What general film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 26 Jul 2008, 16:18

Because the IMAX presentation with its shifting aspect ratios is Nolan's intended version.

If you really want to be anal then you could call it the "Director's Edition" or something to that effect, but really who gives a shit? That's like insisting that a blackboard be called a chalk board, because they aren't actually black.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Jul 2008, 16:22

EvaUnit02 wrote:Because the IMAX presentation with its shifting aspect ratios is Nolan's intended version.

Ah, good point. No anal intention intended.

I've not read your review or others as I want to go into this one cold.

Godzooki · Post by **Godzooki** » 26 Jul 2008, 20:45

saltysam wrote:Lost Boys Blu-Ray 3/5

Popular 80's teen vampire movie still plays well 20 years later.Blu-Ray transfer looks very good for a film over 20 years old.

You seen Lost Boys 2 yet Salty? I got the bd and thought it was a bit poor.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 26 Jul 2008, 21:34

The Barbarians (Italy/USA, 1987) – 3,5/5
Films like this remind you of why cinema was invented in the first place. Muscle men, giant snakes, punk barbarians and other brilliant things dominate the screen there isn’t a boring second. The mutant from The Hills Have Eyes is here, too, with a horn in his forehead. He plays one of less malformed baddies. The heroes are played by real life wrestling twins Peter and David Paul. Both are very cool, very retarded, and very gay.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 27 Jul 2008, 04:54

Tigercage wrote:
You seen Lost Boys 2 yet Salty? I got the bd and thought it was a bit poor.

Got the BD waiting to be watched.probably Monday.doesn't sound like it's much cop then

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Jul 2008, 06:41

Lol... a DTV sequel to a 20 year old teen-horror movie in which only one of the now-faded supporting cast returns... if only there was some sort of clue...

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 27 Jul 2008, 13:56

Markgway wrote:Lol... a DTV sequel to a 20 year old teen-horror movie in which only one of the now-faded supporting cast returns... if only there was some sort of clue...

I see your point but the director of this made From Dusk Till Dawn 3 which i thought was pretty decent for a dtv effort

Godzooki · Post by **Godzooki** » 27 Jul 2008, 20:32

saltysam wrote:
Markgway wrote:Lol... a DTV sequel to a 20 year old teen-horror movie in which only one of the now-faded supporting cast returns... if only there was some sort of clue...
I see your point but the director of this made From Dusk Till Dawn 3 which i thought was pretty decent for a dtv effort

Its decent, its just not a patch on the original but then again you already knew that.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 27 Jul 2008, 20:48

Markgway wrote: only one of the now-faded supporting cast returns...

haven't watched it yet but i'm pretty sure the two Coreys are in this.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Jul 2008, 02:22

saltysam wrote:I see your point but the director of this made From Dusk Till Dawn 3

DangerousLeeHandsome · Post by **DangerousLeeHandsome** » 29 Jul 2008, 00:41

The Bank Job - 4/5
A solid heist thriller!

Anaconda 3: Offspring - 0.5/5
Caught this over the weekend on SciFi Channel. Like most SciFi Channel flicks, this one sucks major ass. Giving it a generous 0.5/5 because David Hasselhoff's performance was extremely hilarious.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 29 Jul 2008, 20:20

Lost Boys:The Tribe blu-ray 2/5

Watchable DTV effort is not abysmally bad as dtv's go but not very good either! Keifer's brother does not have his screen presence or ability. plus points are a couple of nice gore moments,Tom Savini,a hot female lead and surprisingly Corey Feldman reprises his role from the original quite well really.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 29 Jul 2008, 21:19

The Dark Knight: 9/10

Wow... just a great movie.
First of all, I have to say my doubts about Heath Ledger as the joker were proven wrong.
When he was announced as the joker, I thought he wasnt a good choice, and wouldnt be able to handle the role. When the first pics came out with the lousy 'make-up', I felt it was untrue to the comicbook character. When the first reviews of this movie came out, and everyone was raving about his performance, I thought people were being kind (or hypocrites) cause the fella is dead now (kinda like how people say Fu Sheng was great, while obviously he's crap).

I was wrong. Heath Ledger is outstanding in this movie. Seeing him as the Joker makes you wonder how we ever coped with all those other portrayels of The Joker.

It's not just Heath Ledger who's outstanding: the whole cast, no exceptions, just shine. Gary Oldman as Gordon, Bale is great as Wayne (as Batman; meh...), Eckhart is outstanding as Dent, Gyllenhaal, Freeman, Caine, etc etc... all excellent.

The movie is long, but is the ultimate showcase for how huge a villain the Joker really is, creating chaos and fear in a city hoping for better times.

The movie changes the origin story of Two-face, but it works all the better this way.

There are a few small niggles though:
- The action-scenes, especially the hand-to-hand combat, isnt good. It's usually to dark and unclear what's going on, with Batman kinda moving like a stiff. I know Batman isnt supposed to be a martial arts movie, but Batman IS supposed to be a great martial artist, and the way the action scenes here were shot, it just doesnt show.
- The way the movie raises the tension in the 'scary' moments of the movies, is by using a very annoying soundeffect. Yes, it WORKS, but it's a bit of a cheap and easy method, which is a bit OTT. It kinda took me out of the movie.
- Although the Joker gives 2-3 origin stories, we never get to hear the real one. It might not be overly important, but ofcourse it does make you wonder if they had a scene shot (or planned) where we would get an explanation.

Anyway, 9/10. Just a very realistic mature movie which is both true to the comics as well as original in how it delivers that story.
Bring on Batman 3.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 29 Jul 2008, 21:22

Yi-Long wrote:Although the Joker gives 2-3 origin stories, we never get to hear the real one. It might not be overly important, but ofcourse it does make you wonder if they had a scene shot (or planned) where we would get an explanation.

I think the whole point is that no one knows who he is or where he's come from. Apparently in the comics he used to make up stories about his past, and said himself he can't remember which is true, so it's faithful to that.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Jul 2008, 21:45

Exactly. The whole point is we don't know. It would seriously hurt the story to find out which is true. The Joker could've made them all up or one of them could be true, the genius is we don't know.

but ofcourse it does make you wonder if they had a scene shot (or planned) where we would get an explanation.

No way, it was deliberately left out.

I only have one minor niggle, the CGI sonar section got a OTT. Overall it was no problem though.

I'm tempted to see The Dark Knight again, it was so good. It's easily one of the most epic superhero films ever. The scene when Rachel dies and Batman stands with his head bowed is extraordinary. He saved Harvey Dent because his life is of more importance to Gotham City, putting his own feelings aside. Fantastic

It's so super rare to see such strong writing in a superhero film.

- The way the movie raises the tension in the 'scary' moments of the movies, is by using a very annoying soundeffect. Yes, it WORKS, but it's a bit of a cheap and easy method, which is a bit OTT. It kinda took me out of the movie.

What noise?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 29 Jul 2008, 21:49

In the comics, especially in The Killing Joke, we do get the origin story of the Joker. Not told by himself, but just told from 3rd person (as in, flashbacks from the writer's, and thus the reader's, point of view.

What noise?

EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh (louder and louder)

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 29 Jul 2008, 22:02

Yi-Long wrote:In the comics, especially in The Killing Joke, we do get the origin story of the Joker. Not told by himself, but just told from 3rd person (as in, flashbacks from the writer's, and thus the reader's, point of view.

The Killing Joke is a standalone graphic novel though isn't it, it's just one writer's version of the Joker, just like Tim Burton's Batman is a version of it.

And yeah I know the sound you're talking about, I actually liked it though. Violins or something.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 29 Jul 2008, 22:04

bradavon wrote:I only have one minor niggle, the CGI sonar section got a OTT. Overall it was no problem though.

I liked the fact that it made his eyes white like he is in comics/cartoons. Also it ties in with the whole bat theme, seeing in sonar.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 29 Jul 2008, 22:08

gasteropod wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:In the comics, especially in The Killing Joke, we do get the origin story of the Joker. Not told by himself, but just told from 3rd person (as in, flashbacks from the writer's, and thus the reader's, point of view.
The Killing Joke is a standalone graphic novel though isn't it, it's just one writer's version of the Joker, just like Tim Burton's Batman is a version of it.

I believe that after The Killing Joke came out, it was kinda thought of as THE origin story for the joker from then on. Also, what he did to Barbara was never undone afterwards, so it was a stand-alone, but what happens in the book has made a lasting impression on the whole Batman story.

And yeah I know the sound you're talking about, I actually liked it though. Violins or something.

Not sure what it was. Didnt REALLY sound like violins, but it sure was annoying. But maybe I felt it was annoying because it felt so 'cheap' and 'easy'.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:00

Saw this today. Though it was quite good, not brilliant. Yes, definately overhyped. I thought Ledger did some great work as the Joker, but surprisingly was left off screen too often. I never felt the intensity between him and Batman reached full potential, and the psychological games got lost a bit in the desire to please the blockbuster crowd with bigger and better explosions. The realism of the drama was at odds with some of the gimmicks (sonar monitoring, anyone?) and whilst techie types and kids might drool, that kind of thing leaves me a touch cold. I prefer a more visceral, personalised kind of action. Eg. the stunt where Rachel slides off the roof. That's more exciting to me than Batman flying around the sky on a cable like a, well, bat! The combat was better shot than in BEGINS, but amazingly unimaginative in its choreography. Some of the violence and threat was too strong for a 12 rating (in the UK, natch) - that bit with the pencil got quite a few gasps in my audience. Bale was alright as Batman, same as before, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine add a little old school charm. I thought Maggie was an improvement over Katie Holmes (and, despite some of the negative comment, quite hot). I like the character of Harvey Dent, not so sure about Two-Face though I didn't buy the burnt-face equals psycho act. He lets the Joker go, but intends on killing Gordon's child? Bollocks. That kind of thing lets the otherwise interesting story down for me. In fact, the whole ending was a disappointment. After two plus hrs I was waiting for a momentous confrontation between the Joker and Batman... and it just didn't happen. I felt a bit like: is that it? He just hangs there? Despite my grumbles I was mostly entertained, but I just had to put some cap on the overpraise. I've heard the term "masterpiece" bandied about(!) Must mention the dreadful soundtrack - everything was LOUD except the dialogue, a lot of which I couldn't hear. Gary Oldman could've been reciting his shopping list for all I knew.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:11

Something that I find a niggle is that Batman continues to use his gruff voice even when he's talking to someone who knows who he is, and on Batman Begins he does it even when's phoning Alfred in agony and going through mental trauma from the Scarecrow's spray lol

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:13

gasteropod wrote:Also it ties in with the whole bat theme, seeing in sonar.

True.

Yi-Long wrote:EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh (louder and louder)

I cannot remember it.

Yi-Long wrote:I believe that after The Killing Joke came out, it was kinda thought of as THE origin story for the joker from then on.

I'd still say it's a standalone story.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:20

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh (louder and louder)
I cannot remember it.

It's like stringed instruments in minor key being taken up higher and higher, I think it happened when the Joker was speaking about how he got his scars at one point. I found it effective.

Oh and as for The Killing Joke affecting the comics, well that's like the Harlequinn character debuting on the animated series and then being accepted into the comic books afterwards as a proper character - the Joker's backstory in The Killing Joke was still conjured up by an independent writer as a separate entity, so wouldn't have been classed as canon at the time.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:20

Agreed the sonar concept was OTT, the concept was strong but I disliked the overuse of it but as I said previously it was very much a niggle.

Otherwise did you see the same film as everyone else? Are you sure you didn't see Sex in the City?

. It's surprising how different your take is than everyone else. You seem to dislike some of the many highlights of The Dark Knight.

I did think it was borderline 15 but then again Casino Royale was 12A too. What can you day, all kids are tough these days

. I definitely agree Maggie was better than Katie Holmes. Holmes whether she likes it or not is a face, Maggie thankfully isn't. Her stature suited the role better too.

Markgway wrote:I didn't buy the burnt-face equals psycho act. He lets the Joker go, but intends on killing Gordon's child? Bollocks.

It makes perfect sense. He's supremely pissed off at Gordon for Gordon not getting to Rachel in time. Even before his face gets half burnt off he's turning bad, he's starting to think it's maybe better to use violence after all.

It sounds like you didn't really like it at all. What's your favourite superhero film?

Obviously it's not a masterpiece (what a dumb statement) but it is very well made, acted and the script is super strong (especially for a superhero film).

gasteropod wrote:It's like stringed instruments in minor key being taken up higher and higher, I think it happened when the Joker was speaking about how he got his scars at one point. I found it effective.

I don't recall disliking any of the music, so I guess I must've liked it.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 30 Jul 2008, 00:27

bradavon wrote:I did think it was borderline 15 but then again Casino Royale was 12A too. What can you day, all kids are tough these days .

I thought it was surprisingly brutal for a 12A, but I did notice that there was a lack of gore, and that the camera cut away whenever something gory would happen like the Joker cutting smiles into people's faces.

bradavon wrote: Obviously it's not a masterpiece (what a dumb statement) but it is very well made, acted and the script is super strong (especially for a superhero film).

I don't think calling it a masterpiece is a dumb statement. The script is super-strong thanks to Jonathan Nolan, it's a shame he didn't work on Batman Begins as well, since all the films he writes are amazing (Memento, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight) and I found that Batman Begins had some dodgy lines thanks to Goyer. Jonathan Nolan's next screenplay is being directed by Spielberg and about wormholes and stuff, so should be good!