jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 30, 2009 18:43:40 GMT
I just have a hard time putting that same ceiling over films like Ikiru and Citizen Kane
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 1, 2009 22:08:54 GMT
I see loads of humanity and important message for the whole of mankind in movies like CITIZEN KANE and IKIRU.
And dude, may i ask you not to try to teach me how to like or see the importance of CITIZEN KANE, please? Really, of all things, that's one i need no teaching from anybody whatsoever. You can bet your ass on that, mate. You have no idea how much i like it, you really don't.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 4:39:45 GMT
I was simply pointing out movies regarding the problems of one or two people. Obviously metaphors exist for society as a whole.
It isnt what a movies about, its about how its about it.
I love Dark Knight, but resent the fact that its put on this seperate pedestal for exploring all these so called "important adult themes". Its a lot better than say, any of the Spiderman movies, but it certainly doesnt say anything much more profound.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 2, 2009 6:24:59 GMT
I was simply pointing out movies regarding the problems of one or two people. Obviously metaphors exist for society as a whole. It isnt what a movies about, its about how its about it. I love Dark Knight, but resent the fact that its put on this seperate pedestal for exploring all these so called "important adult themes". Its a lot better than say, any of the Spiderman movies, but it certainly doesnt say anything much more profound. Did THE GODFATHER say anything profound?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 6:56:09 GMT
Does it need to? I think the Godfather is a excellent piece of entertainment and filmmaking. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about the Dark Knight.
I never said a movie has to be profound or mature...fuck I dont care. I was simply wondering why TDK has been billed as such, at least, to such a higher extent than its predescessor (or hell, any action movie).
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 2, 2009 7:05:14 GMT
Does it need to? I think the Godfather is a excellent piece of entertainment and filmmaking. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about the Dark Knight. I never said a movie has to be profound or mature...fuck I dont care. I was simply wondering why TDK has been billed as such, at least, to such a higher extent than its predescessor (or hell, any action movie). Shit then your problem isnt the movie itself, but the external talk. Why let that nonsense ruin a movie for you? Its like when DONNIE DARKO went from Sundance bust to cult hit, I kinda got pissy at how it suddenly became a hip thing to dig (though I had the DVD shipped to me way a long time before DARKO came even close to cultdom). Then I realized, fuck that nonsense. It was a good movie, fuck if the dipshits decide to pimp it now after the fact. Their failure, not mine. Mate, don't confuse the outside loud noise with the inner quality of cinema. Why do people in general fall easily into such traps? Better question, what is your honest opinion of TDK? Don't compare/contrast it with what the pop opinion is. Fuck that bullshit. What's your sterile observation.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 7:09:55 GMT
I never said it ruined the movie for me....why would I judge it to anyones standards but my own?
I was simply pointing out a review that I disagreed with.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 7:32:26 GMT
My sterile opinion of the movie as you put it, is that it was a fun ride and a decent entry into the Batman series. Personally, I perfer Burtons 2 attempts and especially Nolans first.
All actors do an excellent job with their characters. bale is my favorite Batman (in live action at least), Ledger my favorite Joker, Caine is my favorite Alfred, etc, etc.
The way I felt about it after watching it the first time hasnt changed one iota (seen it three times now). Large chunks of the movie are more and more incoherent the more I think about them, even to the extent that the Jokers "Super-sanity" or status as an "agent of chaos" do not make them work. The car chase scene in the middle was basically the sweetest action I saw all year. That said, the movies dramatic arc seems more like a series of speedbumps, redefining itself as it goes (especially around aforementioned car chase scene). Personally, I found it annoying.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 2, 2009 7:57:14 GMT
My sterile opinion of the movie as you put it, is that it was a fun ride and a decent entry into the Batman series. Personally, I perfer Burtons 2 attempts and especially Nolans first. All actors do an excellent job with their characters. bale is my favorite Batman (in live action at least), Ledger my favorite Joker, Caine is my favorite Alfred, etc, etc. The way I felt about it after watching it the first time hasnt changed one iota (seen it three times now). Large chunks of the movie are more and more incoherent the more I think about them, even to the extent that the Jokers "Super-sanity" or status as an "agent of chaos" do not make them work. The car chase scene in the middle was basically the sweetest action I saw all year. That said, the movies dramatic arc seems more like a series of speedbumps, redefining itself as it goes (especially around aforementioned car chase scene). Personally, I found it annoying. Well I disagree with you on the speedbumps, but hey I respect your opinion none the less. This is why I hate the Oscar season. We usually smart and mature filmbuffs go retarded and slam/praise movies and people using stupid logic and flimsy argumentation, regardless usually of inner quality.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 16:27:44 GMT
Its never really bothered me all that much. Ive never really expected the Oscars to match my tastes, and with a couple of rare exceptions (last year), it never really has.
That said, I do enjoy the show. Every pompous ass in the room thinks they are doing the Lords work by handing out a couple of statues for movies. Thank heavens George Clooney and Sean Penn know whats best for all of us. Its somewhat entertaining.
The only thing I really root for is the people Id love to see more of, out of hope the Oscars will give them more exposure. Richard Jenkins getting a Best Actor nomination for example, is probably my favorite thing about this years nominees.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 10, 2009 21:07:22 GMT
It's not about the oscars matching your tastes, or mine, or Ronnie, or whoever. It's about the oscars do the right thing. It's about the oscars being wise, logical and have common sense in chosing the winners. It goes beyond "personal tastes" or whatever bullshit is that crap that people wave arround this days as if it's their own God's Given Right (and by the way, god doesn't exist, deal with it!).
When movies like THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN get nominate,d and they win the major awards, that's nothing to do with personal tastes and whatnot, but to do with awarding the right deserving movies.
Too many times, the oscars go with the flow and award movies which, time proves, became forgotten or rightlyfully discarted as fluf of the moment. That sometimes movies like THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN get the big prizes, movies that truly deserve all the accolades and then some, are moments when one should trweasure,f or once true justice was delivered.
It migth also means that academy member Michael "Talentless Piece Of Shit" Bay forgot to send his vote and thus, two really good movies got a chance to win.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Mar 18, 2009 19:43:39 GMT
Instead of attacking this film myself, here's an invitation for others to praise it. And if i want to watch a smart movie, i watch THE DARK KNIGHT. All formalistic preferences aside (that precludes the way the action scenes are directed, and it also precludes all performances, including Heath Ledger's), on what grounds would you call The Dark Knight "smart"? What has it got going for it in terms of intellectual substance?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Mar 19, 2009 5:55:07 GMT
It is a bright and brilliant light from heaven. One of the most important pieces of serious art ever created.
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Mar 19, 2009 14:02:18 GMT
So was the new South Park episode.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 19, 2009 14:10:33 GMT
So was the new South Park episode. THE COON!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Mar 19, 2009 14:56:21 GMT
It is a bright and brilliant light from heaven. One of the most important pieces of serious art ever created. Seriously? Do you mean liek; serious-serious? Or, serious? Get serious.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 23, 2009 22:49:51 GMT
Why so seriously? What exactly does that criticism mean anyway for something like Batman? It's not a criticism of Batman, it's an observation. Batman is not serious. More specifically, it's a criticism - and until somebody convinces me otherwise, a very valid one - of The Dark Knight, which treats Batman in a serious manner, when a) it ought not to, and, more crucially, b) it cannot. Raiders doesn't take itself seriously, though I've not seen it in so long; Die Hard is a great film. So I don't know what you're trying to get at here; you bring up examples of the action genre as if they're meant to refute what we're saying. There isn't a relative gradient of seriousness applicable to Batman. It's inherently and fundamentally unserious. Again, not a criticism, an observation. Like I said, The Dark Knight is no more serious (and cannot be more serious) than the Adam West Batman. And I know which one I prefer; the less pretentious one, the one that isn't trying to kid itself and its audience.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 23, 2009 23:28:00 GMT
The Joker wants to know: Why so Serious!?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 23, 2009 23:39:10 GMT
And I'd like to ask Nolan the same.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 24, 2009 0:00:22 GMT
What exactly does that criticism mean anyway for something like Batman? It's not a criticism of Batman, it's an observation. Batman is not serious. More specifically, it's a criticism - and until somebody convinces me otherwise, a very valid one - of The Dark Knight, which treats Batman in a serious manner, when a) it ought not to, and, more crucially, b) it cannot.[/quote] Why? Raiders doesn't take itself seriously, though I've not seen it in so long; Die Hard is a great film. So I don't know what you're trying to get at here; you bring up examples of the action genre as if they're meant to refute what we're saying. RAIDERS does take itself seriously. Or is your seriousness definition more strict and unrealistic than mine? As for DIE HARD...its weird how both movies are supposed larger-than-life spectacles full of explosions and supposed one-liners (though admittedly DH has chlock more one-liners) made by filmmakers who tried to put some incredible technical skill behind the stuff blowing up canvas, and the actors within them. Why? There isn't a relative gradient of seriousness applicable to Batman. It's inherently and fundamentally unserious. and DIE HARD is? Or did we suddenly forget that ending? Where does one draw the line? Again, not a criticism, an observation. Like I said, The Dark Knight is no more serious (and cannot be more serious) than the Adam West Batman. And I know which one I prefer; the less pretentious one, the one that isn't trying to kid itself and its audience. I prefer the less pretentious criticism myself.
|
|