Movies

Watched Godfather and Godfather Part II last night in a single (almost - beer and toilet breaks) sitting.

Liked original more than p. 2, didn't recognized Caan as Sonny (wtf?) Great movie, I've seen it before as kid, but didn't get most of it, now, years later, with a different perspective I enjoyed it most.

Now I'm back at the office on Saturday night with a ton of Red Bull and Star Wars Trilogy working on a little thing for tomorrow.

Life's good =)
 
A quick thought - there are a few reasons Sin City doesn't draw immediate comparisons. Sin City was a graphic novel intended for a mature audience and the movie followed suit, and in the past movie iterations of Batman have been mildly cheesy to over-the-top horrible (except Nolan's, in my opinion). Nolan's Batman films are closer to Miller's Sin City in this regard but its a bit veiled - Sin City has a (anti)hero and a cast of characters that, in the popular eye I believe, do not equate to Batman. Batman equates to Superman, Spiderman - other DC and Marvel franchises (in popular opinion). Also, though I did really like Sin City, and I thought it was great at bringing that classic Noir touch - something, admittedly, The Dark Knight lacked (albeit I wasn't looking for it) - I didn't think any one person in Sin City acted as well as Ledger in this movie. And although I'm sure most will disagree, I thought some of the dialogue was cheesy in Sin City in that it was predictable (Bruce Willis' character comes to mind) - just some, and it has been a while since I've seen the movie (months, not years).

That being said, I've abstaining from leveraging an argument for the movie because the only person with a negative opinion I can find offhand is so clearly prejudiced. The fact that he has seen and (presumably. based upon stated opinion) disliked Nolan's films so much, its of no surprise he didn't like this one. I can't see a point in trying to deliberate with someone whose convictions apparently run so strongly that valid points are ignored for the sake of arguement. So be it.

Addendum: Taking sideswipes at people uninvolved in this "discussion" is both crass and immature. Its poor representation, and it lends oneself to being further ignored.
 
While I'll admit that Sin City really wasn't my cup of tea, it was still a very good movie. However, I'd have to agree with DoC that it's not really a 'comic book movie' to me. I'd be more likely to compare it with 300, not just from a style perspective, but from a source perspective as well. Perhaps it's because I haven't read the Batman: Year One series, but I'm almost hesitant to throw TDK in with the 'graphic novel movie' genre - as much as they said the above graphic novel was the inspiration for the movie, it still seemed more like a 'comic book movie' to me, albeit a much darker one.

~kov.
 
[cough] 300 is a comic book movie as well, just with parts of it being historical. [/cough}
 
The Dark Knight

As a great fan of the Nolans’ earlier work and of course Batman Begins I’d waited for this movie for over a year and just arrived from my second screening. I’ve never really been a comic book fan of any kind but the Batman character has always interested me. I’d say the movie is brilliant, not perfect but a brilliant thriller – yes a thriller, not a superhero/comic book -action movie. The plot has a lot of twists and turns – a very common Nolans’ movie in that sense and really grabs you in for two and a half hours, there’s not a dull moment to be seen. There’s a lot happening here and this movie has to be seen multiple times before really getting the “whole” movie – another common thing in the Nolan’s work.

This really is the story of Harvey Dent - Batman/Bruce Wayne and The Joker are more secondary characters as the movie evolves mostly around Dent. The biggest real hype and controversy around this movie was Heath Ledger’s performance as Batman’s nemesis, The Joker. His performance is very good; he really lost himself within the character and delivers some awesome lines and truly memorable movie moments. He is menacing, even when he jokes and an terrifyingly clever anarchist. Something, I don’t know whether it’s the script or the performance but something crucial is missing to make this version of The Joker the most memorable or terrifying villain on the silver screen (even though no one else comes to mind – and yes easily above Nicholson). The performance that surprised me the most was Aaron Eckhart’s, he really delivers the goods. Christian Bale is superb as expected but is out-shadowed by the two. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Maggie Gyllenhaal are solid aswell.

The Dark Knight is easily the darkest and most epic comic book based adaptation I’ve encountered along with Batman Begins. The visuals are amazing, the explosions and action sequences are one of the best I’ve witnessed on the silver screen, truly awesome cinematography. The score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard really adds the impact with the beautiful contrasts of drama and haunting pieces of music. Now, the thing that bothers me is that although Batman does some detective work he relies so much on his gadgets that it really draws just a little bit away from the more realistic detective-gadget approach of Begins which I really love. Also Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Scarecrow in Batman Begins was spot on and he’s criminally under-used here. The dealing with the hero-factor and escalation through-out the movie is truly enjoyable and thought-provoking presented with well-written dialog.

As I said it is a brilliant movie and I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a truly entertaining and brilliant thriller.

Ps. Love that magic trick :heh:

9/10
 
Matse said:
[cough] 300 is a comic book movie as well, just with parts of it being historical. [/cough}
Click to expand...

I do know that it was based on a graphic novel - I'd actually had a chance to read it before seeing the movie. I was trying to distinguish between what I consider "comic book movies", and what I'd rather term "graphic novel movies". I'd lump X-Men, Spiderman, Batman, Superman, etc. in the former, and Sin City, 300, Watchmen in the latter. Semantics aside, it mostly just boils down to a stylistic difference for me. So of course, it's all just one big opinion.

~kov.
 
I haven't yet seen The Dark Knight, but a good friend of mine (with far wider knowledge about movies than my very limited understanding of just a few genres and styles) who just recently watched it described it pretty much along the lines of Salamurhaaja and Misanthrope, probably falling somewhere inbetween the two. He said it was a good superhero-movie, but a weak crime drama, basically saved by a couple of good performances (he really loved Ledger's Joker). He said he'd give it an 8/10 if he felt very generous, and that he'd question the sanity of anyone thinking it was the best movie ever made.

I'll probably see it when it comes on DVD.

QRV said:
Watchmen sucks. it's a pretentious, deceiving piece of shit comic.
Click to expand...

I somewhat dislike it too (I just don't like how it reads), but Watchmen just happens to be one of the best graphic novels (or comic books, whichever way you like it) ever written. This is a fact, not an opinion. Calling it "pretentious, deceiving piece of shit comic" just shows you understand absolutely nothing about comics.

I don't like everything Dostoyevski has written, but most of them are still timeless masterpieces, far above any competition, despite my opinion on them. Watchmen is, pretty much, on par with Dostoyevski's best works. I just don't like it (especially when compared to some other works by Alan Moore that read much better, in my opinion).

Oh, and the best graphic novel series ever is Hiroki Endo's Eden. I have some other favorites that I might like even more, but there's just no denying Eden's overall quality.

-Villain
 
plintus said:
Watchmen is just a comic book?
Click to expand...

Yes, I, quite frankly, don't give a fuck what Wiki says on this, it appeared
as single issues back in the day, only after they packaged the thing to make
more money did it become a "graphic novel", it's not, it's a comic book trade
paperback.

Of course it's a fucking excellent comic book, but that doesn't make it a
"graphic novel".
 
Salamurhaaja said:
Yes, I, quite frankly, don't give a fuck what Wiki says on this, it appeared
as single issues back in the day, only after they packaged the thing to make
more money did it become a "graphic novel", it's not, it's a comic book trade
paperback.

Of course it's a fucking excellent comic book, but that doesn't make it a
"graphic novel".
Click to expand...

Alan Moore agrees with you.

-Villain
 
Since I'm bored and my train doesn't leave for another 2 hours or so, if I can
even get in it, I will write something about the other recent movies I've seen.

Note: I won't go into as much detail here as I did with TDK, mainly cos I'm not
that bored and most of these movies sucked much more than TDK and haven't
received such adoration from the general public.


Iron Man
I wasn't expecting much with this one, I really dislike Tony Stark/Iron Man as
a character and I quite don't see why they would even make a movie about
him, it's not like he's that interesting.

I was surprised, the movie was much better, not so much as a deep story or
anything, but as a good action flick.

They had updated the "birth" and it was pretty cool to see the old armor, not
so much cos it was the 60's but cos he had to make it from scrap metal and
other weapon parts.

Robert Downey Jr. does a pretty impressive job as Tony Stark too, I guess
cos he always reminded me of the kind of a slime bag that Tony Stark is and
if you think he's somekind of a hero, you need to read Civil War, he's the
worst kind of a politician scum you can find.

Anyway, all that aside, the movie is pretty good until the villain shows up, at
that point something happens and the movie slows to a stall and goes into a
tailspin it doesn't recover from.


The Incredible Hulk
I was thinking this might be something cos it stared Ed Norton, boy was I ever
wrong, of course at that time I didn't know it used Liv Tylers "acting" skills.

While there is a couple of nice fight scenes, the movie mostly sucks in a way
only 2 dollar crackwhore with the shivers can. That said, it's still so much
better than Ang Lee's pathetic drama version.


Wanted
Throw your brains in the bin and enjoy.
Oh and the nude scene with Angelina Jolie is about 2 seconds of her butt :err:


Hancock
Yay! Another Will Smith summer blockbuster.
Kinda funny at times, but then quickly becomes more and more stupid as the
"plot" evolves and by the end you might feel like a voluntary lobotomy just to
forget it all.


I'm fairly certain there was others but they musta sucked even more since I
don't even remember their names.


La Rocque said:
Watchman is consider by those in the know(not some Latino loser) as one of the top 100 books of all time -
Click to expand...

I would really put it in top 10 myself.


Villain said:
Alan Moore agrees with you.

-Villain
Click to expand...

Good enough for me :D
 
Salamurhaaja said:
Yes, I, quite frankly, don't give a fuck what Wiki says on this, it appeared as single issues back in the day, only after they packaged the thing to make more money did it become a "graphic novel", it's not, it's a comic book trade paperback.

Of course it's a fucking excellent comic book, but that doesn't make it a
"graphic novel".
Click to expand...

I still prefer to separate it from run-of-the-mill comic books (I happen to own the collective edition, by accident I got it not long after The Dark Knight Returns, which is also considered one of the first "graphic novels").

Ronin by Miller is pretty good too... as well as Sin City.
 
Villain said:
I somewhat dislike it too (I just don't like how it reads), but Watchmen just happens to be one of the best graphic novels (or comic books, whichever way you like it) ever written. This is a fact, not an opinion. Calling it "pretentious, deceiving piece of shit comic" just shows you understand absolutely nothing about comics.

I don't like everything Dostoyevski has written, but most of them are still timeless masterpieces, far above any competition, despite my opinion on them. Watchmen is, pretty much, on par with Dostoyevski's best works. I just don't like it (especially when compared to some other works by Alan Moore that read much better, in my opinion).
Click to expand...

#1 technically (that is, in the narrative and visual department), Watchmen was stunning and innovating, I can grant that much; #2 but it lacked a lot of substance. Moore just threw in a bunch of redundant stories about heroes that somehow share the same basic oedipal troubles, and tried to embellish it with some superficial bullshit about destiny, human nature and sociopathy. it was something new for its time, but I still don't get how people can possibly crave this piece of crap that much.

For that matter, I still prefrer The Dark Knight Returns by far, not to mention Neil Gaiman's comics, which kick the shit out of Moore's by long long miles.
 
I've just got Miller's Sin City and A Dame To Kill For, not sure any longer if that's the original, but it's some fat paperbacks with an original cover as I was told (searched online, but didn't find the ones I have).

Cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Will Bozarth
Actor Wesley Snipes accused of tax fraud
Replies
17
Views
521
Nevermore
mReEtTaIlRsEkD
M
Kohlrabihaus
Two questions
Replies
5
Views
949
Chris Broderick
Kohlrabihaus
K
Nikki
Post your video game collection
Replies
33
Views
1K
CoB Off-topic
Altitudes
A
W
HUGE List For Sale or Trade (Vinyl, Movies, Shirts, MORE!!)
Replies
3
Views
4K
Trade / For Sale
Bartholin
B
Dustin
The CMF gig journal... unabridged version?
Replies
2
Views
647
Katagory V
JazzMX5
J
Top Bottom
Back