You didn't really like TDK, did you? Personally, I totally loved it. But it's not a flawless movie; it has one flaw. It's too long. Cut it by ten, twenty minutes, and you have a 10/10 movie. I'd personally give it a 9.5/10 at the moment. Still one of my favorite films of all time... but I'll reserve fully stating my opinion of it until I go to a second viewing of it. I can't wait, lolz.
And No Country for Old Men is not a mainstream film in the sense that it's an artsy film made for critics and for oscars, not for audience. Not everyone will like it. I liked it, but not to an extreme level like some of the reviews make it out to be. And if Javier Bardam can win an oscar, I'm sure Heath Ledger- who gave a stronger performance (IMO)- also deserves it.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
You didn't really like TDK, did you? Personally, I totally loved it. But it's not a flawless movie; it has one flaw. It's too long. Cut it by ten, twenty minutes, and you have a 10/10 movie. I'd personally give it a 9.5/10 at the moment. Still one of my favorite films of all time... but I'll reserve fully stating my opinion of it until I go to a second viewing of it. I can't wait, lolz.And No Country for Old Men is not a mainstream film in the sense that it's an artsy film made for critics and for oscars, not for audience. Not everyone will like it. I liked it, but not to an extreme level like some of the reviews make it out to be. And if Javier Bardam can win an oscar, I'm sure Heath Ledger- who gave a stronger performance (IMO)- also deserves it.
I like No Country For Old Men a lot more than TDK. I thought The Dark Knight was alright, I agree that it was too long, but I also thought that much of the directing left a lot to be desired. It only really enthralled me when Ledger was on the screen. I'm not a Batman fan, but a movie fan.
In no way do I think that No Country For Old Men was made for the Oscars or critics. If you read the novel, you will instantly realise that this bleak setting and dialogue is a key part of the story telling process. Also, the character of the Joker gives a lot more room for outward madness etc. whereas the character of Chigurh is all about understatement, creating a sense of dread with a simple flick of the hand, or a glance.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I like No Country For Old Men a lot more than TDK. I thought The Dark Knight was alright, I agree that it was too long, but I also thought that much of the directing left a lot to be desired. It only really enthralled me when Ledger was on the screen. I'm not a Batman fan, but a movie fan.In no way do I think that No Country For Old Men was made for the Oscars or critics. If you read the novel, you will instantly realise that this bleak setting and dialogue is a key part of the story telling process. Also, the character of the Joker gives a lot more room for outward madness etc. whereas the character of Chigurh is all about understatement, creating a sense of dread with a simple flick of the hand, or a glance.
What didn't you like about TDK? After the first half, I was literally shaking with excitement. It was -that- good. Though it got a little long, and so it become slightly tiresome in its last 5 or 10 minutes.
Though, I was accidentally spoiled about Two-Face's fate. So, that might have killed a bit of the fun of the ending.
I understand the No Country for Old Men is an eerie, weird film, and it's bleak atmosphere is a large part of it- however, it's an artsy movie that, while maintaining a constant air of tension throughout it, rarely truly thrilled me. The Dark Knight, for the vast majority of it, was major adrenaline. Though instead of making me run like crazy from its excitement, it left me feeling slightly tired. But the 'wow' feeling never faded, and I can't get that image of that Fake-Batman being hanged outside the window. Most of it was WAAAAY more disturbing than your average horror movie.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
What didn't you like about TDK? After the first half, I was literally shaking with excitement. It was -that- good. Though it got a little long, and so it become slightly tiresome in its last 5 or 10 minutes.Though, I was accidentally spoiled about Two-Face's fate. So, that might have killed a bit of the fun of the ending.
I understand the No Country for Old Men is an eerie, weird film, and it's bleak atmosphere is a large part of it- however, it's an artsy movie that, while maintaining a constant air of tension throughout it, rarely truly thrilled me. The Dark Knight, for the vast majority of it, was major adrenaline. Though instead of making me run like crazy from its excitement, it left me feeling slightly tired. But the 'wow' feeling never faded, and I can't get that image of that Fake-Batman being hanged outside the window. Most of it was WAAAAY more disturbing than your average horror movie.
If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.
I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.
The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenI hate you.
If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.
The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you're someone who likes going to cinema to watch explosions, then yes, I'm sure it was thrilling. Personally, I find something that's actually believable to be a lot more thrilling and pack more of a punch.
And TDK... isn't believable? It's a perfectly believable film, actually. The Joker there is just a crazy, insanely intelligent guy who likes to put on makeup and kill people. The mobster part is believable, the Harvey Dent part of the storyline is satisfyingly tragic, and Batman is- although he is given less to do in this film- depicted as truly emotionally torn and complex. It's by far the most believable superhero movie ever made.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I honestly do not see what everyone is raving about with The Dark Knight. It was a lackluster performance on every ones part except Ledger's, especially Michael Caine's. The storyline was sparse to say the least - I wandered out of the cinema musing on what the point of the last two and a half explosion-filled hours had been.
Easily explained. It's the story of a desperate city trying to recover from corruption, poverty, and general crime-filled life. It's the story about.... err.. the 'bumps along the way'. It's a thought-provoking story that makes you truly believe in the darkness of humanity, and, you know? Most of all, it's a story about chaos. Whenever the Joker says something such as "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", you actually believe him- I thought about that for a bit. I seriously thought about it for a while- is everything a joke? Is life truly meaningful? Why are rules needed? If you could, would you murder someone? The story raises many, many questions. If you get over it being a 'mere superhero movie', you see how truly disturbing that stuff is.
Oh, and except for Maggie blablabla (I CANNOT spell her surname), every performance was strong. Especially Gary Oldman's; he's the most sympathetic character in the film, and the second best performance, next to Ledger's. Bale, the guy who played Harvey, and Caine are all very, very powerful.
I can't seem why someone will actually dislike that movie.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The fake Batman bit did make me jump, yeah. Though, that's probably because it roused me out of a near slumber.
I honestly cannot understand why it was boring to you. Then again, I'm not you, so maybe I shouldn't try.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And TDK... isn't believable? It's a perfectly believable film, actually. The Joker there is just a crazy, insanely intelligent guy who likes to put on makeup and kill people. The mobster part is believable, the Harvey Dent part of the storyline is satisfyingly tragic, and Batman is- although he is given less to do in this film- depicted as truly emotionally torn and complex. It's by far the most believable superhero movie ever made.
If we're just going to separate it into the genre of super hero films, then yeah, it probably is. The Harvey Dent part of the story line felt extremely rushed.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Easily explained. It's the story of a desperate city trying to recover from corruption, poverty, and general crime-filled life. It's the story about.... err.. the 'bumps along the way'. It's a thought-provoking story that makes you truly believe in the darkness of humanity, and, you know? Most of all, it's a story about chaos. Whenever the Joker says something such as "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", you actually believe him- I thought about that for a bit. I seriously thought about it for a while- is everything a joke? Is life truly meaningful? Why are rules needed? If you could, would you murder someone? The story raises many, many questions. If you get over it being a 'mere superhero movie', you see how truly disturbing that stuff is.
If you honestly only thought in that philosophical way after you saw The Dark Knight, then I truly pity you.
You seem to think that TDK is the first movie to address the dark side of humanity, or you might think it's the one that does it best (if so, I think you're insane).
Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Oh, and except for Maggie blablabla (I CANNOT spell her surname), every performance was strong. Especially Gary Oldman's; he's the most sympathetic character in the film, and the second best performance, next to Ledger's. Bale, the guy who played Harvey, and Caine are all very, very powerful.
Are you joking? Christian Bale I can sort of accept, Caine, Eckhart? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Caine did what he does in his worst performances - played himself, he was in no way believable, endearing or anything else. All it made me think was "oh look, there's Michael Caine". As for Eckhart, he'll never be a very good actor, his acting in TDK was average, acceptable, but not good.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I can't seem why someone will actually dislike that movie.I honestly cannot understand why it was boring to you. Then again, I'm not you, so maybe I shouldn't try.
Different tastes and all that, to a degree. Also, I didn't hate the movie, I thought it was alright - I just think that people are blowing it out of proportion.
From what I've seen so far this year, Heath definitely deserves a nomination. That might change, of course, depending on what else comes out, but for now he's in. I won't say he deserves to win, since it's way too early for that. But if he truly does end up with the best supporting performance of the year, then he deserves to win the award even though it will be posthumously.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If we're just going to separate it into the genre of super hero films, then yeah, it probably is. The Harvey Dent part of the story line felt extremely rushed.
I'll make a wild guess and say you're not a big fan of superhero movies, right?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you honestly only thought in that philosophical way after you saw The Dark Knight, then I truly pity you.
Tell that to someone who cares.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You seem to think that TDK is the first movie to address the dark side of humanity, or you might think it's the one that does it best (if so, I think you're insane).
I didn't say that it does it best. But TDK had everything:
Mind-blowing action? Check.
Spectacular, realistic special effects? Check.
Exceptional acting? Check.
Thought-provoking? Check.
One of the best villains to ever be portrayed in film? BIG CHECK.
Sufficiently brutal and dark? Check.
It has only one flaw. It's too long. That's it.
Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Are you joking? Christian Bale I can sort of accept, Caine, Eckhart? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Caine did what he does in his worst performances - played himself, he was in no way believable, endearing or anything else. All it made me think was "oh look, there's Michael Caine". As for Eckhart, he'll never be a very good actor, his acting in TDK was average, acceptable, but not good.
Oh, my, god. Don't tell me you're one of the "You don't know what you're talking about, my opinions is right, and your's is wrong!" people. I hope not.
And yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Christian Bale is very good. Caine? I really liked his performance. During every scene with him, I felt this wise, warm feeling coming from him; the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is one of the film's strongest points. Eckhart wasn't bad. He was mind-blowing, but he was, IMO, very good; to see how he degenerates from one of the most inspirational men in the movie into a violent monster, and how Batman's hope in him (causing him to eventually kill him), is tragic. The ending is tragic, too.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Different tastes and all that, to a degree. Also, I didn't hate the movie, I thought it was alright - I just think that people are blowing out of proportion.
It's your right to do that. Everyone has your opinion- it's, in my opinion, the best superhero movie ever made, the best movie of the year so far, and one of my favorite movies of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever made, like it says on IMDb? Nah. But I don't think any movie can appropriately be called 'the best movie ever made'. Not even 'classics' like the Godfather.
Re: Posthumous Awards.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Immediately Heath Ledger will spring to mind, but this is concerning the entire topic of posthumous awards.People have said Heath Ledger deserves the Oscar, or at least a nomination. I am reserving judgement as I am late seeing the movie (Will see it tomorrow).
Do you agree he deserves the nomination and/or award?
Why/Why not?
More importantly, do you feel posthumous awards are necessary or not?
Personally, I don't quite see the point of giving an award to people on behalf of a dead man or woman, since awards are SPECIFICALLY for the actor or actress. Appreciation will be there no matter what, which is what truly matters. It also taints the proceedings because there'll always be the matter of "Well, did he/she get it because they died?". I think there are a lot of credible reasons for posthumous awards to cease being given.
Your thoughts?
-AC
In the case of Ledger, I think it would be deserved. He took the character of an older veteran actor and made it his own, just like Ewan did with Obi-Wan Kenobi.
The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'll make a wild guess and say you're not a big fan of superhero movies, right?Tell that to someone who cares.
I didn't say that it does it best. But TDK had everything:
Mind-blowing action? Check.
Spectacular, realistic special effects? Check.
Exceptional acting? Check.
Thought-provoking? Check.
One of the best villains to ever be portrayed in film? BIG CHECK.
Sufficiently brutal and dark? Check.It has only one flaw. It's too long. That's it.
Also, most of the things you mentioned would typically be regarded as themes and motifs.Oh, my, god. Don't tell me you're one of the "You don't know what you're talking about, my opinions is right, and your's is wrong!" people. I hope not.
And yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Christian Bale is very good. Caine? I really liked his performance. During every scene with him, I felt this wise, warm feeling coming from him; the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is one of the film's strongest points. Eckhart wasn't bad. He was mind-blowing, but he was, IMO, very good; to see how he degenerates from one of the most inspirational men in the movie into a violent monster, and how Batman's hope in him (causing him to eventually kill him), is tragic. The ending is tragic, too.
It's your right to do that. Everyone has your opinion- it's, in my opinion, the best superhero movie ever made, the best movie of the year so far, and one of my favorite movies of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever made, like it says on IMDb? Nah. But I don't think any movie can appropriately be called 'the best movie ever made'. Not even 'classics' like the Godfather.
It's quite clear that no debate could make you see any other side. I've clearly accepted the fact that you like it as a matter of opinion, I've then pointed out objective flaws, which you dismiss as opinion. There is an objective measurement of talent in acting, like there is in any such performing art, so I'm not saying that my opinion is any better than yours.
The list you're checking off seems to be based on almost all opinion, either that, or you haven't watched many other films, or haven't got a critical appreciation of film.
Anyway, let's just accept that you like it, you've given your reasons. That I don't like it, for which I've given my reasons. Presently, we're derailing the topic of the thread.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaTrue, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve one though.
In the case of Ledger, I think it would be deserved. He took the character of an older veteran actor and made it his own, just like Ewan did with Obi-Wan Kenobi.The one type of posthumous awards that I oppose are military ones. When a soldier saves his buddies by throwing himself on top of a grenade, he's not doing it in hopes of getting a medal.
Really? The only 'objective' note I saw in your debate is that Harvey's transformation was extremely rushed. Again, I never felt any sort of 'rush' in it... other than that, your argument consisted of "Caine SUCKED!", "TDK uses themes already done BETTER!", and... that's it!
You didn't explain anything. There is no 'fact' when it comes to reviewing movies- there is only opinion. In your opinion, it was 'okay'. In my opinion, it was 'mind-blowing'. In your 'opinion', I can't critique a movie and, for some reason or another, cannot create an 'objective' argument.
By the way, I already noted that it's not a flawless movie and isn't quite a 10/10. Yes, my entire list is 'opinion'- I've watched loads of films. And the action in TDK is, when it comes to modern thrillers/action movies, very high up. The acting is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many critics), amazing. The themes in this movies are presented superbly; it's dark, disturbing, and violent, unlike any other superhero movie ever made. It's realistic, and it gets you to think (it got me to think, anyways). But, most importantly of all, Heath Ledger's Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of cinematic history.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Really? The only 'objective' note I saw in your debate is that Harvey's transformation was extremely rushed. Again, I never felt any sort of 'rush' in it... other than that, your argument consisted of "Caine SUCKED!", "TDK uses themes already done BETTER!", and... that's it!You didn't explain anything. There is no 'fact' when it comes to reviewing movies- there is only opinion. In your opinion, it was 'okay'. In my opinion, it was 'mind-blowing'. In your 'opinion', I can't critique a movie and, for some reason or another, cannot create an 'objective' argument.
By the way, I already noted that it's not a flawless movie and isn't quite a 10/10. Yes, my entire list is 'opinion'- I've watched loads of films. And the action in TDK is, when it comes to modern thrillers/action movies, very high up. The acting is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many critics), amazing. The themes in this movies are presented superbly; it's dark, disturbing, and violent, unlike any other superhero movie ever made. It's realistic, and it gets you to think (it got me to think, anyways). But, most importantly of all, Heath Ledger's Joker is easily one of the greatest villains of cinematic history.
I disagree with pretty much all of that. Especially with the the "one of the greatest villains in cinematic history" bit - I seriously don't think you have the faintest idea what you're going on about.
Also, most of the critics I've read have not reiterated your rather bias opinion.
Anyway, if you want to continue this pointless charade, do it privately.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I disagree with pretty much all of that. Especially with the the "one of the greatest villains in cinematic history" bit - I seriously don't think you have the faintest idea what you're going on about.Also, most of the critics I've read have not reiterated your rather bias opinion.
Anyway, if you want to continue this pointless charade, do it privately.
Sorry, but why am I biased? I'm not even a big Batman fan. I really loved the movie. That's it.
And I gotta love your arrogance. Once again, the "You don't know what you're talking about!" shit. What gives you the right to judge me? To tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, although you aren't a professional critic, movie goer, or anything meaningful at all? Seriously. Your inflated self-opinion actually made me laugh. I disagree with you, so you tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and dismiss me as one of the raving TDK fanboys.
And now for the Joker part. He's a brilliantly designed character, and deserves to be up there with the likes of Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter. You'll probably say "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!", but then again, it's funny how more people agree with me than with you about this.