Last 'good' movie you watched that was horrible versus. Last 'sucky' movie = good.

[MrGrunge]

So, who are you supposed to be? Like, Mandark, or something?

Except Mandark is a genius. Also, his lab looked way cooler than Dexter's.

 

[poledriver]

hrm hadn't hear of the mist, i'll track it down and watch it, thanks. Training day was ok, not shit, but nothing that amazing.

skyfall hasn't got me interested as yet, but i'll probably watch it sometime.

 

[MrGrunge]

I'm not sure how this fits in with the topic (because I had heard both really good and really awful things about it) but I watched The Dark Knight Rises for the first time this week.

The Nay-Sayers told me it was riddled with plot holes and cheesy one-liners, and the Yea-Sayers told me it was better than TDK and that Bane was portrayed just as well, if not better, than The Joker. Frankly, I think both were wrong. I thought it was a more-than-decent finale to Nolan's Batman trilogy. It had a few absurd moments, sure (the "Magic Knee Brace" *ahem*) and there were a couple of useless plot devices, but I didn't really notice any plot holes either time I watched it (if someone has a glaring plot hole to point out, please do) and it was still far better than any Marvel movie. Whereas The Dark Knight I'd give a 9 or 9.5 out of 10, TDKR gets more like a 7.5.

 

[P A]

^I don't know, man. Much like with the Star Wars franchise, I can't help but find myself on the side of the stubborn contrarians re. the miserable pigfuck that was The Dark Knight. Having seen each film in the trilogy exactly twice in a relatively short period of time (a few years), I just cannot understand the fanfare. The first one Sucked with a capital S, suffused as it was with Triple Grade-A Wisconsin Cheese, with a capital C (magic evil gas, anyone?...anyone?). The Dark Knight was just one ludicrous escalation after another, albeit partially redeemed by Nolan's tasteful use of special effects and Ledger's much-lauded performance. But that was it; it dragged on for ~3 hours, and felt at least that long by the time it was done. From where I'm sitting, TDKR, while still pretty silly, was a vast improvement upon the previous two, with especial attention to Hardy's Bane, which was certainly no worse then Ledger's Joker.

 

[batmanplaybaseball]

if someone has a glaring plot hole to point out, please do

First off I'll just say that I like The Dark Knight Rises.

(and as Batman, this should carry some weight)

But, one of the plot holes that sticks out in my mind is how the police force emerges from weeks of malnourished imprisonment under the city, only to instantly begin attacking the heavily armed mob like automatons for justice.

Yeah that and a couple of other things. But I think that people who complain excessively about minor plot holes in a story based around a superhero are on the wrong side of expectation.

 

[P A]

But, one of the plot holes that sticks out in my mind is how the police force emerges from weeks of malnourished imprisonment under the city, only to instantly begin attacking the heavily armed mob like automatons for justice.

I'm going to have to be this guy again: Actually, if you watch and listen closely during the 'Gotham lockdown' sequence, Bane (and the film) takes pains to let Gotham (and the audience) know that the officers are being taken care of, since this revolution was 'for the people,' and so forth.

 

[MrGrunge]

^I don't know, man. Much like with the Star Wars franchise, I can't help but find myself on the side of the stubborn contrarians re. the miserable pigfuck that was The Dark Knight. Having seen each film in the trilogy exactly twice in a relatively short period of time (a few years), I just cannot understand the fanfare. The first one Sucked with a capital S, suffused as it was with Triple Grade-A Wisconsin Cheese, with a capital C (magic evil gas, anyone?...anyone?). The Dark Knight was just one ludicrous escalation after another, albeit partially redeemed by Nolan's tasteful use of special effects and Ledger's much-lauded performance. But that was it; it dragged on for ~3 hours, and felt at least that long by the time it was done. From where I'm sitting, TDKR, while still pretty silly, was a vast improvement upon the previous two, with especial attention to Hardy's Bane, which was certainly no worse then Ledger's Joker.

I've been a huge fan of Batman since I was a little kid, so my opinion is pretty inherently biased, but I think Nolan managed to craft a very respectful trilogy - not just to the character, but to the audience. Most superhero movies are made so as to not outsmart the viewer, who they assume is just barely smarter than your average chimpanzee. Nolan does a great job exploring the human side of the superhero as well as providing enough exciting eye-candy to keep you engaged; it's not just explosions and one liners (like every single Marvel film), there's real depth to the characters and the action is necessary to advance the story. That's pretty much everything I could ask for from a Batman film. Each Nolan film has been that way, but I really think The Dark Knight did it best.

Bane, who I was initially very against as Nolan's third antagonist, is actually done really well, despite the exclusion of his core gimmick from the comics (his "Venom" steroids that basically turned him Super Saiyan). Hardy is kinda small (he had to wear stilts so that Bale didn't tower over him) and is pretty ripped, but not very Bane-like. But with some clever camera work (lots of low angels) and costume design (Bane's vest accentuated Hardy's arm size) I was made a believer. As far as his dialogue goes, I think it was well-written (for the most part), Hardy came up with a pretty cool accent, and the fact that his voice was so far up in the mix didn't bother me that much...but I still think Joker was a better character, and a much more interesting antagonist:

- Joker had to use his brains (aka, deception and blackmail) to force other people to work in his interest - Bane already had a ready-made army full of fanatics ready to die for him.

- Bane, up until Bruce somehow managed to overcome a severe back injury and get in better shape than before he got hurt (ahem...), was clearly far stronger than Batman (in fact, Catwoman is the one who beats Bane...using a gun) whereas the Joker couldn't match up to Batman physically...he had to be smart about it.

- Bane has a backstory (although it's a bit muddled) whereas the Joker is portrayed as some sort of agent of Chaos. He has no allegiance other than his own psychotic desires...I mean, he blows up a hospital just to make a point. At no point does Joker's motivation ever extend beyond "because I want to do it," which I think makes him a bit terrifying. Bane, despite his obvious intelligence, is just a pawn used to fulfill the whims of his former master and his daughter - he doesn't really think for himself. If anything, Talia al Ghul is the main villain, but she never does anything villainous until the last 20 minutes of the movie so it's like...who cares?

All in all, I think TDK was a much more clever (and realistic) movie because the villain necessitated it. TDKR was able to play fast-and-loose with logic because we have to assume that the villain is a man of great power and great means with a definite endgame, instead of just a solitary psychopath whose intentions are unclear. Both of these films are better than Batman Begins, I'd say.

I'm going to have to be this guy again: Actually, if you watch and listen closely during the 'Gotham lockdown' sequence, Bane (and the film) takes pains to let Gotham (and the audience) know that the officers are being taken care of, since this revolution was 'for the people,' and so forth.

I was gonna say, there's a scene where food and supplies are clearly being lowered into the tunnels. In fact, there was a group of guards whose sole duty was to deliver supplies and watch the entrance. Granted, they may still have been malnourished (since there were "thousands" down there), but given that this is a comic book movie (with a number of logical stretches already) I think hard realism is asking too much of the script. I didn't have a problem with their ability to fight Bane's militia, but what I DID have a problem with, was the fact that Bane's men and the cops decided NOT to fire their guns, and instead beat each other with them. I mean, they broke into TWO different armories (during the movie, not to mention the weapons they acquired before the plot picks up), and instead of shooting all the cops with their high powered weaponry, they just beat each other.

The explosive concrete idea was also pretty...eh. My biggest problem was the bridges - is it really likely that the construction company Bane used managed to tear up the concrete on the bridges and then replace it with the explosive concrete? I can understand the random spots around Gotham city proper, and the stadium looked pretty new so it's possible Bane's crew could have worked on it, but the bridges seemed unlikely. I think I rationalized the bridge thing as Bane acquired a lot of C4 at some point (given his financial benefactors) and simply rigged the bridges to blow (like the military did), which is silly but still plausible.

The "Magic Leg Brace", however, was pushing it for me. I don't care how much money you have, without cartilage in your knee, you won't be fighting crime. It would have been better if this part had not been included.

 

[batmanplaybaseball]

Question: What kind of bear is best?

 

[P A]

but I still think Joker was a better character, and a much more interesting antagonist:

Oh no, I agree, the Joker is the better villain, hands down. It was more the performances that I was talking about. To be clear, I thought the contrivances of both films were pretty fucking ridiculous - I just felt slightly less overwhelmed and perhaps a little intrigued by Bane's whole Vive le Gotham routine, at least for the first half (before Nolan's screenplay fucked it up - again).

All in all, I think TDK was a much more clever (and realistic) movie because the villain necessitated it. TDKR was able to play fast-and-loose with logic because we have to assume that the villain is a man of great power and great means with a definite endgame, instead of just a solitary psychopath whose intentions are unclear.

I thought both films made the same mistake, indeed the perennial mistake of every boring action blockbuster - the henchmen. One of the reasons I so enjoyed the movie Drive was its pointed refusal to depict human beings as Evil Henchmen, or as otherwise completely disposable instruments in service of a Big Bad. It's not that this fact alone made Drive a believable film; it was just a refreshing thing to see after 40-50 years of this nonsense. From what I gathered from the 'plot' of TDK (which was too frenetically paced to easily follow on a first viewing), the Joker is a lone madman who somehow acquires the technical skill and general knowhow to 1) Steal money from the mob. 2) Use that incident to gain political traction with that same mob (?) whom he then cons into giving him more money (?) and henchmen (?) in service of his purported scheme to kill The Batman. 3) Using said funds and human resources (which, for whatever reason, the previously all-powerful mob seems unable to recover from a single man in clown makeup), the sadistic Joker rigs explosives all over Gotham, kills Rachel, mutilates a district attorney, assassinates multiple high-ranking political officials, and so on and so forth. I just don't buy it any more than I bought Bane's rhetorical 'revolution' or whatever.

Oh yeah, and Katie Holmes' substitution with Droopy Dog was inexcusable. It really was a deal-breaker for me - I mean, this Gjyillanhajall chick can't even act! Not only is it infuriating when this sort of thing happens to a franchise that's worth (literally) billions of dollars and can therefore afford to retain its main cast members, it becomes even worse when they botch the substitution itself. What's next, Michael Paine gets replaced by Tim Robbins? Christian Bale with Colin Farrel? Give me a break.

The "Magic Leg Brace", however, was pushing it for me. I don't care how much money you have, without cartilage in your knee, you won't be fighting crime. It would have been better if this part had not been included.

Well if that was the deal-breaker for you, okay. I think for me it might have been a little earlier in the franchise, when I was introduced to a character who was rich, mildly famous, physically attractive, and single, but for vague personal reasons decides to become a Serious Badass and rove around his hometown in a rubber mask beating criminal scum half to death. But that was just me. [As you can plainly tell, I do not have a soft spot for comic book movies, save perhaps for Watchmen].

 

[Znegative]

*SPOILER ALERT*​

FATAL ATTRACTION
(1987) Directed by Adrian Lyne

How could anyone resist?​

Michael Douglass's late 80's psychological thriller Fatal Attraction is sinfully exciting. For the first time in months I was ready to jump out of my seat in anticipation, because this shit is fuckin' crazy!

The film is about a succesful attorney named Dan Gallagher ('M.Doug') who's wife and daughter go upstate for a weekend to check out a house, giving our sleazy protagonist two days to engage in a steamy affair with a woman named Alex (Glenn Close) who he meets at a large dinner party. As the weekend comes rolling to an end, Dan tells his mistress, more or less, to 'fuck off'. The blond haired home wrecker reacts in a sudden and violent manner, slicing superficial incisions into her wrists, Dan is horrified, but manages to patch her up. The disturbed Alex apologizes, 'promising' to leave ol' Danny Boy alone... Of course this is just the begining of an increasingly twisted attraction.

It eventually becomes apparent that Dan 'humped and dumped' the wrong girl, as Alex begins to viciously stalk him (I should mention that she also becomes pregnant, allegedly as a result of their two night fuck fest) and the film climaxes when the deranged mistress breaks into M.Doug's home and attacks his wife in the bathroom with a knife.

Dan intervenes just in time, wrestling the wench to the floor and finally (or apparently) drowning her in the bathtub...However, the She-Devil gets one final wind, and just as Douglas turns around, panting and dripping with blood and water, she lunges at him from the depths (with a knife). Before she (Alex) can deliver the killing blow though, Dan's ever faithful wife saves his ass by shooting the deranged bitch square between the tits with a newly acquired pistol.

BAM!​

Now, this film is by no means a masterpiece. In fact, if you're a 'serious' person, you might find Fatal Attraction incredibly sexist because, well- it is. I mean, the whole premise of the film serves as a cautionary tale to the public that 'You shouldn't sleep around on your wife because women are emotionally unstable and cannot handle rejection, nor can they use men for sex without becoming romantically entangled in the process.'

However, if you're the type of person that believes such a message told through such incredibly trashy, Hollywood means could conceivably and effectively influence the general public, than I apologize for saying so, but you're a fucking retard, and if anything you are proving the films 'point'.

Ignoring the absurdly sexist nature of the film (which is easy to do in this case, as we're not talking about a 'Lars Von Trier' Epic) Fatal Attraction is a really fun and creepy flick, with lots of peripheral subtleties that keep your heart racing through its entirety. Not only that, but if you can see past its fog of misogyny, Fatal Attraction is pretty damn funny...I mean, since when did a happy ending include the shooting of a mentally ill, pregnant woman?! If you can appreciate such precious absurdity, and also yearn for a solid, CREEPY, thriller, then Fatal Attraction is the film for you!​

 

[Jimmy_Pop]

Thought would enjoy, but didn't:

CRASH. It was well reviewed and dealt with subject matter I find interesting. It was billed as some kind of penetrating look into U.S. race relations, but I ultimately found that the movie had nothing to say and just ended up trying to build "street cred" by cycling through as many ethnic stereotypes in as little time as possible. It was just one of those classic Hollywood attempts to make a social 'statement' that fails miserably, but that critics still eat up anyway because it looks better than most of the other shit. I honestly don't think I've ever been impressed at any of Hollywood's attempts at social consciousness, I don't think I can even find one counterexample to this. It's always so superficial and the central message always ends up being what 70% of the audience already think anyway.

Movie I thought I'd hate, but ended up liking:

Dr. Strangelove. I thought I wouldn't be able to deal with 60s black and white but turns out I was wrong.

 

[MrGrunge]

Well if that was the deal-breaker for you, okay. I think for me it might have been a little earlier in the franchise, when I was introduced to a character who was rich, mildly famous, physically attractive, and single,

But is constantly getting laid and has a playboy reputation.

but for vague personal reasons decides

His parents were shot in front of him and wanted to prevent such things from happening to other people because he understands the resulting emotional damage.

to become a Serious Badass and rove around his hometown in a rubber mask beating criminal scum half to death.

Because he has the means and training to do so. The mask, as mentioned in TDKR, is to protect the people he cares about.

But that was just me. [As you can plainly tell, I do not have a soft spot for comic book movies, save perhaps for Watchmen].

If you like Watchmen, for the love of all that is right and good in the world, read the comic (or "graphic novel" if want to be a politically correct nerd). The ending is not quite as elegant as the movie (imo) but everything else is phenomenal from a literary perspective.

The difference between a Batman movie and a Watchmen movie is that Batman has decades of lore to sift through, whereas Watchmen is a one-off. Because the "Batman Universe" is in constant flux, Nolan had a tricky job of unifying the more ridiculous aspects of the Batman lore with his vision of a realistic superhero. Needless to say, some logical dissonance is bound to occur. The fact that Nolan managed to minimize said dissonance as well as appease fans of the character is a real achievement in my eyes.

The Superhero Movie genre is a difficult beast - you either sacrifice quality film making for fanboy service (*ahem*...Marvel movies) or you forgo faithfulness to the source material in favor of an original imagining. Either way, people gonna be pissed. I think Nolan managed to find a perfect balance between faithfulness to the source material and an original take on the hero.

Can we at least agree that the Nolan films are respectable Blockbusters? They're not perfect, sure, but they respect the intelligence of the audience and don't cater specifically to the lowest common denominator.

Thought would enjoy, but didn't:

CRASH.

Movie I thought I'd hate, but ended up liking:

Dr. Strangelove.

I second both of these statements.

 

[MrGrunge]

For an 'On Topic' post...

Movie I thought I'd like:

21 Grams - Thought it was dumb, derivative, and dull. (Triple D's)

Movie I thought would suck but liked:

The Comedy - Most people will hate this movie, and I thought I would too, but I found it's off-putting nature really appealing...because it's kinda the point of the film. It's a movie that made me think about myself and the culture I sprang from.

 

[Max Power]

5'5" 150lb Tom Hardy as Bane: Biggest Fail in Cinema Casting Ever

 

[MrGrunge]

^ He put on about 35-40 pounds (I believe he said he almost made it to 190lb) and he's actually around 5'10", but he wore stilts that added several inches to his height. Not to mention Nolan's use of cleverly-angled shots and wardrobe designs to make him look bulkier. I too thought it was a terrible idea when I first heard it, but I think Hardy/Nolan pulled the character off very well.

I was a little disappointed that the Venom gimmick was abandoned, but considering the massive amount of CGI that would have to be utilized, I don't think it was a bad decision.

 

[cj]

Thought would enjoy, but didn't:

CRASH. It was well reviewed and dealt with subject matter I find interesting. It was billed as some kind of penetrating look into U.S. race relations, but I ultimately found that the movie had nothing to say and just ended up trying to build "street cred" by cycling through as many ethnic stereotypes in as little time as possible. It was just one of those classic Hollywood attempts to make a social 'statement' that fails miserably, but that critics still eat up anyway because it looks better than most of the other shit. I honestly don't think I've ever been impressed at any of Hollywood's attempts at social consciousness, I don't think I can even find one counterexample to this. It's always so superficial and the central message always ends up being what 70% of the audience already think anyway..

Really? I loved crash....

 

[P A]

5'5" 150lb Tom Hardy as Bane: Biggest Fail in Cinema Casting Ever

Ummmmmmm....

 

[Max Power]

I believe it was Socrates that once said, "I was exaggerating for effect, yo. Word up." Or maybe that was Flavor Flav.

 

[P A]

And I believe it was Dr. Sam Johnson who said, "Don't, Sir, accustom yourself to use big words for little matters."

[Quote war pl0x?]

 

[velmwend]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060959/