The Dark Knight - Best Film Ever??

indough

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

xmen 3 was f*cking woeful

though not as bad as spiderman 3.

spiderman 3 was still better if you disregard the stupid dancing midsection

indough

krudler wrote: »

But the first one is soooooo dull, sweet **** all happens for the majority of it, at least X3 had that fantastic scene in Jean Greys house and the Golden Gate Bridge bit, Bryan Singer managed to make not only a dull X-Men movie but a dull Superman one as well, a competent director he may be but he cant craft an action scene to save his life, although X2 is fantastic, go figure

yeah superman returns or whatever it was called is crap as well

krudler

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

xmen 3 was f*cking woeful

though not as bad as spiderman 3.

Nothing is as bad a Spiderman 3, I tried watching it on Sky Movies recently not having seen it since the cinema, lasted a half hour and turned it off, sooo bad

BlitzKrieg

indough wrote: »

spiderman 3 was still better if you disregard the stupid dancing midsection

no i'm sorry but spiderman 3 has one of the worse plot cop outs in movie history

Hello I'm random butler character you've never seen before. Hey you know your dad who you thought spiderman killed, well I noticed the wounds on his body match that of your dads flyer...so hey, Spiderman was telling the truth for the last two movies...heeheehee, you sure are happy I told you that now, after waiting what? 2 years to tell you? Yeah I guess I should have done it before you got half your face blown off earlier today...my bad*

not to mention that the entire rogues gallary for that movie were really really dull, Sandman *i'm not really a bad guy, yet I do nothing in this film to show i'm not really a bad guy* Venom *I gives you the EMO!!!!* and of cours Harry *I MAKE YOUR WOMAN MINE*

*sigh* spiderman 3 was f*cking atrocious from start to finish...

taytothief

Anywho, in other news, is The Dark Knight the best film ever?

No.
Don't be an idiot.

Overheal

indough wrote: »

spiderman 3 was still better if you disregard the stupid dancing midsection

and the giant american flag, the stupid sandman sob speech, cutting Venom talking as Venom out of the CGI budget, the entire goblin arc, the entire harry loves Mary Jane arc, the Entire Movie, etc.

indough

yeah i forgot about that bit actually it was very frustrating (@the butler bit), youd wonder where the filmmakers heads are at sometimes

i only ever watched those movies one time and i dont think they warrant a rewatch even out of morbid curiosity

Karl Hungus

krudler wrote: »

Woah woah woah, since when is The Keep a bad movie? a Michael Mann directed horror about Nazi's fighting off demons? whats not to like?

Read the book, you'll see what's not to like.

Seriously though, as a film The Keep is absolutely tragic. There's moments of pure greatness, there's some fantastic actors involved, but it's all lost in an incoherent mess, and a thoroughly ridiculous monster just ruins it. I know there was a lot of footage that was cut and lost, but really there were a lot more problems with the film.



I know it's a cult classic, and good god did I ever love Gabriel Byrne as an SS officer, but it really is just a very bad movie. It should have been amazing, it really should have been one of the greatest horror films of all time, but sadly it ended up as a mess.

krudler wrote: »

and X-Men 3 is better than the first one, there I said it

Get out. :pac:

Overheal

Xmen 3 cant be better than Xmen

Xmen had way more Anna Paquin in it.

indough

Overheal wrote: »

and the giant american flag, the stupid sandman sob speech, cutting Venom talking as Venom out of the CGI budget, the entire goblin arc, the entire harry loves Mary Jane arc, the Entire Movie, etc.

xmen3 had vinnie jones in it

you lose

Overheal

You mean Vinne "I need to Pee and lose the last ounce of Dignity I had saved from when I made myself Super Famous by doing Lock Stock, it had nothing to do with playing for Liverpool" Jones?

No no, I'll stick with my first answer

as for Spiderman we know the 2nd was the best one.

Klingon Hamlet

I thought it was good but not excellent. It was brilliant but exhausting in the cinema. It seemed to be intentionally brutal and relentless and consistently darkand cynical, with a hell of a downbeat outlook on the world of Batman.

Joker brought a much needed spark to the occasion. He was spontaneous and terrifying. Bale spent the film frowning and growling. He has excellent physical presence but there's something off with him. The supporting cast were great and I mespecially loved Gyllenhaal but Harvey Dent was a one dimensional character and just not interesting to me.

The tech was awesome: LOVED the scene in the Narrows.

The story was dense and fairly contrived. But you have to hand it to the Nolans, they produced a far superior sequel and they managed to make a thriller that just happened to feature DC characters. Too bad it just went on a little too long, and its leading star is strangely dull. (And the batvoice, urrrrrggghhhhh).

fonecrusher1

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Read the book, you'll see what's not to like.

Seriously though, as a film The Keep is absolutely tragic. There's moments of pure greatness, there's some fantastic actors involved, but it's all lost in an incoherent mess, and a thoroughly ridiculous monster just ruins it. I know there was a lot of footage that was cut and lost, but really there were a lot more problems with the film.



I know it's a cult classic, and good god did I ever love Gabriel Byrne as an SS officer, but it really is just a very bad movie. It should have been amazing, it really should have been one of the greatest horror films of all time, but sadly it ended up as a mess.






Get out. :pac:

That really is just your opinion.
I liked The Keep. Yes its not a great movie, but at least you feel compelled to watch it from start to finish.
Sadly i cant say the same for most of the hum drum rubbish ive seen this year.

You seem horrified that someone is critical of the seven samurai.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.;)

indough

i think bale gets a bit too much criticism over the whole voice thing, it must be fairly difficult playing a guy with a foreign accent putting on a voice whilst dressed as a giant bat

on viewing it a few times i feel that dent is maybe not so one dimensional, he is portayed as being heroic and all that but there is definitely a strong sense of ego mania off him too which makes him a bit unlikeable, the way his changeover was dealt with was definitely very rushed though

i hated Gyllenhaal in this movie and the changes to her character from the last movie were pretty unbelievable

Karl Hungus

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

That really is just your opinion.

I didn't claim it was anyone else's opinion, did I? I think it's pretty clear that what I've said is my opinion based solely on the fact that I said it. But thanks for pointing out what's completely self-evident.

Look, it's not the worst film ever, but anything that was good about The Keep was lost in what is an extremely muddled and incoherent piece of film-making. There are indeed moments of greatness, and it was very atmospheric, but on the whole it's just not a good film. Seriously, read the book and you'll get some perspective, there's a great story there that the film simply made a balls of.

starbelgrade

The Dark Knight is not even a film - it's a movie. There is a huge difference.

Karl Hungus

starbelgrade wrote: »

The Dark Knight is not even a film - it's a movie. There is a huge difference.

Is there? How then do films and movies compare to motion pictures?

indough

according to whos definition?

BlitzKrieg

well when you are in the land of the free its a movie

and when you are in the land of the queen its a film.

here its whatever you want to call it.

fonecrusher1

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I didn't claim it was anyone else's opinion, did I? I think it's pretty clear that what I've said is my opinion based solely on the fact that I said it. But thanks for pointing out what's completely self-evident.

I agree, I just thought i would point out the fact, in case there was more impressionable people reading.
Sometimes people think something is a 'classic' because thats what they've been told or read.

Anyway we all know the Seven Samurai is a copy of the Magnificent Seven.

Bloody copycats.

indough

impending critical meltdown

BlitzKrieg

*hands out new sarcasm detectors to everyone*


just in case...

starbelgrade

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Is there? How then do films and movies compare to motion pictures?

Blah, you know what I mean.

MikeC101

Overheal wrote: »

You mean Vinne "I need to Pee and lose the last ounce of Dignity I had saved from when I made myself Super Famous by doing Lock Stock, it had nothing to do with playing for Liverpool" Jones?

Well it certainly didn't have anything to do with playing for Liverpool. (He didn't)

MikeC101

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Read the book, you'll see what's not to like.

Even the book has it's weaknesses -

found the "fantasy" style ending annoying, as I loved the more "horror" themed start and middle.

But how the hell they managed to mess up a horror movie, set in a castle, with Nazis disappearing due to a suspected vampire, and a Jewish expert on the occult...I just don't know. There is literally so much gold there.

The worst thing is, it really could have been a classic. Heck, as you say, it should have been a classic.

bnt

I must be the only person here who hasn't seen The Dark Knight. The hype was just too much at the time of release, to the point where I just thought "I can wait until they show it on TV". Any new film will have to go some way to top those classics mentioned earlier, and others such as Fargo.

fonecrusher1

bnt wrote: »

I must be the only person here who hasn't seen The Dark Knight. The hype was just too much at the time of release, to the point where I just thought "I can wait until they show it on TV". Any new film will have to go some way to top those classics mentioned earlier, and others such as Fargo.

I think hype can ruin a movie. I myself felt just a little let down after seeing The Dark Knight. There was so much talk about it before, during & after it was made, i thought it was going to be amazing.
Loved the first one because I got to see it before the critics hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread.

Someone told me Braveheart was a load of old rubbish before i had seen it & consequently i thought it was a great show & enjoyed it all the more because of my low expectations.

They're doing the same with Avatar. Hype hype & more hype.

Valmont

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

though not as bad as spiderman 3.

That is the worst movie I have ever seen. Ever. The only reason I sat through the whole thing was because I had been smoking and was in a catatonic state. Now that I think of it, I didn't like Spiderman one or two either.

Duggy747

The Dark Knight was a fantastic movie, great characters (especially what Ledger did, he suprised everyone with that) and had some great technical achievements but it's nowhere near being one of the best movies ever.

Perhaps it's the best and most accomplished comic book movie?

Klingon Hamlet

Sin City would rival it because:

A) It was loyal to one particular set of storylines as opposed to Nolans' reinterpretation of several batman storylines/timelines

It had a budget of €40 million as opposed to DK's €200 million but in fact had, IMHO, a more powerful look and feel

C) Was a landmark in modern filmmaking

D) Had no hype around it bar nerd/fan-hype

In fact I'd love to see a Batman film made in the Frank Miller Sin City style, all monochrome and dirty. His DK Returns/Strikes Back was OK but it didn't tickle my nethers like so many fanboys.

The movie was good, it had excellent moments, but it was overlong and very depressing, beyond simple world-building and straight into incessant cynicism. Batman to me was about hope despite hopeless odds. Not the big downer that this film embued.