[Closed] Recent Viewing

Agreed. Easily the biggest piece of crap I´ve seen this year. And I loved The Happening. Imagine how bad AVP2 must be.

I got to the point where there was a monkey thing appearing in the bushes, and then I lost attention. I've no idea what happens in the end *goes to wikipedia*.

Beside the fact that the whole movie is a fantastic piece of fairy tale stuff, yeah, the ending especially is as beautiful as they can get.

Yep!

Yup.

At least - if you decide to hate the movie in general - there is this movie critic in it who gets what they all deserve.

He´s not unlike some people I know who think they know everything about movie scores and what makes a good one...

THE DARK KNIGHT

Pretty good, guys. It's a grim night at the cinema, and there are some minor flaws, but I can well understand why many are calling it the best comic book film ever made. I can't think of another superhero film that takes the viewer on such an intense, dramatic ride. It starts slow, but when it winds up... BOOM.

I'd say the only really unfortunate thing about the film is that of the film's four pillars, Batman, Joker, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, Batman is the one we spend the least time on a personal level. I mean when he's not playing Batman, and not playing the playboy Bruce Wayne. We don't spend enough time with that guy, and given how much that was at the heart of BATMAN BEGINS, it's a slight shame. But another way of looking at it is that this is much more of an ensemble drama than the first film, which was one man's journey. This film is about everyone's choices.

If there's anything else I'd say - this film probably is best seen on a normal cinema screen, not an IMAX scene. If Nolan shot his scenes from a more widescreen perspective, I'd say 'go for it'. But there are two critical action sequences where my friends had no idea what was happening, and the only reason I knew is that I was that I'm a more attentive viewer. This isn't a film killer, because the best parts really are when the characters are talking to each other.

A rare thing: I didn't notice when specific cues appeared in the film. I was caught up in the story enough not to notice. I do think 'Like a Dog Pushing Cars' appears over the end title. I don't remember where it appeared in the story.

No spoilers from me. Think twice about taking children and girlfriends. Especially children.

And can I just say this: IT'S GREAT TO ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE A SUMMER STUDIO TENTPOLE. I can't remember the last time that happened to me.

Well they could be right, because they've seen it, and I haven't. But maybe they're not right, because they assume a general audience will share the reaction of someone who watches films all day, or because they weren't offered free tickets to IMAX session in order to say it wasn't any good. (The line between promotion and reporting on that site is pretty thin.) Complete immersion in a cinema screen, which Nolan speaks of, is not so big an issue in a cinema with good sound, a decent size screen, and something worth watching. I can see how the shots of Batman pirouetting like a paraglider through the night sky would benefit from a big screen - you'd really feel like you were falling with him. But the action scenes in general, blown up, will probably have a similar effect on an audience as some of those BOURNE ULTIMATUM scenes do in a cinema. If you can take it, go for it, but to me it seems like a gimmick. And I love Nolan's films - I think THE PRESTIGE is incredible - but the way he does action scenes really doesn't play well to a big screen, and I don't think a bigger screen is going to hide that. The film's real virtue, strong theme-driven plotting, will be just as strong either way.

Saw a trailer for WALL-E last night. Made me want to see more!

MY GOD, now you made me want to see it! But those monsters looked really stupid through the few glimpses i took?

Nothing stupid about them, you must've seen some bad quality clips then. In fact you don't see a whole lot of them, it's all rather suggestive but they show themselves where it counts. They're actually quite good CGI-wise.

Nah! I got a good slagging off from Mel for renting that junk!

I was looking at the screenings at the Waterloo IMAX (it's the ONLY one in the country). Let's just say it looks near impossible to see at a convenient time. It got booked up aaaages ago!

The sequel is much better, actually!

(Well, I sure as hell enjoyed it more, but then I'm a staunch and pigheaded opponent to the near-biblical status 2001 has achieved. Influential, certainly. Visually stunning, without a doubt. 40% brilliant and exciting. 50% mindnumbingly boring. 10% LSD-generation-type incomprehensible.)

But then, so is — or seems to be — life in space for those men, right? : )
How could 2001 be boring when it leaves you in such awe. I guess you're reffering to the first 20 minutes or so ?

If I want to know about life in space, I'll watch a documentary.



Because many of the scenes go on wayyyyyy too long (and beyond awe into simple boredom.
Yeah. The rocket shuttle is docking. We GET it. We got it TWENTY minutes ago!)



No. Generic comment.
Thing is that I'm not opposed to slow and deliberate pacing when it enhances the narrative (compare Kubrick's own Barry Lyndon on a textbook example how this is executed well. In 2001 it just seems a stylistic element that hammers home the ponderous and leaden message (which is something like "we are mere specks in the eye of eternity, from which we are born and shall ultimately all return to; oh, and also always build an 'Off' switch into computers") and the almost onanistic pride and satisfaction in the special effects.