The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You forgot to mention overloaded with gratuitous grotesqueness.

I actually dug that.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I would have thought the same way at first, but for whatever reason, I kept coming back t it. Especially when they released the recut version, where you can watch all the stories on their own.

That version on DVD came with one of the graphic novels. Man, it looked as though 99.9% of the movie is the EXACT same as the novel. Same visual looks, same dialogue, same everything. So for all the bad comments you've listed, I wonder if it's more Frank Miller's fault than Robert Rodriguez's.

After seeing it a few times, it's now a personal favorite. I've always liked Marv's segment, but I learned to enjoy the other stories and characters too.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I agree with most of this; it's crass and not-so-subtle, but it's entertaining and visually exquisite. However, I don't blame Frank Miller or Rodriguez for the problems -- I think it's just the fact that a lot of what makes the graphic novel great gets lost in the translation to film.

I've seen it 3-4 times now. I really want to like it, but it always leaves me feeling underwhelmed.

The problem is definitely Miller's material. It may be a great read, but the wordplay just doesn't translate too well to film, imo.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

My own better than (The Dark Knight) list:
1) A History of Violence
2) Ghost World
3) Persepolis
4) American Splendor
5) Spider-Man II
6) Superman The Movie
7) Road to Perdition
8) Hellboy II

My top five comic book adaptations would be (in alphabetical order):

The Dark Knight
Ghost World
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Spider-Man 2
Watchmen

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Nope but I've heard a lot about both. I'll add to watchlist, thanks.

+2. You gotta check Ghost World out. I got it on DVR. Might watch it again soon.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jvince

My top five comic book adaptations would be (in alphabetical order):

The Dark Knight
Ghost World
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Spider-Man 2
Watchmen

Oh wow, you both really love that film.

Alright, I put together my favorites (not best):

1. Sin City
2. The Punisher
3. 300
4. Batman Begins
5. X-Men

6. The Dark Knight
7. V for Vendetta
8. Watchmen
9. The Mask
10. Blade II

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I despises History of Violence, it's such a predictable and jarring film. I prefer Sin City to it, because while that film is hollow, the style is fun and the characters are pretty interesting regardless of how they're written. It's just a film that suits being cinematic as well.

Oh yeah, watching Iron Man 3 later...

Fair enough, I'll post a full review/defense in the upcoming weeks. I remember knowing exactly where it would conclude, but what fascinated me was the political context.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Nope but I've heard a lot about both. I'll add to watchlist, thanks.

TDKR is not that bad. Its best aspects were the Batman Begins-esque climbing sequence and the new cast: Bane, Catwoman, and Talia. Although I was pissed that Talia was underused, it was for good reason due to the reveal. Most of my complaints were nitpicking and defenses against Nolan worshippers, but it is clear as day that the film comes nowhere close to the first two. Many flaws were still apparent to me.



I would love that as well, not because he doesn't know how to spend his money, but because of his following. Nolan fanboys are the worst because they try to blur everything into brilliance when in reality you have to separate the two, popular reception vs. actual quality (not saying you aren't). Most people I know that do not know much about film just praise Inception as the greatest movie of all time. It kind of bugs me inside because the same fascinating concepts have been executed well before such as in Paprika, yet Inception gets all the credit because it is widespread and accessible. So for me, the blockbuster label isn't so much a downfall in quality as it is a potent irritant in cinema.

Nolan is undoubtedly a master filmmaker. Just concerning his trilogy alone, Batman Begins was one of my favorite movies before TDK was even announced. I have adored his take on Batman from the very beginning, and TDK is undoubtedly his (and the) peak because it transcends the superhero genre.

As far as Nolan goes, I just think TDKR was a very poorly edited and shot film. There are too many instances where the action doesn't line up. Look at the conversation Thalia and Bruce have before he dances with Anne Hathaway: from within the span of an edit, Bales line of sight will shift over 60 degrees. In general, Nolan just has a shoddy sense of how time and space work (at least when working in linear narratives).

Cases like this upset me when he is compared to Fincher. The planning and motivated execution is that much more apparent in a Fincher film.

[SquidPuppet]

Just a heads up for anyone who might care. This is very unlikely to get a theatrical release in the States, so.....

A Blu-ray will be available in August.

The Garden of Words

By Makoto Shinkai

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Have it on BD.To make it clear:I love Eraserhead,Blue velvet,Wild at heart and the Straight story.Think Elephant man is very good (was there ever a more touching scene when they chase him into a corner,and the ending is just poetic).Gave up on him after Lost highway-maybe it's me,but that movie I thought was strange for strangeness sake.

Will give Mulholland drive a chance,but think I'll have to get into the right frame of mind.

I'm a little here. Lost Highway was too weird, but you love Eraserhead? I guess we Lynch fans are as odd as He is.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

My own better than (The Dark Knight) list:

Spider-Man II

Spiderman was my favorite comic character as a kid. That movie killed all interest in the character forever.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Spiderman was my favorite comic character as a kid. That movie killed all interest in the character forever.

How so?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

How so?

The relentless overlong mindless action sequences. A climax doesnt feel like a climax when it never ends. Especially when there is very little story supporting it.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The relentless overlong mindless action sequences. A climax doesnt feel like a climax when it never ends. Especially when there is very little story supporting it.

So I take it you didnt like The Raid: Redemption?

Also, you pretty much described every Superhero flick, at least Raimi's action direction is superb. Unlike Nolan, he has a clear sense of Geometry and Movement. See the bank scene for proof of this.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

So I take it you didnt like The Raid: Redemption?

Didnt see it.

Also, you pretty much described every Superhero flick,

Not at all. Some rely heavily on story and deep, complex characters. V for Vendetta would be just one example.

at least Raimi's action direction is superb. Unlike Nolan, he has a clear sense of Geometry and Movement. See the bank scene for proof of this.

I never compared the directors or the films. What is your point?

I loved the first Spiderman. The second one just felt like a 90 minute fight to me. I left the theater feeling simultaneously exhausted and bored.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Didnt see it.



Not at all. Some rely heavily on story and deep, complex characters. V for Vendetta would be just one example.



I never compared the directors or the films. What is your point?

I loved the first Spiderman. The second one just felt like a 90 minute fight to me. I left the theater feeling simultaneously exhausted and bored.

I was just making a point that his action is superior in most every way.

I actually dislike the first film. I felt the second was not only more thrilling, but the characters were much more intriguing.

However, part of me wants to retreat, because if there's a stance I respect 100% it's the "too much mindless action" one. Take a look at my signature, I respect filmmakers that arent in a hurry to please every finnicky 13 year old in the audience.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I was just making a point that his action is superior in most every way.

I actually dislike the first film. I felt the second was not only more thrilling, but the characters were much more intriguing.

However, part of me wants to retreat, because if there's a stance I respect 100% it's the "too much mindless action" one. Take a look at my signature, I respect filmmakers that arent in a hurry to please every finnicky 13 year old in the audience.

Dont get me wrong though, I LOVE big, bold, crazy, wild and insane action. But I like it in the role of punctuation rather than subject. The only exception would be "Shoot 'em Up" because it was deliberately used as sarcastic homage.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Dont get me wrong though, I LOVE big, bold, crazy, wild and insane action. But I like it in the role of punctuation rather than subject. The only exception would be "Shoot 'em Up" because it was deliberately used as sarcastic homage.

I've always loved Ebert's review. I think it expresses what Spider-Man 2 fans love so much about it:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/spider-man-2-2004

I too occasionally like an insane romp. Last week I revisited Gamer, and boy was I ever wrong about it initially. It's a pretty hilarious satire!

[legendarymatt92]

"One day, somebody's going to have to make a stand. One day, somebody's going to have to say: enough."

The Good Points: Visually thrilling. Exciting action sequences. Great cinematography, with some incredible CGI shots, and a good performances from the supporting cast. Affectionate to the 1981 original.

The Bad Points: Risible, two-dimensional characters and terribly cheesy dialogue. Highly favours style over substance. Wildly uneven plot and boring points in between the action sequences.

Despite featuring extremely entertaining action sequences, and highlighting its brilliant visual style above all else, Leterrier's remake features almost none of the charm that made the original so memorable. Purely a visual treat.

6/10

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Sin City still leads the pack imo, but Snyder's films closely follow. I may be too harsh on Watchmen, because although it is the only one that struggled to reach the same heights as the graphic novel, it also had the highest expectations.

This is one of the main reasons I feel it can't/shouldn't be compared to most other graphic novel films; something like A History of Violence, whilst a perfectly great film in its own right, didn't have either the complicated and, as you say, philosophically deep source material to adapt or the extreme audience expectation looming over it. Snyder did a great job making the source material cinematic (to a degree) but also keeping the atmosphere from the novels intact.

Originally Posted by jvince

The problem is definitely Miller's material. It may be a great read, but the wordplay just doesn't translate too well to film, imo.

I agree that the problem lies within the material, but only when it's being applied to film; on its own, and kept within the boundaries of the novel, the writing is superb -- it perfectly sums up the characters and the situations in the least number of words -- but I agree that it just doesn't work in the cinematic sense.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

As far as Nolan goes, I just think TDKR was a very poorly edited and shot film. There are too many instances where the action doesn't line up. Look at the conversation Thalia and Bruce have before he dances with Anne Hathaway: from within the span of an edit, Bales line of sight will shift over 60 degrees. In general, Nolan just has a shoddy sense of how time and space work (at least when working in linear narratives).

Cases like this upset me when he is compared to Fincher. The planning and motivated execution is that much more apparent in a Fincher film.

IMO, the problem lies within the plot holes and inconsistencies. I don't believe that Nolan has the technical prowess that his fanboys claim he does -- case-in-point would be the much more nuanced and technically masterful 1997 original of Insomnia compared to Nolan's heavy-handed, but still wonderful, remake -- but that he has enough of a command of these skills to make an above-average film even without a great script (which was the main problem with The Dark Knight Rises; it was too rushed, and the problems were contained within the script rather than Nolan's direction).

In disagreement with your second statement, regarding Nolan's shoddy sense of time and space, I'd point towards Inception, which has an amazing awareness of spatiality and temporality, especially when dealing with the "dream sequences". In fact, despite the film not quite being as masterful as some claim, it's the approach to this important aspect that stands out for me.

In fact, http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/W...Inception.html has amazing insight into the film and Nolan's approach to the "dream sequences".

[Abdrewes]

^^^
That's why I said his "linear films". I think Inception, Memento and the Prestige are ingeniously executed films.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

^^^
That's why I said his "linear films". I think Inception, Memento and the Prestige are ingeniously executed films.

Oh yeah -- I was in such a hurry to reply that I didn't read your post fully I apologise for that.

I do agree with your general consensus on TDKR, though; it's much worse than its predecessors and smacks of a rushed mentality. It's not befitting Nolan to have what could have been -- and should have been -- one of the best endings to the best trilogies in cinematic history riddled with plot holes.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Oh yeah -- I was in such a hurry to reply that I didn't read your post fully I apologise for that.

I do agree with your general consensus on TDKR, though; it's much worse than its predecessors and smacks of a rushed mentality. It's not befitting Nolan to have what could have been -- and should have been -- one of the best endings to the best trilogies in cinematic history riddled with plot holes.

I respect it when Directors bite off more than they can chew (I love Oliver Stone), but yeah, the plot holes, rushed montage (David Fincher/Olivier Assayas give Nolan a lesson) all add up to big Godfather 3-esque dissapointment.

[Foggy]

Über long annual new Marvel movie/I got it before you guys boasting post.

Iron Man 3 (Assemble)

Possibly the best Iron Man film yet, but it features a lot of flaws that may hold it back, and some risky moves that fans may struggle to get behind.

While the film has been advertised as the "darker" film in the series, ushering in Phase Two as a more personal venture. Iron Man 3 is in fact the funniest film in the series. In typical Shane Black style, most the comedy is actually scattered around all the various characters and from some extras, in fact some of the film's funniest lines come from unnamed henchmen.

But, film is none the less, a more personal storyline after the bombastic Avengers, and while I would of liked the film to focus a little more on Stark's PTSD, he does go through a larger arc in this film than he did in Iron Man 2. On problem I do have with the film (which is more a dig at sequels in general) is that the film lacks the focus of the original, and while it's always going to be a thing that sequels are going to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks after getting the foundations sorted out after the original, this does cause Iron Man 3 a few pacing issues and some jarring tonal shifts. It's more focused than Iron Man 2 though.

Speaking of which, one of the issues Iron Man 2 had was with doing all the heavy lifting to get the pieces into place for The Avengers to happen. Which doesn't surprise me that Iron Man 3 is made to justify the character over the ambitions, there are references to The Avengers, but there is nothing in the terms of lead up to The Avengers 2, no pieces are put in place or anything. For me, this is fine, but some may find it frustrating who want to work out where the films may be leading.

One major plot point though will be polarising. Don't worry about me spoiling it here, but it does flip the film (and the source material) on it's head. Personally, while I liked what was going on before the big reveal, I honestly didn't see it coming, and it leads to a lot of funny scenes. But most of all. It actually leads to the first Marvel film with anything relevant to say. I'll say it, it's a neat twist, but many people will find it disappointing, at least on first viewing.

Getting away from specifics and spoilers though, performances are strong, Downey is obviously great, Paltrow is given more to do here and so is Cheadle. Guy Pirece is a menacing force and Ben Kingsley is a fantastic show stealer that I wish we see more of. And the kid isn't too shabby as well.

And the action here is simply stellar, while the film has a little pacing slump in the middle, it picks up it's A game in the final third, with some truly inventive action scenes from Shane Black. While the climax has a bit of a repetition to it (obviously trying to final fix peoples disappointment in the last two Iron Man films climaxes) it's a fitting end to Downey's turn as Iron Man. Well, at least for now.

Iron Man 3 is really just a lot of fun like the last two, it maybe more fun or it maybe less fun, but for a trilogy of films, Iron Man has done quite well to have consistent quality through his films (despite Iron Man 2's slight missteps). I have a hard time thinking anyone will have a bad time watching Iron Man 3 so long as they have no issues with the few liberties it occasionally takes.

(Playing Blue da ba dee at the start was almost one step too fair though Shane Black...almost!)

8.5/10