're confusing the darker and more down to earth tone of the movie as it trying to pass off for realism, which it's not. By a long shot.
Hype raises expectations for everything. I read a few interviews before I saw this movie, but not a single review. I came out impressed.
The movie was gritty, clever, and action-packed. It was the Empire Strikes Back of the new Batman series - the good guys really don't come out ahead on this one. There are loose ends to mend, and while some obviously have to be discarded, new threads will help tie the story around full circle with the first movie, if wanted.
I believe suspension of disbelief was definitely required, but I can't think of a single crime-oriented movie that doesn't ask this of it's audience. Would the detective in The Usual Suspects really never look behind him for a whole two hour interrogation to see where Kevin Spacey's B.S. was coming from? With all the shootings in Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels, where the hell are the police at (this could go for 95% of crime movies)? I could go on & on.
KindGrind wrote:Liked it a lot, except the gigacellphonesonar/fake swat/snipers/CHAOS/clown masks scenes near the end. Too chaotic for my tastes, and don't add anything except very basic fight scenes and noise. Show us more of the Joker, or something.
I know everyone praises those movies that come in after Dark Knight on that list, i.e. shawshank, godfathers, etc., but I'll put on my flame-proof suit and go ahead and say I liked Dark Knight a lot better. Godfather is just a boring movie, Shawshank too, hell, the only other movies on that list I like are Pulp Fiction and Star Wars Episode V. I still don't know about whether Dark Knight deserves to be in any top 10 list of movies, but then again I don't think most of the movies on that list deserve to be.
And now let the movie-geeks descend upon me with the wrath of hell's fury!
"I think Ikaruga is pretty tough. It is like a modern version of Galaga that some Japanese company made."
The Lord of the Rings movies also shot up there upon their release. You can't really trust that list anymore than you can trust the algorithm they used to derive it. They should really give a six month waiting period or something before a movie can appear on that list but I'm sure the film companies probably love that kind of promotion so why bother?
I've been hunting down Batman comics recently, kind of caught the bug after seeing this film. Check out any of the Frank Miller stuff you can, especially the four issue sets "Year One" and "The Dark Knight Returns".
new movies shooting to the top of the list like that happens pretty often. It doesn't help that the majority of imdb users are about as intelligent as rabid monkeys either.
szycag wrote:
I've been hunting down Batman comics recently, kind of caught the bug after seeing this film. Check out any of the Frank Miller stuff you can, especially the four issue sets "Year One" and "The Dark Knight Returns".
Funny, I just read Dark Knight Returns myself. It was definitely pretty crazy, especially the implications of the ending. I need to hunt down the sequel at some point just to see what's gunna happen.
"I think Ikaruga is pretty tough. It is like a modern version of Galaga that some Japanese company made."
I am surprised it is getting such good reviews given how relentlessly dark and depressing it is. Thematically, there is a lot of cynicism here. Not only does the girl die, but she falls for the wrong guy (Harvey) who while downplayed was a bit of a fraud from day one (the name 'twoface' wasn't for nothing), but ultimately, Batman is a real hero because he recognizes that in a world without heroes, it is worth taking the fall to create the illusion of heroic leaders for the public. WTF!? Now that's a message!
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
JoshF wrote:The only flaws were referring to the Joker as a terrorist and erroneously using the word anarchy (no ruler) to refer to extreme social disorder.
dictionary.com
terrorist noun
a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence
an·ar·chy noun
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
I kind of agree that the Joker isn't a "terrorist" in the strictest sense of the word. He has no goal but disorder or amusement. A terrorist uses fear/terror as a method to reach a goal and the Joker doesn't exactly have a goal.
"I think Ikaruga is pretty tough. It is like a modern version of Galaga that some Japanese company made."
kengou wrote:I kind of agree that the Joker isn't a "terrorist" in the strictest sense of the word. He has no goal but disorder or amusement. A terrorist uses fear/terror as a method to reach a goal and the Joker doesn't exactly have a goal.
But those are goals. They're less clearly defined than "I want x dollars" or "I want to be king of tha streets," but things like personal satsifaction or amusement are goals we all strive for in small ways.
In a less broad sense the Joker does have goals that he attemps to meet by using violence. Do X or I'll kill/blow up Y. Whether or not he's really interested in if his demands are actually met, he's making demands and threatening violence. It's a pretty accurate label.
This definition only came to exist because Our Great and Dear Rulers tell us this is what will happen without their authority. The Joker has more reverence for freedom and humanity than anyone who believes the literal and accrued definitions are the same thing. Terrorist, I guess is okay, but you get the feeling it was used as an allegory and I don't want a paradigm shifted Batman.
JoshF wrote:The Joker has more reverence for freedom and humanity than anyone who believes the literal and accrued definitions are the same thing.
hey freedom is not a pencil in the eye
even so I had the same thoughts as I watched the movie. brilliant how they played all that out.
Anyhow, I'm really late with this, but I loved the sound of 'the machine' shutting down. On the other hand, I thought that whole little detour with the machine was arguably a waste of film. They could've left it out and I don't think it would've compromised anything (it's not as if another simplistic, in-your-face presentation of a dilemma was needed, especially not if it didn't directly move the story along).
kengou wrote:I kind of agree that the Joker isn't a "terrorist" in the strictest sense of the word. He has no goal but disorder or amusement. A terrorist uses fear/terror as a method to reach a goal and the Joker doesn't exactly have a goal.
I don't think you need to have a goal to be a terrorist. I think all you need to do is be a person who is creating terror (of course, that opens the door to a lot of people who might not traditionally be called terrorists...heh)
Personally I had no problem seeing the joker as a terrorist. His motives may have been very different than insurgents or alkida, but then again, maybe not. Maybe fucking with people and blowing them up and creating a bit of terror is some kind of sick, twisted reward in of itself.
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
terrorist noun
a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence
By that definition a mugger, a priest, and a kid who says he'll throw a fit if he can't have a toy are all terriorists. If you use that, yeah, Joker's a terrorist.
szycag wrote:I've been hunting down Batman comics recently, kind of caught the bug after seeing this film. Check out any of the Frank Miller stuff you can, especially the four issue sets "Year One" and "The Dark Knight Returns".
Year One and DKR were awesome! It's too bad Frank Miller jumped the shark later on.
I saw it yesterday. I liked it a lot. As everyone has said, Joker was awesome. Some people complained that the movie dragged, but it had my attention the whole time, the movie kept moving forward and there was no unnecessary exposition or dialog. Aside from the absurdity of the cell phone sonor, it was quite excellent.
kengou wrote:I know everyone praises those movies that come in after Dark Knight on that list, i.e. shawshank, godfathers, etc., but I'll put on my flame-proof suit and go ahead and say I liked Dark Knight a lot better. Godfather is just a boring movie, Shawshank too, hell, the only other movies on that list I like are Pulp Fiction and Star Wars Episode V. I still don't know about whether Dark Knight deserves to be in any top 10 list of movies, but then again I don't think most of the movies on that list deserve to be.
And now let the movie-geeks descend upon me with the wrath of hell's fury!
Shawshank boring, was your filthy mouth out. I saw the Dark Knight yesterday and I definately would not rate it as the number 1 film as on IMDB. Too many plot twists, I didnt know what the fuck was going on half the time.
I still think it was way over hyped...
