MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade > Replies
Ace_Spade's Replies
The Major doing a Pollock. That nearly made me choke.
I love these. I think American Graffiti on Tatooine is hilarious (although very well done), and the episode focusing on Leia's acquisition of the plans is so much better than Rogue One.
They released versions awhile ago (mid-2000s) that had the current updated version (with whatever BS George put in there) packaged with a "bonus disk" of the original film without any updates at all.
Lucas was clearly bitter about it (the bonus disk versions don't have updated sound or picture quality as though George was going, "You don't like my edits? You want the original films? FINE! HERE! THEY'RE UNCHANGED IN ANY WAY! HUMPH!")
Here's a link on Amazon:
New Hope:
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Limited/dp/B000FQJAIW
Empire:
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Empire-Strikes-Limited/dp/B000FQJAJG
I couldn't find Jedi. Sorry...
In the original trilogy, I'm most bothered by Obi-Wan Kenobi's "different point of view" excuse - clearly written post-facto to explain this plot hole. It's a pretty weak explanation (and one reason I've never bought into George Lucas' rhetoric of his having planned the whole thing from the start).
The prequels make more inconsistencies/plot holes. There are too many. Lots bother me, but one of the biggest is that they split the twins up to ensure that Darth Vader can't find them. They give Leia to Bail Organa and she is hidden on Alderaan, given his name and thousands of light years of distance. Then they hide Luke by calling him Skywalker and sticking him on Vader's home planet...with Vader's only other living relatives... What...? Obi-wan also changes his name to "Ben", but ignores the "Kenobi" part...so many things of this nature drive me mad and contribute to my dislike of the prequels.
Once you stack the new films on top... Whoo, boy! Where to start? Again. Dozens of inconsistencies bug me here, but for my biggest, I'm going to have to go with Luke Skywalker going from a can-do, optimistic, spiritual guru to a depressed hermit with no will to live ignoring the Force. Though a close second is the Republic being in charge of the galaxy for a few decades without noticing the First Order building a planet-sized superweapon about a solar system away. Ah, heck, I also really, really, really hate the inconsistency in Han's character. Scurvy but loyal, cares for Leia, Chewy, the Falcon...abandons Leia and loses the Falcon. Nope.
Yeah, Zorro is another great jumping-off point. Unfortunately, there are a few genres that Hollywood sorta stopped making entirely. Swashbuckler is one of them. Epics are another. They don't really make them any more, and when they do, they rarely do them right. Pirates is an exception (Lord of the Rings for epics). Few and far between. Oh, well. At least I've got Errol on DVD.
I don't even think the stock market plan would work short term. Here's an Atlantic article explaining why it would definitely not work:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/banes-plan-to-bankrupt-batman-doesnt-make-any-sense/260191/
I still don't buy the Blake stuff. To clarify: I know what it was supposed to show me, but the connection between the two feels forced and implausible. I definitely do not buy that Bruce would admit anything based off of such a small interaction.
You're right: Batman *could* have done all of that with the fire bat. But even that demands the question as to when he did it and to what end. Batman was retired and depressed for eight years. When did he put that bat there? I'm not saying he couldn't have, it's just a lot of disbelief to suspend.
The aggregate of the minor nitpicks, the major flaws, and the (to me) slipshod scripting add up to a Dark Knight trilogy ending that wasn't satisfying (for me). I respect that you love the movie, more power to you, but it just didn't work for me.
The power gets turned off at Wayne manor. I don't think it would get that far. I don't even buy it working moderately in the short term. I guess you do, and that's fine, but to me, it's still a huge plot hole.
I know that it was done to show Blake understood Wayne. It felt rushed, cheap, and shoehorned in. It makes no sense that Bruce would admit to being Batman based on one conversation. There's a lot of other stuff around Blake I find frustrating, in terms of plot, character development, pacing, etc.
Every available unit is not the same thing as literally every cop. If we aren't supposed to think that Gordon made a good move, I'd say that makes it worse. Gordon is good at his job. This is his job. If we non-Commissioner people can tell it's a bad move, Gordon shouldn't be making it. That contradicts his characterisation in both the comic books and the previous two movies of the trilogy. As a minor note, I said this was a "character problem" not a plot hole. I listed it among other problems I have with the film. I know it's not a plot hole by the technical definition, but it's still sloppy script writing and character work.
The fire bat is activated by a flare set to liquid on the ice. It's unlikely that Batman set it up ahead of time. To me, that moment is like the kamikaze attack in Star Wars: The Last Jedi - it's a really cool moment, visually stunning, but raises some serious questions plot-wise.
I don't want to give the impression that I hate everything about the movie, either. While I was disappointed by it, I liked a lot of the action, there were some thrilling moments, Hathway's Catwoman was great, I liked the ending, and the setup a lot... There's just a lot of stuff I didn't like.
I was just curious which ones you thought were top of the game. You mentioned Moonraker elsewhere here. Of the Roger Moore Bonds, I always like Live and Let Die, Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only.
I've never thought of Bruce getting back to Gotham being a plot hole. It would've been nice if they could have given more of an explanation, but I buy that Bruce is hyper-resourceful in a pinch.
No, for me the biggest thing that I can't get around is Bane bankrupting Wayne. He raids the stock exchange, hacks in, steals nothing, and nobody can even figure out what he did. It "just so happens" that after the raid Bruce Wayne has made a bunch of stupid trades, bankrupting Wayne. The plot hole is Wayne Enterprise's lawyers. They would fight the validity of those trades given Bane's very visible antics. They would fight because if Bruce goes down, that would plummet Wayne Enterprises' stock even further. If the real world is any indicator, the rich don't go bankrupt and find themselves instantly in a blacked out mansion with no resources. It all gets sown up so neatly for Bane. Too neatly. I don't buy it. Any trade made
I also mentioned that Blake "figures out" Bruce is Batman by a "look" and then Bruce cops to it without resistance. Maybe it's not really a "plot hole" since, I guess Blake might make that guess and Bruce could cave, but...it's a really, really, really, really, really big stretch and goes dead against Bruce's character.
There are other character problems - Gordon sends the cops into the sewers seems against his usual tactical, calm demeanor.
Another strange thing is Batman taking nuclear bomb disarming time out of his schedule to paint a multi-story high flaming bat on a building.
There are more things I find everywhere from annoying to aggravating about the film. To each his own, I suppose, but I was quite disappointed by the third installment of Nolan's trilogy.
1. Casino Royale - feels the slickest and tightest of the four.
2. Skyfall - has some interesting themes about age v. youth, the exploration of M is great.
3. Spectre - some very nice moments, but it's long and plodding; the Blofeld/Bond connection was eye-rollingly bad.
4. Quantum of Solace - my least favourite Bond movie of all time.
Lots of reasons...
1. Doesn't feel like a Bond film. I don't mean that he doesn't sleep with one of the women or that he orders beer instead of his martini. Neither of those help, but I don't need either for Bond to be Bond. What I mean is that it's lacking every element and nuance that makes Bond Bond. There is an exception in the opera scene, which reclaims the 007 vibe for a short bout, but mostly the entire vibe of the film is off-kilter. It's a decent action movie (although not great), but it has no sense of what it is. It feels like I'm watching Charles Dickens in pastel colours.
2. The action scenes are terrible. Shaky cam works in a film like Saving Private Ryan where Spielberg is attempting to show the chaos of being in combat. When used for the larger-than-life spy/action film, it's a severe detriment.
3. It seems to be hedging its bets a lot. It keeps a toe in the Bond world, but kinda wants to be Jason Bourne. It has over the top action hero stunt stuff, but also wants to keep the movie grounded in real world issues. Then, when it goes into those issues, it never goes too deep, because that would have plunged the movie into drama - they keep it an action movie. As a result, it's a jack of all trades without being really competent at anything.
4. Overall, I found the film forgettable. As I said before, it's a decent action movie, but it doesn't stand out. Do you remember the Jet Li, Jason Statham film War? Neither do I, and I saw it. Quantum of Solace was so very, very unmemorable.
For me, most of it comes from number one and number four. I'm not saying I'm right, just saying that's why I don't like the movie.
Well, while I'd argue that a full evaluation of Dr. No couldn't be had without watching the full film, you're probably right based on the last third of the movie that you wouldn't like the first two-thirds.
For me, I like those first Bond films because, although they have their share of Bond's slick, larger-than-life style, they seem more like classic spy stories (Dragon Tanks notwithstanding). From Russia with Love is about Cold War stuff, it's almost entirely internal to the spy world. It feels grounded, which makes the fantastic elements pop more without getting too carried away.
Moonraker is a good laugh - it's certainly fun - but it gets too far on the campy side of things for my taste.
It's a fine line, I think, between too goofy and too serious for my Bond enjoyment. But, I think this is part of the fun of Bond. It's like Batman. There are goofy, campy versions, and there are serious versions, and everybody's got a favourite.
What's your favourite Bond flick?
Funny, my favourite Bond film is From Russia with Love, and I think I prefer Dr. No to Goldfinger as well (though I have a deep love of Goldfinger).
What makes you say that this isn't Bond? What's holding it back?
You're probably right - it's the comparison to the excellent second film that's doing this. He probably wanted to move from Joker to Bane. It's just that the Dark Knight Rises was so hit-and-miss for me that I figure something must have interfered with the scripting. It's just so (comparatively) messy.
Thing is, retrospectively, I like Batman Begins basically as much as The Dark Knight. The latter impressed me more on my first viewing, but when I think about them, I remember them as equally excellent films. Even while watching Dark Knight Rises, there were parts that weren't working for me.
I certainly disagree. There are definitely plot holes.
I'll never pretend I'm the ultimate arbiter on great cinema - if people like or love The Dark Knight Rises, I certainly can understand why they do - but I thought it wasn't as well-executed as the first two films in the Dark Knight Trilogy.
BB
Favourite: Batman systematically eliminating the goons at the docks like a monster in a horror movie.
Least Favourite: I've got to agree: Holmes as Dawes was disappointing.
TDK
Favourite: The "mirror image" theme that is presented, juxtaposing Harvey (White Knight) with Batman, Two-Face himself, Joker and Batman, and so forth. It questions the duality of good and evil, the shades of grey involved, where the lines are, and what draws those lines and makes them acceptable.
Least Favourite: The lifeless nature of Gotham. After Anton Furst's amazing Gothic Batman '89 and the similarly-toned Batman Returns, after Batman Begins gave us the Kowloon slums standing in for the eerie, atmospheric, claustrophobic Narrows, Nolan made the major misstep of basically showing us Chicago/"LA from Heat". The city is so important in Batman's universe and it is grotesquely forgotten here.
DKR
Favourite: Wayne the recluse is a great starting point for some real gripping drama...
Least Favourite: ...that never goes anywhere. I don't really like this film and I was pretty disappointed by it, to be honest. It has a lot of plot holes, its story is overburdened with plots and characters, and it just disappoints me so much. All that potential and it's just blown. I can't help wondering if Nolan had a different ending in mind, using the Joker, and had to jump to make it work. If I must pick an absolutely least-favourite moment, it's definitely Blake "figuring out" Batman's identity by a "look in Wayne's eyes" followed by Bruce just basically going, "Yup, you got me. Your hunch is right."
Rankings:
-Dark Knight and Batman Begins are both A-
-Dark Knight Rises is C+
You know, I don't mind The Quick and the Dead. It's got heavy flaws, but there's some really solid stuff in there. The confrontation near the end with Hackman and DiCaprio I find really great - there's a real drama going on there. Sharon Stone, not so much... And I felt like they didn't really do a good job fleshing out Russell Crowe's pacifist streak terribly well.
Up-front, let me say how stoked I am to talk to someone who also digs on The World is Not Enough. It gets trashed a lot and, while I understand the criticism of Denise Richards, I don't get how Elektra King doesn't more than make up for that. It's a killer Bond flick.
I agree with you on Quantum of Solace, too. It's easily my least favourite Bond, given how un-Bond the whole thing is. Jason Bourne doesn't have a British accent. Bond doesn't act like Jason Bourne. And "shaky cam" is not useful in a Bond picture.
I very, very much disagree with Casino Royale. I quibble with parts (nobody should tell Bond how to dress, the final poker game have one-after-another the most unlikely hands in the game had me rolling my eyes), but overall, I think it's really solid. It's an origin story without being terrible. Vesper is a great character, Bond works for me here (though I would like a bit more humour and wit - he does have some), Le Chiffre is a marvelous villain, etc.
Skyfall is brilliant, too. I'm with you on this one. The plot gets a little too convoluted at times (Silva falls into the bin with the Joker and Loki as "captured on purpose") but it's such a thrilling ride. Everything in Scotland is great, too, starting with when Bond gets his old retro car out and the retro music plays.
I think young Q kinda works for a couple reasons. First, Ben Whishaw is a great actor. But, more importantly, it works with one of the main themes of the movie. The movie is questioning "out with the old, in with the new". Just because something is more modern and sophisticated doesn't make the "old" bad or even worse. Bond is questioned throughout the film (is he aging out?) and he is pitted against computer crackers like Q and Silva. But when push comes to shove, it's his spycraft and old school methods that win out. Experience is a plus. The final reason young Q works is because nobody can really compete with Desmond Llewellyn as the character. To try to make replace him would fail.
1. Others have pointed out he was making money by risking his life with the scorpion. I'm going to speculate that there are a thousand other ways Bond could make money with his skillset, at least enough to get whatever he wanted on a day-to-day basis. It's possible or even likely he has hidden assets, too.
2. Doctors and healthcare professionals exist everywhere. Bond is probably familiar with rudimentary healing and physiotherapy to keep himself in shape and not-dying. He could stop an infection, I would think. The bullet fragments were still in his shoulder, so I'm thinking he stitched himself up, checked himself for awhile to see if an infection was setting in and when it didn't, stopped caring.
3. Dunno. Could've had a satellite linked to English TV. If it's a bar that tourists frequent, it might be set up to cater to them. It also could be that Bond was tired of watching TV in other languages and got the guy an illegal cable hookup or something.
Agreed. If it was a radio play and Sim did the gruff, guttural voice he puts on while shouting at Marley, you'd think Scrooge was furious and impassioned in that moment - a man so hardened he can't be afraid of a ghost. If you look at his face, it is a stern mask against his foe - every bit as implacable as his voice. But if you stare into his eyes and note his body language, he's terrified out of his mind, conjuring this make-believe toughness out of sheer desperate fear.
Overall, I think Sim's performance as Scrooge is one of the best performances of all time - not just of Scrooge: of anything. His nuance, range, and subtlety are unparalleled.