Heath Ledger was bad
He was not very good in this and his improvised 'comic' lines were really off. Shame really, it ruins his little streak of good performances just before his death.
This is glue. Strong stuff. - Elwood Blues
Ledger's performances were always good, but "The Dark Knight" is a relatively forgettable film made for children basically. "The Dark Knight" is the kind of movie that Heath Ledger wouldn't have even paid to see. He was passionate about "Imagarinarium of Dr. Parnassus" because he knew that his performance wouldn't be wasted on just a summer blockbuster. He knew it would be judged over decades, not months.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
Heath Ledger did his fair share of hollywood trash so it's a bit daft to get uppity about about 'The Dark Knight' being a forgetable film. Plus his performance in Dr Parnassus was really not good.
Also that point about The Dark Knight being a film that Heath wouldn't even pay to see is just bizarre.
This is glue. Strong stuff. - Elwood Blues
funkyfry: Are you retarded? every single thing you said was utter bullsh*t. The Dark Knight is NOT a forgettable film at all, it's easily one of the best movies of the last decade and Ledger's performance was phenomenal. And you call it a movie for children, ARE YOU F_CKING SERIOUS? if you think that's a kids movie i bet you let your kids watch Silence of the lambs. And he was CLEARLY more passionate about playing the Joker than any role he ever played, so that comment was absurd sh*t as well, and The Dark Knight is not "just a summer blockbuster" what a tool.
"He knew it would be judged over decades, not months."
WTF? do you have a brain in there? Ledger's Joker has gone down as one of the greatest villains in cinema history, and it will stay that way for a very long time. And as for your comment about him not paying to see it, WHAT THE F_CK!? you make no sense, at all. You clearly just have some vendetta against batman or great movies.
"He'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse"
funkyfry: Are you retarded? every single thing you said was utter bullsh*t. The Dark Knight is NOT a forgettable film at all, it's easily one of the best movies of the last decade and Ledger's performance was phenomenal.
Look, it's a movie about a guy in a bat suit who beats up bad guys. How severely have we lowered our standards for drama and for art, if comic book action movies are considered "great" or "adult" in any sense of the word?
And in truth, out of all the many films released by the studios and by independents and so on, what is the likelihood that you have even seen 5% of the total films of the last 10 years? So how would you know it's one of the best films of the last decade? You can only say it's one of the best that you've happened to see.
And you call it a movie for children, ARE YOU F_CKING SERIOUS? if you think that's a kids movie i bet you let your kids watch Silence of the lambs.
Sorry, by children I meant like 13 to 17 year old boys. That is the primary audience for "The Dark Knight."
To me, the level of violence or "gore" isn't necessarily a measure of whether or not the film is for kids or for adults. I'm sure the Transformers movies are pretty violent also, but please don't tell me that it is cinema for adults. "Dark Knight" is kind of like the Harry Potter or Star Wars movies; adults won't be completely horrified or bored if we have to sit through it, but we know it is not really on our level. It is not "There Will Be Blood", "Clockwork Orange" or "Midnight Cowboy." It is an action movie about a guy who dresses up in a bat costume.
And he was CLEARLY more passionate about playing the Joker than any role he ever played, so that comment was absurd sh*t as well, and The Dark Knight is not "just a summer blockbuster" what a tool.
He put all his energy and strength into the role, he hit it out of the park, but this great performance was contained within the shell of a summer action movie. Ledger gave a much greater performance in "Brokeback Mountain" which, by the way, is a movie for adults.
"He knew it would be judged over decades, not months."
WTF? do you have a brain in there? Ledger's Joker has gone down as one of the greatest villains in cinema history, and it will stay that way for a very long time.
I'm sure that's true, but the whole concept of a "great villain" doesn't really enter into mature cinema.
And as for your comment about him not paying to see it, WHAT THE F_CK!? you make no sense, at all. You clearly just have some vendetta against batman or great movies.
Or, maybe I didn't think it was a great movie?
As far as Batman, yeah I don't really care about it, nor do I care about Superman or Captain America..... it is kiddie stuff. Guys in costumes beating up villains. No matter how good a film like that is, it's still bound by the limitations of that formula. It still has nothing to do, except in an oblique symbolic way, with any of the moral or intellectual concerns of humanity.
And of course it's just my opinion, but based on what I know about the kind of movies Heath Ledger enjoyed, he only did this one for paycheck and recognition, and he would not have even bothered to watch a Batman movie in general.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
"How severely have we lowered our standards for drama and for art, if comic book action movies are considered "great" or "adult" in any sense of the word?!"
What a ridiculous, absurd and stupid comment.
"To me, the level of violence or "gore" isn't necessarily a measure of whether or not the film is for kids or for adults."
You really have no idea what you're talking about, The Dark Knight has NO gore in it, that's not what i was talking about. I'm talking about the fact that it's a very psychological movie and more like the crime film "Heat" than something like "Spider-man". The movies primary audience is adults, not kids or teenagers, kids would probably get bored with it because all the action could actually happen, it's set in reality.
"I'm sure that's true, but the whole concept of a "great villain" doesn't really enter into mature cinema."
That doesn't make any sense.
"but based on what I know about the kind of movies Heath Ledger enjoyed, he only did this one for paycheck and recognition, and he would not have even bothered to watch a Batman movie in general."
Did you not even read my earlier comment? he did it because he was passionate about it, you don't lock yourself in a hotel room for a month and put all that time and energy into a role for the "paycheck". And i watched some interviews with Heath Ledger before his death and he said he was a big fan of Burton's Batman movie growing up and he said that he saw Batman Begins before he was offered the role and said he loved what Chris Nolan did with the universe.
But your original comments were stupid because "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" will be remembered FAR less than The Dark knight. Hell, he even won an Oscar for his role as the Joker, and about seven people have been nominated for posthumous Oscars and only two have won, so you can't say it's a sympathy vote either.
"How severely have we lowered our standards for drama and for art, if comic book action movies are considered "great" or "adult" in any sense of the word?!"
What a ridiculous, absurd and stupid comment.
Well at least I am not the one throwing around personal insults, over a movie. I mean, I don't feel all that ridiculous right now honestly.
But yeah, I guess I could imagine a "great" superhero movie, but I sure haven't seen one yet. "Dark Knight" was one of the best that I've seen actually. But it was still, fundamentally, a movie about a guy who dresses up as a bat and beats people up.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, The Dark Knight has NO gore in it,
The pencil trick isn't gory? I guess you could argue the way Nolan did it he left most to the imagination, sure.
that's not what i was talking about. I'm talking about the fact that it's a very psychological movie and more like the crime film "Heat" than something like "Spider-man".
I didn't see "Heat", but I bet it didn't have a guy jumping out of an airplane and landing in the exact right spot on a skyscraper. That's more like James Bond, or Batman movie stuff.
The movies primary audience is adults, not kids or teenagers, kids would probably get bored with it because all the action could actually happen, it's set in reality.
LOL, seriously? I mean it doesn't have Gandalf throwing magic fireballs around, but the action is so far from being realistic that I have to assume on the basis of just general respect for your intelligence that you just mean that the superheroes and villains don't have supernatural powers. That much is true. But neither does James Bond, XXX, Rambo, etc. And there's nothing real about the action in this type of movie. Batman would have been dead 5 minutes into the movie in "reality."
"I'm sure that's true, but the whole concept of a "great villain" doesn't really enter into mature cinema."
That doesn't make any sense.
OK, then if you are an intellectual person instead of just dismissing it you should ask a question, like: "what do you mean?"
Movies for adults don't have heroes and villains. Notice how in the Chris Nolan movies that were more made for adults, like "Memento" and "The Prestige", there aren't any heroes or villains.
Did you not even read my earlier comment? he did it because he was passionate about it, you don't lock yourself in a hotel room for a month and put all that time and energy into a role for the "paycheck".
He did all that in order to make sure that his performance wouldn't just be another cameo in a big action movie. He definitely transcended what the movie was and what Nolan was conscious of, in my judgment.
And i watched some interviews with Heath Ledger before his death and he said he was a big fan of Burton's Batman movie growing up and he said that he saw Batman Begins before he was offered the role and said he loved what Chris Nolan did with the universe.
Fair enough, maybe Heath Ledger would have watched the movie even if he wasn't in it. But I doubt it was the type of movie he thought was the best, or that he would think it was an actual mature film like "Brokeback Mountain" or "Imaginarium."
But your original comments were stupid because "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" will be remembered FAR less than The Dark knight. Hell, he even won an Oscar for his role as the Joker, and about seven people have been nominated for posthumous Oscars and only two have won, so you can't say it's a sympathy vote either.
Well, I didn't say that. Don't know why you're quite so combative and insulting. Personally I don't care about who wins an Oscar or not. It's not like anybody actually saw every movie that came out that year. A lot of the time the most significant performances aren't talked about until later.
The Dark Knight will be known, but it is the second movie in a series, a sequel which will itself soon have a sequel. Imaginarium is unique, timeless. Even come 20 years from now, who can say? There might still be more people aware that there was a Batman movie with Heath Ledger, but there cuold be a bigger cult fanbase by then for "Imaginarium." I've lived long enough to see how it works. "Tideland" and "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" will be films of interest in the future, don't doubt that. Because there is nothing will be nothing else like them before or since.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Heath said that he would do blockbuster movies once in a while but his true passion was making independent movies.
"'And my mom gotta stop trippin, man. Bitch be tripping all the time, man!'"
"Well at least I am not the one throwing around personal insults"
I NEVER did that, stop talking sh*t.
"The pencil trick isn't gory? I guess you could argue the way Nolan did it he left most to the imagination, sure."
You literally just answered your own question, as far as i can remember there is not even one drop of blood in The Dark knight.
"I didn't see "Heat", but I bet it didn't have a guy jumping out of an airplane and landing in the exact right spot on a skyscraper. That's more like James Bond, or Batman movie stuff."
He never jumped out a plane, he jumped from a building opposite and glided through the window. And the tone of TDK is NOTHING like James Bond, "X-Men First Class" has a similar tone to James Bond, TDK has a similar tone to a crime film.
LOL, seriously? I mean it doesn't have Gandalf throwing magic fireballs around, but the action is so far from being realistic that I have to assume on the basis of just general respect for your intelligence that you just mean that the superheroes and villains don't have supernatural powers. That much is true. But neither does James Bond, XXX, Rambo, etc. And there's nothing real about the action in this type of movie. Batman would have been dead 5 minutes into the movie in "reality."
Everything in the movie except Batman jumping from a roof, landing on a car and surviving could actually happen, the action is either hand to hand combat or vehicle chases, IT COULD HAPPEN.
"Movies for adults don't have heroes and villains. Notice how in the Chris Nolan movies that were more made for adults, like "Memento" and "The Prestige", there aren't any heroes or villains."
WOW. What an incredibly stupid comment. I guess in your head The Silence Of The Lambs, Psycho, Misery, Blue velvet, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest don't exist.
"He did all that in order to make sure that his performance wouldn't just be another cameo in a big action movie. He definitely transcended what the movie was and what Nolan was conscious of, in my judgment."
What a foolish comment yet again.
Fair enough, maybe Heath Ledger would have watched the movie even if he wasn't in it. But I doubt it was the type of movie he thought was the best, or that he would think it was an actual mature film like "Brokeback Mountain" or "Imaginarium."
The Dark knight is a BILLION times more mature than The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is, and that's saying a lot considering it's about a guy who dresses as a bat and fights crime.
"The Dark Knight will be known, but it is the second movie in a series, a sequel which will itself soon have a sequel. Imaginarium is unique, timeless. Even come 20 years from now, who can say? There might still be more people aware that there was a Batman movie with Heath Ledger, but there cuold be a bigger cult fanbase by then for "Imaginarium." I've lived long enough to see how it works. "Tideland" and "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" will be films of interest in the future, don't doubt that. Because there is nothing will be nothing else like them before or since."
Rubbish. Come back in 20 years and say this, when The Dark Knight will still be remembered by most people as will Ledger's Joker.
Just to clear up the stuff about The Dark Knight supposedly being mainly "for adults" - the demographic group that has rated it highest on IMDb, are males under the age of 18.
Although, as far as popcorn action movies go, TDK is pretty okay and not even particularly stupid.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I don't care about ratings on IMDb, according to IMDb The Shawshank Redemption is the greatest movie ever made, the ratings are a load of sh*t. And TDK is NOT a popcorn movie, for one there isn't even much action in the movie.
shareYou're so smart.... I think franz was talking about the demographic breakdown, not the actual score it got relative to other films. Comparing 2 films with imdb ratings is foolishness. Comparing a demographic breakdown by age and gender within one film's rating is not exactly scientific, but not foolish either.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
"Well at least I am not the one throwing around personal insults"
I NEVER did that, stop talking sh*t.
No? When you say somebody's comments are "stupid", there's little other way to read it.
You literally just answered your own question, as far as i can remember there is not even one drop of blood in The Dark knight.
You don't remember the Joker bleeding everywhere in the interrogation room after Batman starts using some "aggressive interogation"?
He never jumped out a plane, he jumped from a building opposite and glided through the window.
Yeah, I'm sorry, that is so totally believable.
And the tone of TDK is NOTHING like James Bond, "X-Men First Class" has a similar tone to James Bond, TDK has a similar tone to a crime film.
That's true, the tone of it kept making me hope that it was going to be more psychological. Instead they kept doing these goofy action sequences that seemed like they were designed to sell toys or whatever.
Everything in the movie except Batman jumping from a roof, landing on a car and surviving could actually happen, the action is either hand to hand combat or vehicle chases, IT COULD HAPPEN.
Not with Batman and all these principals surviving so much carnage and mayhem. I'm sorry, but this is like somebody telling me "Kill Bill" is realistic action. "She didn't have magic powers, just a really good sword!"
WOW. What an incredibly stupid comment. I guess in your head The Silence Of The Lambs, Psycho, Misery, Blue velvet, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest don't exist.
Uh, none of those movies have a "villain" in them. You think Nurse Rachett is a villain? HAL is a villain? Alex is a villain? Hannibal Lecter is a villain? Maybe Kathy Bates in "Misery", maybe.... but what kind of villain collects porcelain animals and Liberace records?
The Dark knight is a BILLION times more mature than The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is, and that's saying a lot considering it's about a guy who dresses as a bat and fights crime.
No, it is not anything compared to Dark Knight, except what you think it is. All you can honestly say is that you enjoyed it a "BILLION" times more than Imaginarium. You can't say it's a better film. And I saw "Dark Knight" twice in the theater, I saw "Imaginarium" 6 times. So for me obviously Imaginarium is better.
Rubbish. Come back in 20 years and say this, when The Dark Knight will still be remembered by most people as will Ledger's Joker.
But I wonder if so many will be so passionate about it. I remember how passionate people were about Burton's first Batman film. I'm not saying "Imaginarium" will be more popular or more discussed, but it could happen. "Brazil" was not one of the top box office films in 1985 but it is remembered and talked about more than those films.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
No? When you say somebody's comments are "stupid", there's little other way to read it.
Saying your comment is stupid is not a personal insult you tool.
You don't remember the Joker bleeding everywhere in the interrogation room after Batman starts using some "aggressive interogation"?
No i don't, because that didn't happen. You need to look at the interrogation scene again right now on Youtube, even after he smashes the Joker's head on the mirror he doesn't bleed a drop of blood, you can't show this in a PG-13 movie. This is how great the movie really is, it made you think you saw something when in reality there was nothing there.
Yeah, I'm sorry, that is so totally believable.
He's f_cking batman for Christ sake, what is he gonna do, just take an elevator up? Nolan grounded it as much in reality as he possibly could, and everything in the 2 movies(although far fetched) IS possible(if you were a billionaire like Bruce Wayne).
That's true, the tone of it kept making me hope that it was going to be more psychological. Instead they kept doing these goofy action sequences that seemed like they were designed to sell toys or whatever.
Are you for real? SERIOUSLY? there is ONE action sequence in the entire movie(the tunnel chase, the rest is just a few hand to hand combat scenes scattered throughout the movie), and there is ONE new vehicle in the movie which you're obviously referring to, the Batpod. And it CLEARLY wasn't put in to sell toys. Also NO action scenes were "goofy" you're talking absolute sh*t and you know it.
Not with Batman and all these principals surviving so much carnage and mayhem. I'm sorry, but this is like somebody telling me "Kill Bill" is realistic action. "She didn't have magic powers, just a really good sword!"
Yet ANOTHER retarded comment from you, Kill Bill is cheesy over the top cartoon violence, TDK is NOTHING like that and could easily happen, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO FIGHT, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO DRIVE.
Uh, none of those movies have a "villain" in them. You think Nurse Rachett is a villain? HAL is a villain? Alex is a villain? Hannibal Lecter is a villain?
I just knew you were going to say this. Yes, Nurse Rachett IS a villain. HAL IS a villain. Alex...not so much, he's more of antihero, but he has A LOT in common with the Joker. Although Buffalo Bill is the primary villain in Silence of the lambs, Hannibal Lecter is indeed still a villain. Not to mention all these characters are constantly mentioned as some of cinemas greatest VILLAINS.
Maybe Kathy Bates in "Misery", maybe.... but what kind of villain collects porcelain animals and Liberace records?
A f_cking crazy one.
No, it is not anything compared to Dark Knight, except what you think it is. All you can honestly say is that you enjoyed it a "BILLION" times more than Imaginarium. You can't say it's a better film. And I saw "Dark Knight" twice in the theater, I saw "Imaginarium" 6 times. So for me obviously Imaginarium is better.
That's just stupid. For one, i wasn't even saying it's better i was saying it's way more mature. Imaginarium is basically a kids movie that will probably entertain adults too, TDK is not for kids. Like i said they will probably find it boring and possibly even be disturbed by some of it, but most kids will probably think the Joker is awesome(i imagine). And yes TDK IS better than Imaginarium, the majority strongly agree which raises it above your opinion.
But I wonder if so many will be so passionate about it. I remember how passionate people were about Burton's first Batman film. I'm not saying "Imaginarium" will be more popular or more discussed, but it could happen. "Brazil" was not one of the top box office films in 1985 but it is remembered and talked about more than those films.
Burton's batman movie is still loved by a lot of people, but those people love it so much mostly because of the nostalgia they have for it. This isn't the case for TDK, because like i said TDK is not a campy kids movie, it's a movie people will enjoy when they're older than 13. Not to mention the movies with cinemas greatest villains are always remembered, and Heath Ledger's performance pretty much puts it in stone that TDK will still be talked about in the future, no matter how much the Batman franchise gets messed up after Nolan leaves. I have a feeling it will be remembered the way films such as Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2: Judgement Day are, as one of the greatest sequels ever made. share
Saying your comment is stupid is not a personal insult you tool.
Wow... did you really just call me a "tool" in the middle of your spirited defense of the fact that you didn't insult me?
Maybe you should think more reflectively sometimes. It helps to avoid contradictions like that which make you look bad.
No i don't, because that didn't happen. You need to look at the interrogation scene again right now on Youtube, even after he smashes the Joker's head on the mirror he doesn't bleed a drop of blood, you can't show this in a PG-13 movie. This is how great the movie really is, it made you think you saw something when in reality there was nothing there.
I'm not going to look at it on youtube, I'm just going to let you have this point. Maybe the movie's not gory. I don't care anyway, I like gory movies. I like "Dark Knight." It's just that I don't think it's like a "great" movie, or a particularly adult movie. It was like "suitable for adults." It didn't make me think, it didn't expand my mind. "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" made me think about things I've never thought about before. The only movies Chris Nolan has made that I think are even at all comparable are "The Prestige" and "Memento."
He's f_cking batman for Christ sake, what is he gonna do, just take an elevator up? Nolan grounded it as much in reality as he possibly could, and everything in the 2 movies(although far fetched) IS possible(if you were a billionaire like Bruce Wayne).
It's all extremely far-fetched and you know it. I mean, I liked the movie, I agree with you -- he's Batman. It would be a sucky Batman movie if he didn't jump off a building and land on another building. Or whatever he did. And at one point he jumped off a building and had like this tiny parachute, then he crashed into a car or something but he was totally OK. It's not realistic, and it's also not making a commentary on its own invention and fantasy like "Dr. Parnassus", so basically I see it as a lower type of film. It's a film that functions on a certain level to excite the audience and to present a limited amount of ideas. I would not say "Dark Knight" or "Inception" are stupid films, but I would also not say they are intellectually challenging films. And I think that many of Gilliam's films, including "Dr. Parnassus", truly are challenging and thought-provoking films.
Are you for real? SERIOUSLY? there is ONE action sequence in the entire movie(the tunnel chase, the rest is just a few hand to hand combat scenes scattered throughout the movie), and there is ONE new vehicle in the movie which you're obviously referring to, the Batpod. And it CLEARLY wasn't put in to sell toys. Also NO action scenes were "goofy" you're talking absolute sh*t and you know it.
I mean yes of course I am for real. Can you hear yourself. The "batpod"? That is adult film-making? That is something you would accept as a mature vision of humanity in the year 2011? A movie with a batpod in it? I didn't hate the movie, but I just didn't think it was much more than a fun summer movie. "Dr. Parnassus" was the best thing I've seen in a decade.
Yet ANOTHER retarded comment from you, Kill Bill is cheesy over the top cartoon violence, TDK is NOTHING like that and could easily happen, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO FIGHT, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO DRIVE.
I guess when you say I made a "retarded" comment, that also is not an insult, right? Pefectly legitimate and mature way to talk about disagreements.
I truly wonder if I am the crazy one, to try to have a conversation about what is and what is not "mature" in cinema with a person who doesn't seem to be grown up himself.
Basically nothing in the movie "the Dark Knight" could easily happen, and you should laugh at yourself even for saying it. It's a total fantasy movie, but one with a self-serious tone. Which is really my only problem with it. Tim Burton's movies were better because they didn't take the concept seriously. And "Batman Returns" has much more complex psychological insight than any of Nolan's Batman films. Plus it didn't pretend to be a "realistic" movie.
But yeah, I actually saw it and there is an action scene about every 8 or 9 minutes, like any other summer movie.
I just knew you were going to say this. Yes, Nurse Rachett IS a villain. HAL IS a villain. Alex...not so much, he's more of antihero, but he has A LOT in common with the Joker. Although Buffalo Bill is the primary villain in Silence of the lambs, Hannibal Lecter is indeed still a villain. Not to mention all these characters are constantly mentioned as some of cinemas greatest VILLAINS.
So you accept what is put out there by the media instead of thinking for yourself? These people just make money on making lists of things like "villains", they don't care about ideas.
None of those characters are "villains." They aren't even antagonists, except maybe Nurse Ratchett.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Kathy Bates in "Misery", maybe.... but what kind of villain collects porcelain animals and Liberace records?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A f_cking crazy one.
Crazy people aren't villains.... they are sick. Did you think that in "Misery" they were saying that she was evil? She wasn't evil, she was severely psychotic. That's the only way somebody can actually be that negative and dangerous in a reasonably adult film like "Misery", is by being totally over the bend. But most adults, even most stupid adults, would not sit there and tell you that Kathy Bates in the movie was some kind of a "bad guy" (bad girl?).
That's just stupid. For one, i wasn't even saying it's better i was saying it's way more mature. Imaginarium is basically a kids movie that will probably entertain adults too, TDK is not for kids. Like i said they will probably find it boring and possibly even be disturbed by some of it, but most kids will probably think the Joker is awesome(i imagine). And yes TDK IS better than Imaginarium, the majority strongly agree which raises it above your opinion.
lol, not really, I mean every man is an island. For me "Imaginarium" is a much better film, and I will always think of it when I think of Heath Ledger. I don't care what the "majority" says. Now I finally get to accuse you of making a stupid comment, because you actually did make one. The "majority opinion" does not in any way, in any respectable intellectual atmosphere, over-ride anybody's opinion.
I'm not talking about way-out ideas. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, Billy Crystal was a huge hit in "City Slickers." Everybody saw it. Then he was in this movie "Princess Bride", and nobody saw it. But now it's 20 years later, and way more people in the younger generation have seen him in "Princess Bride." So you cannot say because of something like the "majority" or box office that one movie or one performance will be more remembered than another. Even though within all likelihood in this particular case you will probably be right, it is definitely not set in stone. I have more experience I suspect than you do with this whole phenomena of cult movies and hit movies.
Burton's batman movie is still loved by a lot of people, but those people love it so much mostly because of the nostalgia they have for it. This isn't the case for TDK, because like i said TDK is not a campy kids movie, it's a movie people will enjoy when they're older than 13.
When you get older, you might look back on this if you remember it and realize that camp actually does have a lot of long-term redeeming value for adults when confronted with material that is fundamentally idiotic such as the entire idea behind the Batman franchise. Chris Nolan would benefit greatly from a sense of fun and humor in his movies actually, although it wouldn't have to be "camp" some semblance of a normal human experience of life as somewhat joyous and humorous would be appreciated if he can muster an attempt one of these days....
Not to mention the movies with cinemas greatest villains are always remembered, and Heath Ledger's performance pretty much puts it in stone that TDK will still be talked about in the future, no matter how much the Batman franchise gets messed up after Nolan leaves. I have a feeling it will be remembered the way films such as Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2: Judgement Day are, as one of the greatest sequels ever made.
Well there you go, if you are merely putting it in company with sci-fi action films like that then I don't disagree with you. It is a major accomplishment in the field of self-serious action movies with a smattering of philosophy. But it is a pebble in the ocean that is "Dr. Parnassus." It will indeed be remembered as one of those really fun movies that didn't talk down to the audience and presented some reasonably complex characters.
As for "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus", it might not be remembered much at all except by Gilliam fans. Or it might become bigger and bigger. I truly do not know. It is not "set in stone" and I guess that makes it all the more exciting to me. I'm happy Heath Ledger was involved in the project. Or it might be remembered a lot. It sure had a big effect on me and on some other people. There's a difference between having a big effect on some people, and having some effect on a big amount of people. Over time the difference grows smaller, in some respects.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Wow... did you really just call me a "tool" in the middle of your spirited defense of the fact that you didn't insult me?
Maybe you should think more reflectively sometimes. It helps to avoid contradictions like that which make you look bad.
I call my friends tools all the time, it doesn't mean i'm "personally insulting" them.
It's all extremely far-fetched and you know it. I mean, I liked the movie, I agree with you -- he's Batman. It would be a sucky Batman movie if he didn't jump off a building and land on another building. Or whatever he did. And at one point he jumped off a building and had like this tiny parachute, then he crashed into a car or something but he was totally OK. It's not realistic, and it's also not making a commentary on its own invention and fantasy like "Dr. Parnassus", so basically I see it as a lower type of film. It's a film that functions on a certain level to excite the audience and to present a limited amount of ideas. I would not say "Dark Knight" or "Inception" are stupid films, but I would also not say they are intellectually challenging films. And I think that many of Gilliam's films, including "Dr. Parnassus", truly are challenging and thought-provoking films.
I said it's far fetched, but once again it's f_cking batman, he HAS to dress up as a bat and fight crime, otherwise it wouldn't be batman. I never said it's realistic, i said it's as real as a comic book movie can ever get and it's more realistic than any other superhero movies, and it's grounded in reality as much as batman could possibly get. And you're wrong in the second part of your paragraph.
I mean yes of course I am for real. Can you hear yourself. The "batpod"? That is adult film-making? That is something you would accept as a mature vision of humanity in the year 2011? A movie with a batpod in it? I didn't hate the movie, but I just didn't think it was much more than a fun summer movie. "Dr. Parnassus" was the best thing I've seen in a decade.
You clearly don't have fun very often and you clearly haven't seen many movies in the past decade, it sounds like you haven't even seen The Dark Knight if this is what you think of it. You sound like a guy who doesn't love Die Hard, am i right?
Basically nothing in the movie "the Dark Knight" could easily happen, and you should laugh at yourself even for saying it. It's a total fantasy movie, but one with a self-serious tone. Which is really my only problem with it. Tim Burton's movies were better because they didn't take the concept seriously. And "Batman Returns" has much more complex psychological insight than any of Nolan's Batman films. Plus it didn't pretend to be a "realistic" movie.
I stopped caring about that comment when you said Burton's movies were better.
But yeah, I actually saw it and there is an action scene about every 8 or 9 minutes, like any other summer movie.
I have clearly seen TDK a LOT more than you, and i know you're WRONG.
None of those characters are "villains." They aren't even antagonists, except maybe Nurse Ratchett
You need to f_cking wake up and stop posting these idiotic comments, VILLAINS EXIST IN CINEMA, villains exist in GREAT cinema. Villains have existed in cinema since it started and will continue to exist till the end of cinema itself. They are one of the tentpoles of cinema, and to say that villains don't exist in great, adult movies is a ridiculously stupid comment. I mean REALLY, REALLY stupid.
Crazy people aren't villains.... they are sick. Did you think that in "Misery" they were saying that she was evil? She wasn't evil, she was severely psychotic. That's the only way somebody can actually be that negative and dangerous in a reasonably adult film like "Misery", is by being totally over the bend. But most adults, even most stupid adults, would not sit there and tell you that Kathy Bates in the movie was some kind of a "bad guy" (bad girl?).
OH MY GOD. Wow. Villains DO NOT have to be evil, Buffalo Bill wasn't even evil, he was just messed up. I never said she was evil, but villains are not just evil people. For example, the Joker is completely insane, even crazier than Kathy Bates in Misery, does that mean he's not a villain? no. They are both villains.
Chris Nolan would benefit greatly from a sense of fun and humor in his movies actually, although it wouldn't have to be "camp" some semblance of a normal human experience of life as somewhat joyous and humorous would be appreciated if he can muster an attempt one of these days....
In the case of Batman Begins this is true, but in the case of TDK it is not. Because TDK has something funny: The Joker. Although he's completely insane and disturbed he is also a whole lot of fun, and he doesn't take himself very seriously. He also has many funny lines and moments throughout the film that everyone remembers. Not to mention that Ledger's performance is ridiculously re-watchable and it's just fun watching him on screen. He's one of the villains people just love, like Hannibal Lecter, every time he's off screen you're waiting for him to come back.
Well there you go, if you are merely putting it in company with sci-fi action films like that then I don't disagree with you. It is a major accomplishment in the field of self-serious action movies with a smattering of philosophy. But it is a pebble in the ocean that is "Dr. Parnassus." It will indeed be remembered as one of those really fun movies that didn't talk down to the audience and presented some reasonably complex characters.
T2 is one of my favorite movies so for me putting it with that is not just like "oh, it was a fun movie" it's more like "one of my favorite movies ever", i don't even like Star Wars, it's just that i have a strong feeling it will be put aside them in the future. But Empire strikes back is more like a kids movie than T2 and TDK, although Darth Vader is a great villain. But T2 and empire strikes back are STILL mentioned on everyone's list of greatest sequels ever, up there with The Godfather Part 2 etc. and The Dark Knight will be to.
share
I call my friends tools all the time, it doesn't mean i'm "personally insulting" them.
Well, I'm not your friend... so I might not take it as lightly as your friends do.
I'm perfectly willing to laugh and joke around about these movies, but up to this point I've been fairly serious. So I didn't think you were like palling it up with me.
I said it's far fetched, but once again it's f_cking batman, he HAS to dress up as a bat and fight crime, otherwise it wouldn't be batman. I never said it's realistic, i said it's as real as a comic book movie can ever get and it's more realistic than any other superhero movies, and it's grounded in reality as much as batman could possibly get.
I dunno, in some ways the Tim Burton movies were just as realistic. At least in that movie, when the Joker fell off a building, he died.
But I mean there's a point here... if you're a really serious moviemaker, are you going to make a Batman movie? And honestly, I don't have the answer but I guess you would win that argument. Because I'm sure if they paid him enough even back when he was at the peak of his career Terry Gilliam would have probably done a Batman movie. I mean who could resist all the toys? Certainly not Terry Gilliam. Nolan actually has a much less complicated and chaotic aesthetic in his films. He likes muted color schemes, so he's good for Batman in the sense that "gothic" is second nature to Nolan. But Burton is just "gothic" in a different way, a way that also allows for some amount of camp.
You clearly don't have fun very often and you clearly haven't seen many movies in the past decade, it sounds like you haven't even seen The Dark Knight if this is what you think of it. You sound like a guy who doesn't love Die Hard, am i right?
I dunno... I liked it a lot when it came out, saw it 2 or 3 times on VHS (I was too young still to see R-rated movies I think when it came out), but I haven't watched it in 20 years. Alan Rickman was fun, always after that I recognized him and knew who he was. But there's no point in seeing it again, unless maybe I could see it in the theater or something. That might be fun.
Action movies bore me now that I'm grown up. There's a lot of humor in "Die Hard", and that makes it a fun movie as far as I remember. But it would be even more fun, or more appealing to me, if it actually had a sense of humor about itself and not just inside the context of its ridiculous premise. There's no irony, there's no absurdity, there's none of the things that make humor appealing to me for the most part. But it's been a while, maybe I'm wrong. Hollywood movies tend to be like that though..
But I find those things -- creative, confrontational, absurd and satirical humor -- in abundance in Terry Gilliam's films, including "Imaginarium." And I find Nolan's films lacking in humor compared to Gilliam's films in general or Burton's films, or just film generally even. I didn't find Heath Ledger's Joker to be very funny at all. I thought it was a great psycho-killer character, but it lacked humor that other actors brought to other versions of the Joker. A lot of Nolan's films are almost totally lacking in humor, even or perhaps especially his best films.
You need to f_cking wake up and stop posting these idiotic comments, VILLAINS EXIST IN CINEMA, villains exist in GREAT cinema. Villains have existed in cinema since it started and will continue to exist till the end of cinema itself. They are one of the tentpoles of cinema, and to say that villains don't exist in great, adult movies is a ridiculously stupid comment. I mean REALLY, REALLY stupid.
Not at all, I'm saying that you choose to see these people perhaps as villains, but I choose to see them as 3 dimensional human beings with various neuroses and perhaps psychoses that cause them to do some pretty nasty things. And if the movie doesn't allow me to see them that way, then I don't consider it an adult film at all.
I mean for sure, there are villains in great cinema. Like in "Time Bandits", the Evil One. Or in "Wizard of Oz", the Wicked Witch of the West. But they are great kiddie movies, even if suitable for adults. And that's what "Dark Knight" is too. That's the difference say between "Time Bandits" and "Brazil": "TB" is "suitable for adults", but "Brazil" isn't even suitable for kids, it's an adult film. Does it have villains? Not really. Everybody washes their hands and wears latex gloves, they don't leave the fingerprints of a villain.
OH MY GOD. Wow. Villains DO NOT have to be evil, Buffalo Bill wasn't even evil, he was just messed up. I never said she was evil, but villains are not just evil people. For example, the Joker is completely insane, even crazier than Kathy Bates in Misery, does that mean he's not a villain? no. They are both villains.
You can sit there and call a 3-dimensional character a "villain" if you want. To me it's just semantic at that point, you're just shifting the margins to suit yourself. I mean Dennis Hopper in "Speed", riding on top of that train, Alan Rickman in "Die Hard", Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter, those are some villains.
If you're the villain, the whole audience cheers when you die. So in that sense, Kathy Bates in "Misery" is a villain, but not Buffalo Bill. We don't know him well enough to hate him. Bates in "Misery" is kind of an exceptional case, because you really have to go to extreme lengths to make the audience applaud the death of an obese deranged woman. But it's not so much that she's evil as just that's she's freaking irritating, right? I mean who wants to pop painkillers and listen to Liberace records for the rest of their life? That is a nightmare beyond the imagination of Emperor Ming or Lord Voldemort or even the Joker.
In the case of Batman Begins this is true, but in the case of TDK it is not. Because TDK has something funny: The Joker. Although he's completely insane and disturbed he is also a whole lot of fun, and he doesn't take himself very seriously. He also has many funny lines and moments throughout the film that everyone remembers. Not to mention that Ledger's performance is ridiculously re-watchable and it's just fun watching him on screen. He's one of the villains people just love, like Hannibal Lecter, every time he's off screen you're waiting for him to come back.
And that's why he's not a real villain.... he's more of a villain actually in the Burton Batman film. He's like a crazy person, an anarchist. And he doesn't die, because we enjoy him and we don't want to see him die. He's not a villain, he's a jester, a figure of chaos in the model of Shakespeare. Tony in "Imaginarium" is more of a villain actually, but he appears in all the guises that tell us about how villains operate in the real world under the cover of saints. Gilliam is often talking about the adult world through the language of children, you could say.
T2 is one of my favorite movies so for me putting it with that is not just like "oh, it was a fun movie" it's more like "one of my favorite movies ever",
Really, best movie ever? Well we all have different taste. I thought it was fun, but it's another one of those I haven't bothered to watch in 20 years. The ones I actually watch, like say Arnold Schwartzenneger I like "Total Recall." Verhoeven's movies are brilliant, he's an awesome director and his movies are full of sex and satire and absolutely everything is over the top. It's beyond even most people's definition of camp. That's why most people still can't even come to terms with "Showgirls" for what it is.
Jim Cameron, he's fun.... I liked the movie ("T2") but again, I wouldn't watch it on a TV. I saw it 3 times in the theater so that I wouldn't ever have to watch it on TV. It was good, but it didn't have anything really interesting to say like Gilliam's movies, "Twelve Monkeys" or "Brazil" or "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" or you name the movie, it's got more ideas than "T2." Actions scenes do not rank high on my scale of values. If I was into action movies, maybe "T2" would be a great movie in my universe. But I like movies that are a bit sexier than "T2", and have a bit more political and philosophical ideas in them.
i don't even like Star Wars, it's just that i have a strong feeling it will be put aside them in the future. But Empire strikes back is more like a kids movie than T2 and TDK, although Darth Vader is a great villain.
Yeah, he is a great villain in a kiddie movie. I love Star Wars but I don't watch it very often anymore either. It's suitable for adults but I've seen it too much. Now how you think you are defending "The Dark Knight" as some kind of great movie for adults by comparing it to something like "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back", I don't know. These are silly movies on a certain level, serious movies perhaps on another level. A mythological level? I thought "Dr. Parnassus" was one step even beyond them, because it was not mythological in its properties so much as it was aboutmythology.
But T2 and empire strikes back are STILL mentioned on everyone's list of greatest sequels ever, up there with The Godfather Part 2 etc. and The Dark Knight will be to.
Again, these lists are just some commercial crap that they put out there, just enjoy what you enjoy and try to engage films on a deeper and deeper level if you can. I promise you that Gilliam's films are all worth watching at least 10 times each. Nolan and Cameron, I don't think so, unless you just are one of those people who likes going on the same roller coaster all day. It gets dull for me.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
dunno, in some ways the Tim Burton movies were just as realistic. At least in that movie, when the Joker fell off a building, he died.
WHAT? this is a LAME attempt at finding an insult towards TDK, the Joker didn't hit the floor and survive, batman saved him.
But I mean there's a point here... if you're a really serious moviemaker, are you going to make a Batman movie? And honestly, I don't have the answer but I guess you would win that argument. Because I'm sure if they paid him enough even back when he was at the peak of his career Terry Gilliam would have probably done a Batman movie. I mean who could resist all the toys? Certainly not Terry Gilliam. Nolan actually has a much less complicated and chaotic aesthetic in his films. He likes muted color schemes, so he's good for Batman in the sense that "gothic" is second nature to Nolan. But Burton is just "gothic" in a different way, a way that also allows for some amount of camp.
Yet another stupid remark, Nolan DOES NOT make films for the cash, he made it because he knew he could turn a comic book into art on the big screen, and that IS what he did, no matter what you say.
I didn't find Heath Ledger's Joker to be very funny at all. I thought it was a great psycho-killer character, but it lacked humor that other actors brought to other versions of the Joker. A lot of Nolan's films are almost totally lacking in humor, even or perhaps especially his best films.
Jack Nicholson literally played himself in clown make-up and the scene where Ledger is dressed as a nurse and then proceeds to wash his hands with soap and skip happily outside while a hospital explodes behind him is on it's own funnier than anything any previous Joker said or did. Clearly you have forgot about TDK or have a bad sense of humor because when i watched it in the theater it got a LOT of laughs from the audience, mainly from the Joker.(Michael Caine and Morgan freeman also got a fair share of the laughs).
I mean for sure, there are villains in great cinema. Like in "Time Bandits", the Evil One. Or in "Wizard of Oz", the Wicked Witch of the West. But they are great kiddie movies, even if suitable for adults. And that's what "Dark Knight" is too. That's the difference say between "Time Bandits" and "Brazil": "TB" is "suitable for adults", but "Brazil" isn't even suitable for kids, it's an adult film. Does it have villains? Not really. Everybody washes their hands and wears latex gloves, they don't leave the fingerprints of a villain.
Say this all you want, but villains still exist in adult films and TDK is still not a kids movie.
If you're the villain, the whole audience cheers when you die. So in that sense, Kathy Bates in "Misery" is a villain, but not Buffalo Bill. We don't know him well enough to hate him. Bates in "Misery" is kind of an exceptional case, because you really have to go to extreme lengths to make the audience applaud the death of an obese deranged woman. But it's not so much that she's evil as just that's she's freaking irritating, right? I mean who wants to pop painkillers and listen to Liberace records for the rest of their life? That is a nightmare beyond the imagination of Emperor Ming or Lord Voldemort or even the Joker.
If you were not relieved when Buffalo Bill gets killed then you are a bit deranged haha, he skinned women ffs, i wanted him to get killed. And also, i wanted Clarice Starling to get out the basement alive. But obviously i wanted Bates to die more yeah, because she was so annoying and just bat sh*t crazy, laughed my ass off when he stuffed the burning paper in her mouth and hit her with the pig statue haha.
And that's why he's not a real villain.... he's more of a villain actually in the Burton Batman film. He's like a crazy person, an anarchist. And he doesn't die, because we enjoy him and we don't want to see him die. He's not a villain, he's a jester, a figure of chaos in the model of Shakespeare. Tony in "Imaginarium" is more of a villain actually, but he appears in all the guises that tell us about how villains operate in the real world under the cover of saints. Gilliam is often talking about the adult world through the language of children, you could say.
He IS a villain, just because we don't want him to die doesn't mean he's not a villain. Because, along with all the funny and fun moments there are also moments where hes sh*t-your-pants-scary, a perfect example of this is the hostage tape with the fake Batman where he says "LOOK AT ME!" seriously, you could hear a pin drop after that moment.
Really, best movie ever? Well we all have different taste. I thought it was fun, but it's another one of those I haven't bothered to watch in 20 years. The ones I actually watch, like say Arnold Schwartzenneger I like "Total Recall." Verhoeven's movies are brilliant, he's an awesome director and his movies are full of sex and satire and absolutely everything is over the top. It's beyond even most people's definition of camp. That's why most people still can't even come to terms with "Showgirls" for what it is.
I like Total Recall, but nowhere near as much as i love T2, i don't like T2 because the action or anything(although that is great) i just love the story and the characters and how it's completely different from T1(apart from the basic chase plot). I love Predator even more though haha, i know it's FULL of cheesy one liners and everything but they are just the most awesome one liners ever, and i love the mix of action/sci-fi/horror.
Jim Cameron, he's fun.... I liked the movie ("T2") but again, I wouldn't watch it on a TV. I saw it 3 times in the theater so that I wouldn't ever have to watch it on TV. It was good, but it didn't have anything really interesting to say like Gilliam's movies, "Twelve Monkeys" or "Brazil" or "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" or you name the movie, it's got more ideas than "T2." Actions scenes do not rank high on my scale of values. If I was into action movies, maybe "T2" would be a great movie in my universe. But I like movies that are a bit sexier than "T2", and have a bit more political and philosophical ideas in them.
T2 is not great because the action, if this was the case then Terminator 3 would be the movie that people consider a sci-fi action masterpiece. It's got WAY more going for it than special effects, it puts character first and they all go through an interesting character arc and it has lots of messages about the human race, it's much more than just another action movie. I have actually seen Twelve Monkeys and although i enjoyed it, it's not exactly a movie i want to watch again. I didn't think it was a great movie but i didn't think it was bad either.
Yeah, he is a great villain in a kiddie movie. I love Star Wars but I don't watch it very often anymore either. It's suitable for adults but I've seen it too much. Now how you think you are defending "The Dark Knight" as some kind of great movie for adults by comparing it to something like "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back", I don't know. These are silly movies on a certain level, serious movies perhaps on another level. A mythological level? I thought "Dr. Parnassus" was one step even beyond them, because it was not mythological in its properties so much as it was aboutmythology.
Because The Dark Knight took itself very seriously, and although some people found this stupid i love it and think it's the best thing they could have possibly done with the universe, i didn't even like Batman before the Nolan films. But Empire Strikes Back, although taking itself seriously sometimes, also has lots of kid friendly moments and is a lot brighter than TDK, The Dark Knight would actually be an incredibly depressing movie if it were not for the Joker.
Again, these lists are just some commercial crap that they put out there, just enjoy what you enjoy and try to engage films on a deeper and deeper level if you can. I promise you that Gilliam's films are all worth watching at least 10 times each. Nolan and Cameron, I don't think so, unless you just are one of those people who likes going on the same roller coaster all day. It gets dull for me.
People mention them on these lists all the time because THEY ARE GREAT SEQUELS. James Cameron made two of the greatest sequels ever made and was a great filmmaker before he got too smug and just cared about special effects *cough*Avatar*cough* and Nolan is easily one of the best directors around today and makes great films.
share
WHAT? this is a LAME attempt at finding an insult towards TDK, the Joker didn't hit the floor and survive, batman saved him.
Batman jumped off a building and survived. Sorry I guess I need to spell out every step of the logic for you.
Yet another stupid remark, Nolan DOES NOT make films for the cash, he made it because he knew he could turn a comic book into art on the big screen, and that IS what he did, no matter what you say.
Wow, I mean I am a pretty big Gilliam fan, but even I would never say that any major film-maker makes films just for art and not at all for cash. This is an industry, a business. People need to keep working or their careers start to go downhill. Directors attach themselves to franchises because it enables them to make other more personal films. Nolan would have done "Inception" instead but couldn't get the money for it until after he had some big hits under his belt. It's the way the business works.
Jack Nicholson literally played himself in clown make-up
That is just a lazy person's way of putting down a performance from any actor in the book. It is not true, hardly ever true. You can bet Heath Ledger wouldn't be putting down Jack Nicholson or his performance. But it's not surprising to hear young fans like you disrespect him because you think that the only way to praise Ledger is to put him above Nicholson. However in reality, or in a mature perspective, Nicholson and Ledger are both excellent actors and they gave very different performances.
and the scene where Ledger is dressed as a nurse and then proceeds to wash his hands with soap and skip happily outside while a hospital explodes behind him is on it's own funnier than anything any previous Joker said or did.
It's kind of bizarre and amusing, but not really laugh out loud funny. Honestly, I saw the film twice w/ packed audience and barely heard any laughter. You can deny it or have your own sense of humor, but most are going to agree with me the film was lacking humor. As was "Inception", "The Prestige", pretty much every Chris Nolan film.
Say this all you want, but villains still exist in adult films and TDK is still not a kids movie.
It's not for little kids like under the age of 8, but basically it is for boys from about 10 to 15 or 16. That is the primary audience for this film as well as for "T2" and "Die Hard" and apparently your favorite films in general.
He IS a villain, just because we don't want him to die doesn't mean he's not a villain. Because, along with all the funny and fun moments there are also moments where hes sh*t-your-pants-scary, a perfect example of this is the hostage tape with the fake Batman where he says "LOOK AT ME!" seriously, you could hear a pin drop after that moment.
Yeah he's scary, he's a villain. Hence the movie is not a serious adult movie. Back to where we started here....
I like Total Recall, but nowhere near as much as i love T2, i don't like T2 because the action or anything(although that is great) i just love the story and the characters and how it's completely different from T1(apart from the basic chase plot). I love Predator even more though haha, i know it's FULL of cheesy one liners and everything but they are just the most awesome one liners ever, and i love the mix of action/sci-fi/horror.
Yeah, "Predator" is OK, it's stylish, kinda scary, still pretty effective. I like Verhoeven's perspective on things, his satire. I like "Robo-Cop" and "Starship Troopers" as well. To me, that's the only type of super-violent action film I can really enjoy now at this point in my life.
I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get back home in a few hours, if I remember...
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Batman jumped off a building and survived. Sorry I guess I need to spell out every step of the logic for you.
I said that couldn't happen already.
Wow, I mean I am a pretty big Gilliam fan, but even I would never say that any major film-maker makes films just for art and not at all for cash. This is an industry, a business. People need to keep working or their careers start to go downhill. Directors attach themselves to franchises because it enables them to make other more personal films. Nolan would have done "Inception" instead but couldn't get the money for it until after he had some big hits under his belt. It's the way the business works.
Nolan is not doing it for the money, i couldn't care less what you say about that.
That is just a lazy person's way of putting down a performance from any actor in the book. It is not true, hardly ever true. You can bet Heath Ledger wouldn't be putting down Jack Nicholson or his performance. But it's not surprising to hear young fans like you disrespect him because you think that the only way to praise Ledger is to put him above Nicholson. However in reality, or in a mature perspective, Nicholson and Ledger are both excellent actors and they gave very different performances.
- It is NOT lazy and i did NOT call Nicholson a bad actor, he's one of the greatest actors who ever lived, but his performance as the Joker is at the bottom of his quality performance list. He brought nothing to the role except laughing a lot, he couldn't even be bothered to drop a few pounds for the role(he was clearly too old and fat to play the Joker, no offense to him haha). He literally was just playing it exactly how he played The Shining and every other crazy guy role he ever had, in other words he was just playing himself(yes, Jack is crazy). Ledger meanwhile completely immersed himself in the role and was unrecognizable, that was not Heath on screen, that was the Joker. The vast majority of Batman fans and smart people would agree with everything i said. And don't you dare make it out like i'm disrespecting a great actor like Jack and that i'm only saying this because i'm younger than you, i'm not twelve for f_ck sake. And i LOVE cinema and i don't watch all that sh*t most people my age watch like Transformers and Fast and Furious 85 or whatever. Not to mention some of my favorite actors are Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Anthony Hopkins, Michael Caine etc.
but most are going to agree with me the film was lacking humor. As was "Inception", "The Prestige", pretty much every Chris Nolan film.
Most are NOT going to agree with you because i watched it in the theaters 4 or 5 times(once in IMAX) and it got laughs every time, as did all the other funny stuff the Joker did. Also, i have not seen Inception yet(gonna get it on blu-ray when i get a player) but The Prestige was superb.
It's not for little kids like under the age of 8, but basically it is for boys from about 10 to 15 or 16. That is the primary audience for this film as well as for "T2" and "Die Hard" and apparently your favorite films in general.
You're just completely and utterly wrong. And not all my favorite movies have action in them, for example i love John Carpenter's The Thing, Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, The Shawshank Redemption, Goodfellas, etc. I love all different kinds of movies, although Die Hard may be my favorite film ever made, but not because i necessarily think it's better than those movies, i just enjoy it more and watch it a lot more often than most movies. And the action movies that i do like, i don't like dumb crappy ones, i only like the best.
Yeah he's scary, he's a villain. Hence the movie is not a serious adult movie. Back to where we started here....
Stupid comment.
Yeah, "Predator" is OK, it's stylish, kinda scary, still pretty effective. I like Verhoeven's perspective on things, his satire. I like "Robo-Cop" and "Starship Troopers" as well. To me, that's the only type of super-violent action film I can really enjoy now at this point in my life.
Robocop is amazing. Starship Troopers is awesome as well.
"True Lies" was really excellent actually, it was almost approaching a Verhoeven type of camp treatment.
Probably his most underrated movie, miles better than Avatar.
"Twelve Monkeys" does actually get better upon repeat viewings. There's a lot going on with the characters in this film as well. Regarding the characters in "T2", they basically ruined it for me by making John Connor this annoying brat played by a horrible actor. It was kind of the Spielberg syndrome: when in doubt, put a cute kid in the movie and place him/her in constant danger. This is nothing new for Cameron, he already did the same thing with the "Alien" franchise.
I see this a lot on IMDb about John Connor being annoying and a bad actor but i honestly always liked him and the relationship between him and the Terminator is the heart of the movie, maybe it's because i grew up watching T2. But yeah...you're right about "Newt" in Aliens, but the movie is still awesome except for..."They mostly come at night...mostly".
He makes good commercial films. "The Prestige" is his only film I'm convinced has some marks of genius, but it too is flawed to some extent. And as far as I'm concerned, "Avatar" is far better than "Aliens" or "T2." It actually created a whole new world. But, it is a kiddie movie like all his other films
But Avatar has a crappy story, the only interesting things are the effects and the world he created. And you do realize that Aliens and The Terminator(the original) were R rated, right? so clearly not "kiddie films" share
Nolan is not doing it for the money, i couldn't care less what you say about that.
Well, do you actually want to understand the film business, or just be a kind of la-la-la stick my fingers in my ears fanboy? Chris Nolan gets paid a truckload of money for doing these films. You think that he doesn't like money? Have you ever met somebody who doesn't like money? And you ignore the truly salient fact, which is that an ARTIST cannot make his films if he does not have commercial success. This is how modern Hollywood works. One for the money, two for the show.
nd don't you dare make it out like i'm disrespecting a great actor like Jack and that i'm only saying this because i'm younger than you, i'm not twelve for f_ck sake. And i LOVE cinema and i don't watch all that sh*t most people my age watch like Transformers and Fast and Furious 85 or whatever. Not to mention some of my favorite actors are Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Anthony Hopkins, Michael Caine etc.
Well that's good, you know, my whole problem is just that you seem to believe that "The Dark Knight" is somehow objectively a better film than "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" or a better use of Heath Ledger's time. Whereas I am saying that from my perspective, it is not. Perhaps I am muddying the waters by talking about what is and what is not "adult" or "mature." I've talked to several people my age, who are longtime Terry Gilliam fans and have great respect for his imagination and his method, who did not enjoy "Imaginarium." But I think that a more mature perspective is to admit that so much of this is subjective. Nolan, whatever his marks or merit as an artist, is definitely more concerned with pleasing a larger number of people than Gilliam is. And so if he succeeds in gaining more fans, it is not surprising.
You're just completely and utterly wrong. And not all my favorite movies have action in them, for example i love John Carpenter's The Thing, Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, The Shawshank Redemption, Goodfellas, etc. I love all different kinds of movies, although Die Hard may be my favorite film ever made, but not because i necessarily think it's better than those movies, i just enjoy it more and watch it a lot more often than most movies. And the action movies that i do like, i don't like dumb crappy ones, i only like the best.
I understand what you mean... speaking of John Carpenter, I just love "They Live" for some reason. It's like, half the movie is total crap and the other half is totally brilliant. And it's not always easy to decide which is which. I mean movies are interesting, kind of like people, there is the good the bad and the ugly inside each of them. There are things I enjoy and things I don't enjoy in all the films you mentioned.
I see this a lot on IMDb about John Connor being annoying and a bad actor but i honestly always liked him and the relationship between him and the Terminator is the heart of the movie, maybe it's because i grew up watching T2. But yeah...you're right about "Newt" in Aliens, but the movie is still awesome except for..."They mostly come at night...mostly".
I like the first movie a lot better. I never bothered to rewatch "Aliens" so I haven't seen it since 1985 or whenever it came out. I thought that one Alien was scarier than a bunch of aliens in a shooting gallery. Just like "Predator" is a lot scarier than "Predator 2." Just because you have 10 aliens or 10 predators in the room does not make it 10 times scarier. Actually the opposite IMHO.
But Avatar has a crappy story, the only interesting things are the effects and the world he created. And you do realize that Aliens and The Terminator(the original) were R rated, right? so clearly not "kiddie films"
The story of Avatar is fine, to me. It's not great but neither is Terminator or Abyss or any of his films.
As far as R-rated, maybe we're getting into the heart of our disagreement here. See, like you, I grew up watching those movies. I may be older than you but it just means some of them I saw in the theater. Although usually I could not get in, so I had to wait for VHS to see the original "Terminator." But I saw that movie before I was 10 years old.
I was a weird kid. I used to go around saying my favorite movies were "Commando" and "The Elephant Man." Now, I watched "Commando" a couple years ago and it was so incredibly bad that it was hilarious. But "The Elephant Man" is a gorgeous, powerful, mature film that still makes me weep and makes me feel like I'm in contact with great art and with a deep experience of humanity. But "Commando" is rated-R and "The Elephant Man" is rated PG. Which of them is a more mature movie? I think it's obvious if you've seen them.
Likewise to me it was clear that "Dr. Parnassus" was dealing with weightier themes than "Dark Knight", and so my definition of it as either being more or less mature has little to do with the sex/violence quotient that earns a movie an "R" rating but rather with philosophical or humanist ideas.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Chris Nolan gets paid a truckload of money for doing these films. You think that he doesn't like money? Have you ever met somebody who doesn't like money? And you ignore the truly salient fact, which is that an ARTIST cannot make his films if he does not have commercial success. This is how modern Hollywood works. One for the money, two for the show.
I never said he didn't like the money, i said he isn't doing it for the money. For example, he said after The Dark Knight that he was unsure if there would be a third movie made by him, because it at the very least had to be as good as TDK. Now he is making The Dark Knight Rises, because he knows he has a good story, but it is the end of his trilogy. If he was just in it for the money, why would he end what is now one of the biggest movie franchises on the planet at a trilogy? he wouldn't. He could make loads of them and people would keep going to see them and he'd make bucket loads of cash.
Well that's good, you know, my whole problem is just that you seem to believe that "The Dark Knight" is somehow objectively a better film than "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" or a better use of Heath Ledger's time. Whereas I am saying that from my perspective, it is not. Perhaps I am muddying the waters by talking about what is and what is not "adult" or "mature." I've talked to several people my age, who are longtime Terry Gilliam fans and have great respect for his imagination and his method, who did not enjoy "Imaginarium." But I think that a more mature perspective is to admit that so much of this is subjective. Nolan, whatever his marks or merit as an artist, is definitely more concerned with pleasing a larger number of people than Gilliam is. And so if he succeeds in gaining more fans, it is not surprising.
I'm saying i believe TDK is better and the majority do, and to be honest TDK sort of was a better use of Heath Ledger's time. What i mean is, the Joker is one of those roles where you can really shine and show how much talent you have, a lot of people thought Heath Ledger was just another pretty boy and he was known as "the gay cowboy" and the reaction from fans when Nolan announced he cast Ledger as the Joker wasn't that great. But then what happens? it comes out and he just blows everybody away, even from the trailers you could see he did something special, i hadn't even seen Batman Begins back then and the trailers for TDK were enough to convince me to watch Batman Begins so i could see TDK. Anyway my point is that the Joker is a better role than the role in Imaginarium, everyone raved about Ledger's performance in TDK, in Imaginarium it was more like "yeah, he was good as usual". He will be remembered in movie history for Brokeback Mountain and the Joker most of all, he's always going to be associated with that role now. Which is sad really, because he had so much more to do in his career and would have been known as one of the greatest actors ever, easily the greatest loss Hollywood and fans of cinema have ever suffered.
I understand what you mean... speaking of John Carpenter, I just love "They Live" for some reason. It's like, half the movie is total crap and the other half is totally brilliant. And it's not always easy to decide which is which. I mean movies are interesting, kind of like people, there is the good the bad and the ugly inside each of them. There are things I enjoy and things I don't enjoy in all the films you mentioned.
I actually haven't seen They Live yet, i will buy it one day...
I like the first movie a lot better. I never bothered to rewatch "Aliens" so I haven't seen it since 1985 or whenever it came out. I thought that one Alien was scarier than a bunch of aliens in a shooting gallery. Just like "Predator" is a lot scarier than "Predator 2." Just because you have 10 aliens or 10 predators in the room does not make it 10 times scarier. Actually the opposite IMHO.
Aliens is more like an action film, Alien is like a slasher film but instead of a killer with a knife it's an alien. I prefer Aliens but Alien is still great, and most fans probably prefer Alien to Aliens.
I was a weird kid. I used to go around saying my favorite movies were "Commando" and "The Elephant Man." Now, I watched "Commando" a couple years ago and it was so incredibly bad that it was hilarious. But "The Elephant Man" is a gorgeous, powerful, mature film that still makes me weep and makes me feel like I'm in contact with great art and with a deep experience of humanity. But "Commando" is rated-R and "The Elephant Man" is rated PG. Which of them is a more mature movie? I think it's obvious if you've seen them.
Yeah, but even though T2 and Aliens have a few one liners you can't compare them with Commando, they are MUCH better movies than that. Also, Commando is indeed hilarious and the fight between Matrix and Bennett at the end is pure gold.
Likewise to me it was clear that "Dr. Parnassus" was dealing with weightier themes than "Dark Knight", and so my definition of it as either being more or less mature has little to do with the sex/violence quotient that earns a movie an "R" rating but rather with philosophical or humanist ideas.
I already told you, The Dark Knight was only a PG-13. And The Dark Knight is a very dark movie.
share
[deleted]
The Fast and Furious franchise is a very good action franchise more inline with Terminator or Die Hard than Transformers. Have you watched them all?
It could be God, the Devil, Buddha, an Alien...or it could be a kid playing a video game. - onn1320
I don´t think even Nolan himself is as foolish as to consider his Batman shenanigans some kind of ´art´, be it with a capital A or otherwise. In fact, Burton´s movies were probably more ´art´ than his as they at least pushed a rather unique & original visual aesthetic - compared to Batman Returns, TDK looks pretty bland and unispired. Anyway I wish Nolan would go back to making smaller scale stuff like Memento - or even Insomnia, also a solid picture devoid of excessive bombast - but I suppose it´s too late now.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Tell me about it.... I agree with you about Burton, but even with Burton it was a case of basically advancing his career through the franchise that happened to be suitable for him. But the internet is full of fans..... if you look around, you'll find a Tim Burton fan who will tell you that he didn't do "Planet of the Apes" for the money, he did it for Art. Likewise the ludicrous idea that Chris Nolan would rather make Batman movies than anything else. Or even the idea that Kubrick did "The Shining" primarily for "art." When you see a director attach himself to a successful or recognized property/franchise, it's just naive to allow your personal fandom to make you look past the realities on the ground. And it's not a bad thing. If Burton hadn't done "Batman", probably "Ed Wood" and "Big Fish" and movies like that wouldn't exist.
Even David Lynch, early in his career, tried to take his career to a higher commercial level by signing on to a (potential) franchise ("Dune"). Gilliam, an iconoclast and a rebel of cinema if there ever was one, did movies like "Fisher King" and "Twelve Monkeys" to redeem his commercial reputation after the failure of "Baron Munchausen." It is just part of the reality of the business, for better or worse.
But this guy's just going to come along and say it's a "stupid comment."
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
I have no idea what Burton would really-really like to do if he could - probably something sappy like Edward Scissorhands - but it´s obvious that once you´re placed at the helm of something that costs as much to make as the Batman movies do (although the 1989 film seems to have had a surprisingly meager budget of 35 million), you won´t get to exercise any artistic freedom unless it´s accepted by your employer. You´re there to make a buck and that´s that. Anyhow, Burton turned out to be really smart pick as I think his sort of campily playful sensibility with a smattering of gothic darkness has been the best match for the material thus far - I rewatched Batman Returns a few months ago and was kind of surprised how well it seems to hold up. His Gotham City is one eye-poppingly grandiose & inspired environment and there´s even a semblance of recognisible depth to the characters. But generally, I don´t really care for or about Burton at all - Ed Wood´s really good & Beetlejuice is entertaining, but I haven´t even seen any of his stuff after the the late 90´s fiaskos like Mars Attacks or Sleepy Hollow. ´They´ say he´s been in a decline & believe ´them´.
As for Nolan than I remember not liking Batman Begins at all, but somehow TDK actually kind of works better than it´s got any right to - I´ve seen it twice and been properly entertained both times; there´s nothing really overtly wrong with it. Of course, all the highly suspicious wave of world wide hoopla that brought it along made sure the expectations were low so there was plenty of room to be positively surprised. On the whole though I still remain highly distrustful of the concept of trying to plant characters like Batman or Joker into a realistic setting... I mean, come on, it´s absurd... innit?
I´m genuinely surprised though that you seem to be regarding Kubrick more as a businessman than an artist or something - firstly, if he were more interested in making a profitable picture rather than one that has some more far-reaching concerns, he wouldn´t have had to read through a small library (which he reportedly did) to get to King´s recently published bestseller in order to find a narrative which best suited his intentions. And secondly, of course, why put such a huge intellectual effort into something you´re doing merely to buy some clout with the studio or moneymen or whatever? Doesn´t compute. But of course, none of this is meant to imply he was uninterested in the financial side of things - quite the opposite as, based on my knowledge at least, he took a greater care of coming out of his projects with good financial results than possibly any other great director in the history. Knowing, of course, how vital that was to keep getting the budgets he needed; he´s not exactly your Tarkovsky who only cared what Bergman and Bresson thought of his movies and to hell with everybody else, as he apparently once proudly stated (of course, in Soviet Russia he wouldn´t have made a fortune even if he´d directed Titanic or something). But, of course, as is well known, Kubrick was able to achieve a rather unique status in Hollywood, partly because he was lucky I suppose, but also because he wasn´t, by all accounts, as volatile a character as someone like Welles, for instance.
Generally, the matter of money in film industry - and the whole art vs commerce issue - is a highly complex problem difficult to get a handle on, but I suppose it´s fair to conclude that when a director makes a film that is his own choice from the beginning and is not just being attached to projects or even choosing from the available scripts at a given time, then his work is liable to be more propelled by artistic considerations than otherwise (which isn´t to say ´some´ such enterprises where the director isn´t the one originally bringing the project to the table, cannot be as artistically driven as things conceived by a filmmaker).
But of course Kubrick was a major exception and I firmly believe it´s a great thing Lynch didn´t ever "make it" in big time mainstream Hollywood - I don´t think it was really something he pursued out of his own initiative anyway as with both Elephant Man and Dune he was approached by producers - as a result of not-so-proudly captaining the sunken ship Dune (actually I consider it a win-win situation as I, unlike most, actually find some value in Dune - it´s a unique experience even if heavily flawed and occasionally jaw droppingly silly). As you point out, once you get into that Hollywood blockbuster wheel and get continually offered amazing wads of money to do this or that for the studio, it can be very hard to say no. I suppose the planned Dune sequels may have come out exciting, but would it have led to the Twin Peaks experience, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr, Inland Empire? Probably not. And I´ll take what I´ve actually got over all the coulda-beens-woulda-beens any day.
And Gilliam of course got out of his own more mainstream days with the integrity fully intact as both The Fisher King and 12 Monkies are worthy entries in his filmography. They feel considerably more tamed and mainstreamy than Brazil, Tideland, Parnassus etc, but at the same time, they´re still recognisibly Gilliam´esque & there´re always these quirky, idiosyncratic notes present (although The Fisher King is probably his second worst, with its way-too-cutesy love story splashed in the middle of the film and the ending that seems to drag on and on before it finally comes to a disappointing halt. It´s still a few good cuts above Bros Grimm though which never seems to take off in the first place).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Ed Wood´s really good & Beetlejuice is entertaining, but I haven´t even seen any of his stuff after the the late 90´s fiaskos like Mars Attacks or Sleepy Hollow. ´They´ say he´s been in a decline & believe ´them´.
I thought Mars Attacks was pretty funny, if you look at it as a spoof of 70s disaster movies. But yeah he has been in decline. He did do "Bish Fish" which I thought was excellent. But everything else since "Sleepy Hollow" has been really commercial and weird somehow at the same time. His attempts to become "Mr. Disney" have not left a good taste in a lot of people's mouth.
On the whole though I still remain highly distrustful of the concept of trying to plant characters like Batman or Joker into a realistic setting... I mean, come on, it´s absurd... innit?
Yeah, that is basically my problem with the movie even though I agree "Dark Knight" is far better than "Batman Begins." In "BB", the only interesting parts are the scenes with Cillian Murphy. And then in "DK", same thing but with Heath Ledger. The actual Batman character remains more dull in his films than the version in Burton's. And the overall attempt at "realism" which this other poster seems to enjoy so much does strike me, as it does you, as more jarring than comforting or compelling.
RE: Kubrick, I wouldn't say that I consider him "more" of a businessman than an artist, but I think that business had to come first for him. I think probably that was because he started out in very low budget independent features. But it's part of the reason he stayed successful for the most part, because he didn't get caught up in a big project that was "personal" but not at all commercial. So that for example you could compare "Full Metal Jacket" with "Apocalypse Now", and although personally I prefer Kubrick's film it's easy to argue they are both great Vietnam stories, yet Kubrick's film wasn't a disaster because the production was under control and he didn't have his own money in it. So although the debate over its artistic value continues, it didn't have any negative impact on Kubric's career despite getting very mediocre box office.
Lynch, I mean you have to remember Dino De Laurentis produced both "Dune" and "Blue Velvet." De Laurentis was quite a unique figure; convincing people like Roger Vadim to do "Barbarella" or Lynch for "Dune." And then for him to produced "Blue Velvet", it might have seemed strange at the time but it wasn't any more strange than doing movies in the 60s with Fellini and Mario Bava at the same time. And in an interview I saw, De Laurentis basically talked about how even though it was a much smaller film, it was harder to get the money together for "Blue Velvet" than "Dune", because of how each was or was not perceived as a commercial property. But it was "Velvet" that pretty much made Lynch's career, more than any other film.
And Gilliam of course got out of his own more mainstream days with the integrity fully intact as both The Fisher King and 12 Monkies are worthy entries in his filmography. They feel considerably more tamed and mainstreamy than Brazil, Tideland, Parnassus etc, but at the same time, they´re still recognisibly Gilliam´esque & there´re always these quirky, idiosyncratic notes present (although The Fisher King is probably his second worst, with its way-too-cutesy love story splashed in the middle of the film and the ending that seems to drag on and on before it finally comes to a disappointing halt. It´s still a few good cuts above Bros Grimm though which never seems to take off in the first place).
Brothers Grimm is fun to watch for Ledger and Damon, I enjoy their characters and some of the scenes, Peter Stormare is weird and funny, but Jon Pryce was just awful in the movie, Lena Headley who was forced on Gilliam was horrible, and it just did not have a tight script.
I was pretty disappointed in "Fisher King" when it first came out, but it has really grown on me over the years. I do agree with your assessment that the romance is a bit corny and the ending is a bit too much. But it certainly has the "Gilliamesque" down, with the Red Knight and like homeless crusaders and so forth. Actually I think of "Dr. Parnassus" as sort of a repudiation of some of the elements of "Fisher King" that Gilliam would have changed if he could. "King" is about an apparently irredeemable man finding redemption; "Imagarinium" is about an apparently heroic man (Tony) who is actually beyond redemption.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
T2 is not great because the action, if this was the case then Terminator 3 would be the movie that people consider a sci-fi action masterpiece. It's got WAY more going for it than special effects, it puts character first and they all go through an interesting character arc and it has lots of messages about the human race, it's much more than just another action movie. I have actually seen Twelve Monkeys and although i enjoyed it, it's not exactly a movie i want to watch again. I didn't think it was a great movie but i didn't think it was bad either.
It's not Gilliam's best movie, it's definitely one of his most commercial and to me it's tainted by a few sadistic action scenes that damage it as adult sci-fi. However it has some genuinely interesting ideas about time travel. "T2" has some good moments, some good ideas. It's much more of an action film of course. Cameron is an excellent action director. It would be a shame if he made a film without action. "True Lies" was really excellent actually, it was almost approaching a Verhoeven type of camp treatment.
"Twelve Monkeys" does actually get better upon repeat viewings. There's a lot going on with the characters in this film as well. Regarding the characters in "T2", they basically ruined it for me by making John Connor this annoying brat played by a horrible actor. It was kind of the Spielberg syndrome: when in doubt, put a cute kid in the movie and place him/her in constant danger. This is nothing new for Cameron, he already did the same thing with the "Alien" franchise.
Because The Dark Knight took itself very seriously, and although some people found this stupid i love it and think it's the best thing they could have possibly done with the universe, i didn't even like Batman before the Nolan films. But Empire Strikes Back, although taking itself seriously sometimes, also has lots of kid friendly moments and is a lot brighter than TDK, The Dark Knight would actually be an incredibly depressing movie if it were not for the Joker.
I only halfway buy into fans' conceit about "Empire" being a "dark" film as well. It's relatively dark compared to other Star Wars films. At heart it is still a space opera adventure. The reason why I think it's the best SW movie has less to do with anything "dark", and more to do with the fact that this film was the most inventive in terms of introducing new characters and locations of all the SW sequels. In my mind the original "Star Wars" film directed by Lucas is still superior. Lucas for all his personal faults did have some genius as an editor, which made him an interesting director since his method of directing was what he eventually dubbed "pre-editing."
People mention them on these lists all the time because THEY ARE GREAT SEQUELS. James Cameron made two of the greatest sequels ever made and was a great filmmaker before he got too smug and just cared about special effects *cough*Avatar*cough* and Nolan is easily one of the best directors around today and makes great films.
He makes good commercial films. "The Prestige" is his only film I'm convinced has some marks of genius, but it too is flawed to some extent. And as far as I'm concerned, "Avatar" is far better than "Aliens" or "T2." It actually created a whole new world. But, it is a kiddie movie like all his other films.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Inception was a masterpiece and explored a concept nobody had before, how could you say it was not intellectual? The ending alone gave many people to talk and debate about many years after.
I haven't watched it yet but what did this movie give you to think about that is even remotely comparable?
It could be God, the Devil, Buddha, an Alien...or it could be a kid playing a video game. - onn1320
Hi -- wow I was reading through some of the old stuff on this thread for laughs, didn't expect to see a (fairly) recent response, so..... hmmm well I only saw "Inception" once and it was quite a while ago now, whenever it was in the theater. I don't know that I can talk about it with much intelligence. I did see "Interstellar", and so I can attest that Nolan's streak of humorless big-budget sci-fi movies with just enough ideas to get you through the movie remains unbroken.
I suppose I can grant that "Inception" is an intellectual film. If it inspires people to debate about it and think about time or about reality in a different way, that's certainly intellectual. I'm not sure what my point was as far as that goes.
You should see "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
First I want to say that both of you have good points. I didn't like The Dark Knight, I thought Batman Begins was better, but I don't think comic book movies are kids films either. Some people don't like symbolic films, even if intelligent. Both my dad and I thought The Tree of Life was one of the worst movies we've ever seen. If that is at all the kind of movies you like, have fun being a hipster, but that doesn't mean you are any more mature or intelligent.
Next, what do you mean "Brazil" is more popular than any other 1985 movie? I've never even heard of it, but I've heard of many great movies topping the box office in 1985: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1985
Back to the Future, The Color Purple, and The Goonies, etc . are some of my favorite films of all time.
Also, care to explain how rich vigilantes like Batman or Ironman with bulletproof armor would be dead 5 minutes in?
It could be God, the Devil, Buddha, an Alien...or it could be a kid playing a video game. - onn1320
Hi --
I don't think comic book movies are kids films either. Some people don't like symbolic films, even if intelligent. Both my dad and I thought The Tree of Life was one of the worst movies we've ever seen. If that is at all the kind of movies you like, have fun being a hipster, but that doesn't mean you are any more mature or intelligent.
lol, "Tree of Life" is a huge dinosaur turd. It's fascinating, it's extremely well made, and I'm sure for some people it's very nourishing. But yeah, I felt like it was actually laughable sometimes because of how pretentious it was. And I don't blame you if you thought I was coming off as really arrogant in my comments back there from 2011, because I kinda feel the same way reading them now! lol. I was just being snarky, playing some kind of character, but I did mean at least much of what I was saying.
Next, what do you mean "Brazil" is more popular than any other 1985 movie? I've never even heard of it, but I've heard of many great movies topping the box office in 1985: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1985
Back to the Future, The Color Purple, and The Goonies, etc . are some of my favorite films of all time.
Maybe I wasn't clear in how I explained myself: I don't mean to say that "Brazil" is more famous than all the other movies that were popular in 1985, but I'm pretty damn sure that it's a fact that it's seen more, talked about more, and is sold/rented/streamed more often, than a lot of films that actually were in the top 10 or top 20 box-office hits of 1985.
For example, according to boxofficemojo's list of top box office for 1985:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1985
the #7 money-earning film of 1985 was "The Jewell of the Nile." Have you ever heard of that? Probably not. It is a terrible sequel to "Romancing the Stone." It is currently rating at 6.0 on the imdb and just over 37,000 people have voted on it. "Brazil", on the other hand, which came in at #85 in the box office that year, is currently rated 8.0 on the imdb and over 145,000 people have voted on it.
Let's not even get into the fact that "Police Academy 2" made the top 10 that year....
I am not saying that "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" is going to be more famous or significant in the year 2035 than "The Dark Knight." I am saying that it is a possibility, and that it is not without precedent, that it could be considered more significant than a lot of other films that came out in 2009 and made a lot more money. It would not surprise me very much if, in 2035, on the imdb or whatever equivalent, there is more discussion about "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" than there is about "Alvin and Chipmunks: the Squeakquel" (the #9 box office earner of 2009).
Also, care to explain how rich vigilantes like Batman or Ironman with bulletproof armor would be dead 5 minutes in?
there is no such thing, in reality, as bulletproof armor. how's that for an explanation?
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' share
Notice how in the Chris Nolan movies that were more made for adults, like "Memento" and "The Prestige", there aren't any heroes or villains.
You must not have seen Memento. almost everyone turns out to be a villain manipulating the situations for their own selfish goals. share
Including the "hero". Hence his point.
These bastards!
absolutely, I mean you could definitely see Christian Bale's character (spoiler: one of them at any rate) as the villain in "The Prestige." But the character ultimately has too much of our sympathy to be a villain, in my opinion. This is largely a nomenclature issue. People are confusing the word "villain" with "antagonist." Certainly Bale is the antagonist in "The Prestige", as he provides the storytelling function of opposing the primary character, throwing obstacles in the way and preventing him from reaching his goals. However, an adult perspective allows for one's own shift in identification, or empathy, and Nolan is certainly aware of this and takes advantage of this. "The Prestige" is a good example of how telling the story expands the audience's perspective, somewhat comparable to "Dr. Parnassus" -- once we know enough of the story, we realize that the person we thought of as the villain could be seen as the hero, and that Hugh Jackman's character would be the "villain" of his nemesis' life story. That's a relatively adult and, to me, interesting way to deal with the whole audience expectation of "good guy" and "bad guy", and Nolan also attempted that to some extent with Heath Ledger on "The Dark Knight." I would say that Ledger and Nolan were very successful but that the formula of an action film and the necessity for a violent confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist makes the possibilities far more limited in this type of film.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
Ok this thread is way too long for me to read all of it, i just wanted to say that the dark night isnt a very good film, batman begins is better, but it isnt a masterpiece either
sharehave to agree with you about Brokeback
RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
You obviously didn't watch the last 3 movies. Heath Ledgers performance was a amazing. The Dark Knight is not Batman Forever. You clearly stopped watching the superhero movies when they were bad.
The Dark Knight is about a man who has taken up a job that he wants to quit. His reasons for taking that job were personal. His parents were murdered when he was a kid. His whole life he has been seeking to create order out of the chaos that was his life. The job of maintaining the order is a burden however. In the movie he has found somebody to replace him. The question is the person who is to replace him of the moral fortitude to be able to do that.
The answer is no. A Mephistophelian figure has come out of nowhere and disrupted the order. This person is an anarchist. All the order that the man has been working towards is about to go down hill.
Just when he is about to quit and his replacement has assured him he will be able to maintain the order for him, his replacement has become corrupted.
In the end the man who had worked his whole life to maintain order must now do the thing he would never do. In the end he kills his replacement.
It's actually way more complicated than that. Over a trilogy it's fleshed out considerably. The tone of the last 3 batman movies was similar to "There Will be Blood" which you had mentioned earlier.
Also, we have to keep in mind if we break apart The Dark Knight. The Joker wasn't even the antagonist. He was the key supporting character. In any good work of fiction you have a person who is the perceived antagonist against the goal to be reached in a movie. The antagonist will block the goal. The Joker didn't block the goal, the Joker directed him towards achieving it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well TIODP is PG-13, same rating as dark knight and isn't anymore of an adult film, it's also silly to say that Heath wouldn't have seen Dark Knight, that's obviously not true.
If you look at the average age of someone who saw Dark Knight, there was plenty of people 25 and up, it wasn't like a bunch of teenagers were the only people who saw it, the movie made a billion dollars.
He was just as passionate if not more passionate about his role as the Joker as anything else he's ever done, he was a real actor, he wouldn't take one role less seriously cuz it's a blockbuster.
and people will be looking at his performance in TDK for decades and years, it's one of the great performances of the last decade and he's going to be remembered for it, like he should be.
It's also a much more complete performance in a much better film than TIODP.