Maybe so, although I found the Spider-Man trilogy much more inventive and critically engaged in the way that it dealt with similar issues. Spider-Man 3 was really a postmodern art film dressed up as an action movie.

_________________

...said the critic of comic books.

we'll never see eye to eye on stuff like this, but that's okay, you're still my guy TM.

If you're saying that comic book movies can't also be interesting or thoughtful, I think you're anesthetizing your critical faculties so you can celebrate mediocrity--much like film critics across the country have apparently done in reviewing Dark Knight.

_________________

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that the tired platitudes you mention are part-and-parcel for comics, so far as I know.


I still haven't seen 3. Was that any good?

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?

If I admit that I did, is that the first step in recovering the little bit of my soul that Spider-Man 3 stole from me? That movie was horrible. It was a jumbled mess of illogical villains, horrible plot twists and an emo-fricking Spider-Man. They were given a few really good takes on the Venom story from the comics and they managed to screw those up royally with Spider-Man 3. Ugh. It wasn't as bad as the Schumaker Batman flicks, but it is by far the worst of the Spider-Man movies. If you're looking for a quality Spidey flick, you're better off talking about the second one.

I'm not saying that at all! What are you talking about? I've raved about some of the recent comic book movies. And I'm the one who's super psyched about "Watchman", probably the most thoughtful graphic novel ever produced. I don't think you're looking at some of them on the level they're supposed to be appreciated on however.

TM, I'm sorry we can't come to agreement here. I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike "The Dark Knight"; but I'd really appreciate not being personally brought into this as if I'm one of these megamovie critics. I'm not being endorsed by anyone or anything. I'm not allowed to like "The Dark Knight" for its sinister leanings? Its usage of hero/villain themes in a darker tone? It's simple, but I enjoyed it.

I know Nolan's getting hammered by some people who think that his Batman series takes itself too seriously and is arrogant, self-indulgent and pretentious. I disagree. I think what he did was revitalize the franchise. Burton's "Batman" was good, but it was shallow. It was window dressing, as much as I liked it. I like what Nolan's done narratively. Besides, have you read "The Long Halloween" or "The Dark Knight Returns"? "The Dark Knight" is pretty damn close to both of them.

Plus it's interesting to me that you're coming down on movies like "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight", yet you praise a show like "Lost" that totally takes its audience for granted, and treats them like sheep. Talk about mediocrity. Not saying you can't like "Lost" and have to also like the movies I just mentioned, but I'm just not seeing where you're coming from here.

I have a feeling you're going to ask me the same question in reverse though...so I'll just say it's a taste thing...

Ah, but style over substance is exactly what I want from a film!

A serious treatment on the subject of the human psyche is best handled by textbooks and college courses. The visual medium of film is best utilized by distilling such concepts into more simplistic forms and marrying them with vivid and exciting imagery.

The struggle between good and evil is merely a theme in the picture; the film isn't intended as a substitue for a Ph.D.

hilarious

_________________

And they said Rupert Murdock wouldn't destroy the WSJ.

Does this guy also write for The Onion?

_________________
President of Blake Shetlon fan club

Wishful thinking...Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. now owns the Wall Street Journal & Barron's in a controversial deal with the family that ran the paper's parent Dow Jones & Company.

I thought it was a 3 star flick. ...and I think it's getting better reviews and large turnouts because of the 'weird' factor - seeing Ledger in probably his last movie role.

I'm glad the killed off that skank hag sister of that Bunny Boy Donnie Darko. Good Lord... I can't stand Tom Cruise's stepford wife in the last flick, but Maggie Gugoofylooking is less attractive than a Packers logo shaved into my ass hair. She kind of ruined the movie for me. Just the sight of her made me ask - couldn't they have gotten ANYBODY except this fugly skeezoid?

While I enjoyed Heath Ledger's role, which was masterfully done, I also enjoyed Aaron Eckhart's acting job.

Much like I've heard from others, I was waiting for Batman to ask the question "Did I fire six shots, or was it only five?"

Solid flick, but I enjoyed Iron Man and Wanted more.


...I saw the preview for Watchmen too. I think Comic Book flicks are about to jump the shark. There's simply TOO many of them coming out now. Oddly, as I type this, I realize that Dark Knight and Iron Man are probably two of the best ones ever made.

Thanks Grid! Now I don't have to worry about finding a spare 2 1/2 hours to watch the flick.

_________________
President of Blake Shetlon fan club

GOOD CALL!

They're making money, so I'd say get used to it. "Watchmen" is going to be much different than the garden variety superhero flicks. It's much more politically charged and has a lot of social issues and is pretty damn dark.

I think people unfamiliar with the comic are going to be thrown off by this movie, because it's still somewhat packaged as a superhero movie.

And I don't know that "jump the shark" would be the appropriate expression, since they're not doing anything out of the ordinary, there are just a lot coming out. I mean if you start getting movies like "Spiderman and the Traveling Pants" or "Alien Vs. Predator Vs. Iron Man", then you've got some shark jumping possibilities.

I think she looks a little too much like her brother. Has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?

I do see SOME resemblance:



Maggie and Jake




....and regarding comic book flicks making money - I agree - if they're well done, they'll make money - but at a certain point, I want to see movies about REAL things - the human condition - you know.... Animal House, Old School, etc. etc.

Like I said, it was good and worth seeing - but I wouldn't see it again at theaters.

I thought it was great. Heath Ledger's take on the joker was nothing short of masterful. If he doesn't get the Oscar for Supporting it's a crime.

Did anybody else find themselves thinking [Elwood]"this is definitely Lower Wacker Drive"[\Elwood] during the chase scenes?

And I'm right there with you wishing that Heath had lived and the annoying talentless Gylendaddy'sawritersowegetmovieroles siblings had taken too many sleeping pills! Go away! Both of you!!

I did leave the movie asking myself the question: Who in the hell is Conway Wickliffe??

Grid - I thought the same thing until I looked it up on imdb.com...He was a stunt man killed in an accident during filming of the Dark Knight.

Here is more info from imdb.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1311692/news#ni0252569

someone drew "WHY SO SERIOUS?" on their apt windows in red paint near my place. i'm going to take a picture and post it, i promise. it's weird.

thanks for the info on conway wickliffe.

_________________

I saw it last night....great movie...very deep and vivid.

While you may not like Droopy Gyllenhall's looks (neither do I), her acting was far superior to anything Katie Holme's could have hoped to produce. I believed her as a tough prosecuter.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

i saw this movie last night, and was impressed. they really have done a good job finding a mood for these movies, i like the grittiness of them. i do think it got a bit long, but i never got bored or itchy to get out of there. the whole bat-vision thing wasnt making a lot of sense to me.

maggie gyllenhall is no bombshell, but i found her character believable. the role and the vibe of the movie didnt seem right to have it full of "the beautiful people", i think she captured it pretty well.

heath ledger was tremendous as the joker, i dont think i have anything to add to that that hasnt already been said, but i did like his joker laugh, it had a touch of cesar romero in it, very maniacal.

some of the camerawork, while stylish, was a bit headache-inducing. too many scenes where the camera does endless loops around the characters. just my opinion, but the 360 spinning shots of dialog between characters is turning into one of the most over-used techniques in movies today. this movie was a little hard on the eyes i thought.

when he walked into the first mob meeting, I could have sworn that was Jack Nicholson's laugh.

The producer's missed two golden opportunities:

1) When Gordon finds guys with the name Harvey and Dent dead in a hotel room, Dent's name was Richard Dent. You are in Chicago, you are using the name Richard Dent, and you don't give The Colnel a cameo appearance as a dead man? Unthinkable, my friend.

Maybe they knew it would have been unbelievable as Richard Dent would have single handedly taken out the Joker and his crew while restoring pride to the city with the mere mention of his Super Bowl MVP.


2) When Wayne tells Fox he needs a new suit, Fox talks about a three button being too 90's. He should have instead responded with a Patrick Bateman line about the suits he wears.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

was definitely thrown in there for chicago audiences to catch, i chuckled a bit. i think there was a cicero mention as well.



too much

just to move this into the nerdy realm, when Joker and Batman are dueling it out on La Salle Street, in the backround on a green canopy you can see the name of the candy store Sweet Home Chicago in big bold letters. I'm suprised the director did not change the angle a little bit or negotiate with the shop to remove the sign for the night of shooting.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Random dump of thoughts on the movie, might spoil some things but oh well:

I left the movie thinking, that was actually too intense. Almost a similar feeling I had after Saving Ryan's Privates.

The struggle between hero and guardian and hero and villian was done well. I was not sure how Joker and Two Face would live together in the movie, but they meshed together well for the plot.

Why does Harvey Dent knock over the drum to put his face in the oil? Didnt catch the purpose of it.

Joker's portrayal is well played by Ledger, but without the plot and writing, the character would have been nothing more then another horror movie villian. An underlying theme of the movie was getting the audience to think Batman is not a super hero, but a freak. It lent itself well.

Someone commented on bat vision being too much? How about all the other technology toys? Eh.

Movies should be limited to 21 years old and above. Last night, I had two girls behind me who were taking pictures of Ledger on screen. Not with their camera phones, real fuckin cameras! And they talked the entire film of course. They were not alone.

Taking down half a pitcher of Sangria before the movie at La Hacienda helped.

_________________

I have it on my PC, but the quality sucks.

I took the woman to the imax showing, but they were all sold out even though it said they had tix online. Kind of glad I didn't blow $30 on a movie.

_________________
"Mattress technology has come a long way"

- Dan Bernstein, 2016

One thing that bothered me:

When they were on the rigged boats, no one on either boat mentioned the possibility that the Joker was lying, and that they really had their own trigger.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?