[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo

GasBandit

Staff member
Apparently it's a really divisive movie. Not sure whether I feel like using the money.
It seems to me that there are certain movies that, if you're going to see them, need to be seen on the big screen. Interstellar strikes me as one of those movies, like Gravity was, or Jurassic Park or Terminator 2.
 
If you don't see Interstellar in a theater equipped with a mega sound system, like Imax or the like, then don't bother. It shook my bowels loose and was better for it. I really liked the movie (though the paradox shit at the end I could have done without).
 
Apparently the film was originally made specifically for Stephen Spielburg. But when he passed on the project to do something else, they gave it to Nolan. So it's a movie that was supposed to be a Spielburg movie made by Nolan. The results, from what I'm hearing, are exactly what you'd expect.
 
I give them credit for hiring a physicist to work out the science. There were some neat concepts shown in the film.[DOUBLEPOST=1415713581,1415713517][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, when did Nolan supposedly get bad? Half the country was ready to lick his feet in supplication after The Dark Knight.
 
I give them credit for hiring a physicist to work out the science. There were some neat concepts shown in the film.[DOUBLEPOST=1415713581,1415713517][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, when did Nolan supposedly get bad? Half the country was ready to lick his feet in supplication after The Dark Knight.
For me it was the Prestige. Although both Batman Begins and Dark Knight don't have great endings (Dark Knight in particular could lose the entire last act), and the Dark Knight Rises was just a bad movie on pretty much every level.
 
Yeah, it was Dark Knight Rises for me. I like the first two, but man, that last one was a major fumble at the finish line for Nolan for a variety of reasons.

The Nolanizing of Man of Steel didn't help, either. Though I have to respect that he fought against "Superman" killing.
 
I don't think you can blame Man of Steel on him.[DOUBLEPOST=1415714990,1415714888][/DOUBLEPOST]
Batman: I've never seen this before and that's a damn shame. While Burton's take on the character is not without its problems in this movie or its sequel (which I've seen several times), this is a fantastic movie. The narrative arc is a little wonky, but there are great scenes, lines--hell, most shots are framed in an engaging or striking way. Jack Nicholson does a better job than I thought he would. I really never gave this movie a fair chance and it damn well deserved one.

Stand By Me: Hadn't seen this before. Good overall. I liked the kids' interactions despite the looming sense of Keifer Sutherland dread. I just wish there wasn't a voice-over, because 9 times out of 10 it wasn't informing anything that the movie didn't already do through dialogue and/or action.
I fuckin' love Batman. I do. I know it's a shitty representation of the character but it's one of my first theater going experiences and to this day I can quote the whole God damn movie. I had the cloth posters as well as multiple versions of the movie poster on my wall. I wore out the VHS copy. It was the greatest thing my 6 year old self had ever seen. Everyone who knows me to this day knows the "He's dead now, and he left me in charge." line from my own overuse of it.

I had a Bob action figure. FUCKING BOB!

 

fade

Staff member
Man I tried Burton Batman, and I found it a lot less interesting that I remembered. I loved it when it originally came out. I'd stopped reading comics at that time, and that got me back into them. One of the things that stands out to me is how bad the FX are. For example, in one of the first scenes, there's a pan down from a Gotham skyline to an alley (I think) and you can see quite clearly where they pasted it in.
 
Eh, I don't blame him entirely for Man of Steel, but he obviously had a hand in the movie's creation and overall style.

You know, speaking of Nolan's Batman, I realized something awhile ago: he's a TERRIBLE superhero. For one, he only goes after the big guns. Doesn't patrol or help out the little crimes (a little bit at the start of Dark Knight). Second, he gets his ass handed to him all the time, even having trouble with Joker's lackeys. Bane I can understand because Bane's supposed to be physically dominating. Third, a lot of people die as a result of his actions (like the Joker chase scene and especially many parts of Dark Knight Rises). To say nothing of countless, needless property damage (the Batmobile chase scene in Begins). Fourth, he actually quits between the second and third one.

Yeah, it makes him imperfect and fallible, but when you start thinking about his actions, he's probably the worst Batman in Bat-history.
 
Eh, I don't blame him entirely for Man of Steel, but he obviously had a hand in the movie's creation and overall style.

You know, speaking of Nolan's Batman, I realized something awhile ago: he's a TERRIBLE superhero. For one, he only goes after the big guns. Doesn't patrol or help out the little crimes (a little bit at the start of Dark Knight). Second, he gets his ass handed to him all the time, even having trouble with Joker's lackeys. Bane I can understand because Bane's supposed to be physically dominating. Third, a lot of people die as a result of his actions (like the Joker chase scene and especially many parts of Dark Knight Rises). To say nothing of countless, needless property damage (the Batmobile chase scene in Begins). Fourth, he actually quits between the second and third one.

Yeah, it makes him imperfect and fallible, but when you start thinking about his actions, he's probably the worst Batman in Bat-history.
What? No. In order:

1) We only see movies about him going after the big guns, but the beginning of The Dark Knight, between him going vigilante on Scarecrow/other batmen and his working with Gordon, indicates he's been doing stuff, quite successfully too, between movies.
2) Plenty of superheroes, especially more normal ones, don't effortlessly beat everyone they come across. As a counter-point, he took out both armed Joker goons and a police swat team at the same time non-lethally, while keeping the hostages safe as well. The guy is legit badass.
3) As opposed to all the people who die because other versions of Batman haven't just killed the Joker/Scarecrow/every other reoccuring villain and been done with it?

Fourth is the only one you're really on point for. Which isn't enough to make him a terrible Batman.
 
Welp, guess I'm wrong, then. I still think he's a terrible Batman, though.
The editing of the movies and timeline presented certainly -suggest- he's a terrible Batman. Had they done it a little better, you could assume he's been doing stuff off camera, but because Begins ends with the Joker card, you have to assume that Dark Knight takes place almost immediately after, meaning that by the time Rises comes around, we're left to believe he quit being Batman after like a year and a half.
 
The editing of the movies and timeline presented certainly -suggest- he's a terrible Batman. Had they done it a little better, you could assume he's been doing stuff off camera, but because Begins ends with the Joker card, you have to assume that Dark Knight takes place almost immediately after, meaning that by the time Rises comes around, we're left to believe he quit being Batman after like a year and a half.
On the other hand, in The Dark Knight it's clear Batman has been working with the cops for a while on the mob (Batman's marked money has led to them finding the bulk of the mob's cash), and there's numerous references to how Batman's work has inspired the people and made them feel brave, how he and Gordon have pushed the crime bosses to their limits (which is why they turn to the Joker), and Scarecrow says in the busted drug sale "If you don't like what I have to offer, you can buy from someone else. Assuming Batman left anyone to buy from". They don't quite hit you over the head with the idea that Batman's been working at this for a while, quite successfully, but there's plenty of indicators if you pay attention.
 
On the other hand, in The Dark Knight it's clear Batman has been working with the cops for a while on the mob (Batman's marked money has led to them finding the bulk of the mob's cash), and there's numerous references to how Batman's work has inspired the people and made them feel brave, how he and Gordon have pushed the crime bosses to their limits (which is why they turn to the Joker), and Scarecrow says in the busted drug sale "If you don't like what I have to offer, you can buy from someone else. Assuming Batman left anyone to buy from". They don't quite hit you over the head with the idea that Batman's been working at this for a while, quite successfully, but there's plenty of indicators if you pay attention.
And yet the timeline is still poorly edited, purely due to the introduction of the Joker at the end of Begins.
 
And yet the timeline is still poorly edited, purely due to the introduction of the Joker at the end of Begins.
Why? The Joker showing up around then doesn't mean that Batman and Gordon made immediate progress. They had higher priority targets with the mobs than with one guy running smaller jobs. If they didn't address it all maybe, but when they explicitly reference the line of events, you can't really say they didn't/poorly explained it. You don't have to assume he's been doing things off camera as you suggest we could if they edited the timeline properly because they outright tell us this.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
I just watched Maleficent and I was not impressed. It felt tremendously shallow. Most of the characters run around with no motivation beyond a one-dimensional character trait. Watching the deleted scenes made me hate the movie.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
It was so disappointing. It could have been good, I think, but it got dumbed down and they couldn't decide on a tone. It went from kind of whimsical and fantastic to dark to a little kooky.
 
And yet the timeline is still poorly edited, purely due to the introduction of the Joker at the end of Begins.
Which at the time was just a double homicide. By The Dark Knight, he's made a name for himself, like Batman, in the year that occurs between movies.

What makes it dumb is that he apparently takes a break after Dark Knight, then seven years later comes back into it briefly, to then quit. So in the Nolanverse, he was Batman for just a year.

At this point, I just like to watch The Dark Knight as an isolated movie, a solo Batman story like a couple of the animated films are.
 

Dave

Staff member
Just got done watching "Willow Creek". This movie could be used to put insomniacs to sleep. And the ending is...abrupt. Did not like it.
 
Top