Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The following films are possibly my four favorite films to come out of this decade. They are relatively close, I know, but are all amazing IMO. BTW, I'm not stating that these four are the better than yours, but I would like to hear your opinions on the following and how you would rank them amongst each other. The below listings are not in any order, here it goes.....

Casino Royale (2006) - Martin Campbell

Watchmen: Director's Cut (2009) - Zach Snyder

Inglorious Basterds (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

The Dark Knight (2008) - Christopher Nolan

I would give each film atleast a 9 on a scale of 10. I have only seen Inglorious Basterds once as I rented not more than two months. I clearly made a huge mistake missing out on it in the cinema. Unfortunately, I can't attest to have seeing Casino Royale either on the big screen. I have seen The Dark Knight three times at the cinema(once in IMAX, the other two in conventional cinemas) and I must say upfront NOTHING will ever top what The Dark Knight was able to do on a first viewing basis in that sold out IMAX screening on July 18, 2008 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. That was a completely riveting experience. I literally left my seat after the end-credits, with pure adrenaline, shocked and in disbelief of what I just saw. Of course, now that 2010 is now here that feeling has well-over worn off and naturally don't get the same feeling when I re-watch the film today, but I can still remember it. I have never read Alan Moore's graphic novel but I was highly anticipating the release of Watchmen. Surprisingly, I left the theater with a sense of confusion of what to think. After having had a few nights to sleep on it I grew to the opinion that I felt it was an amazing film. When I bought the DC for it on dvd my opinion onlly grew for it.

How would you compare the acting done in all of the four films? Story? Music? Action? Cinematography? I believe all of the films end particularly well, atleast for me. They are all also "rather meaty" in their respective run times and each film(with the possible exception of TDK) has a great "lead" in Craig, Haley, and Pitt. Just as each film(with the possible exception Watchmen) have a great "standout" supporting character in Ledger, Waltz, and Green. Some even have more than one as Eckhart's performance rival that of Ledger's. The rest of the casts for each film are stellar and powerful.

I thought each film came with a unique twist of their own somewhere in the film. These four are just unique in my opinion in their ability for you to have fun watching them. They are all well directed, acted, and have a story to boot. They all look wonderful. Do dare my feelings? What do you have to say about them? In what order would you rank them?

The Dark Knight--10/10

Casino Royale--8/10, prefer QoS much better

Watchmen: Director's Cut--4/10, IMO Better Graphic Novel

Inglorious Basterds--8.5/10

The Dark Knight 7

Casino Royale- 8.5

Watchmen (Director's Cut) 8

Inglorious Basterds 9

TDK - 10/10
Watchmen - 9/10
Inglorious Basterds - 8/10
Casino Royale. 8/10

If given the chance, there was nothing i would change about 'TDK', except perhaps adding 30 more minutes and completely replacing Maggie Whatsherface.

'Casino Royale' has spectacular moments, the chase scene at the beginning being one of them, but a great deal of the movie was dull. I did however love getting to see a 007 at the beginning of his career. We've never seen the unrefined, sloppy Bond before this, i think it worked well and gave us more insight into what it takes to be a Bond.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
The following films are possibly my four favorite films to come out of this decade. They are relatively close, I know, but are all amazing IMO. BTW, I'm not stating that these four are the better than yours, but I would like to hear your opinions on the following and how you would rank them amongst each other. The below listings are not in any order, here it goes.....

Casino Royale (2006) - Martin Campbell

Watchmen: Director's Cut (2009) - Zach Snyder

Inglorious Basterds (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

The Dark Knight (2008) - Christopher Nolan

I would give each film atleast a 9 on a scale of 10. I have only seen Inglorious Basterds once as I rented not more than two months. I clearly made a huge mistake missing out on it in the cinema. Unfortunately, I can't attest to have seeing Casino Royale either on the big screen. I have seen The Dark Knight three times at the cinema(once in IMAX, the other two in conventional cinemas) and I must say upfront NOTHING will ever top what The Dark Knight was able to do on a first viewing basis in that sold out IMAX screening on July 18, 2008 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. That was a completely riveting experience. I literally left my seat after the end-credits, with pure adrenaline, shocked and in disbelief of what I just saw. Of course, now that 2010 is now here that feeling has well-over worn off and naturally don't get the same feeling when I re-watch the film today, but I can still remember it. I have never read Alan Moore's graphic novel but I was highly anticipating the release of Watchmen. Surprisingly, I left the theater with a sense of confusion of what to think. After having had a few nights to sleep on it I grew to the opinion that I felt it was an amazing film. When I bought the DC for it on dvd my opinion onlly grew for it.

How would you compare the acting done in all of the four films? Story? Music? Action? Cinematography? I believe all of the films end particularly well, atleast for me. They are all also "rather meaty" in their respective run times and each film(with the possible exception of TDK) has a great "lead" in Craig, Haley, and Pitt. Just as each film(with the possible exception Watchmen) have a great "standout" supporting character in Ledger, Waltz, and Green. Some even have more than one as Eckhart's performance rival that of Ledger's. The rest of the casts for each film are stellar and powerful.

I thought each film came with a unique twist of their own somewhere in the film. These four are just unique in my opinion in their ability for you to have fun watching them. They are all well directed, acted, and have a story to boot. They all look wonderful. Do dare my feelings? What do you have to say about them? In what order would you rank them?


You would give each a 9?


Darth Darth, Darth...

It would appear that our movie tastes are absurdly close. hmm


I felt that Inglorious Basterds was more delicious to watch, on the first viewing. It was a very intelligent film, having little gems in it that would necessitate a second viewing, if even just to see some of the delicious acting. I just loved it. It was definitely the best film I had seen in a long while. Some many things were done just perfectly in that film. While it was not a perfect film, it was certainly the best on that list...but I liked The Watchmen, as well. I just remembered how delicious the opening seen was in Inglorious Basterds, and knew that it was my more favored film.

Originally posted by marwash22
TDK - 10/10
Watchmen - 9/10
Inglorious Basterds - 8/10
Casino Royale. 8/10

If given the chance, there was nothing i would change about 'TDK', except perhaps adding 30 more minutes and completely replacing Maggie Whatsherface.

'Casino Royale' has spectacular moments, the chase scene at the beginning being one of them, but a great deal of the movie was dull. I did however love getting to see a 007 at the beginning of his career. We've never seen the unrefined, sloppy Bond before this, i think it worked well and gave us more insight into what it takes to be a Bond.


i liked maggie, much much better than mrs. tom cruise and definitely agree that TDK should have been 30 moire minutes

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Casino Royale--8/10, prefer QoS much better Really? Please elaborate. Not disagreeing, just curious to know why as I'm a Bond fan.Originally posted by Robtard
The Dark Knight 7 One of the lower ratings I've seen for it. What did you not like about it?Originally posted by marwash22
If given the chance, there was nothing i would change about 'TDK', except perhaps adding 30 more minutes and completely replacing Maggie Whatsherface. Maggie Gyllenhaal wasn't the problem, in fact, she was a great improvement over Katie Holmes from Batman Begins. Its Rachel Dawes that's a sort of lacking character. But I thought she was fine here. She isn't the most attractive actress though.

Add 30 minutes to TDK?

You don't think that's pushing it? What would those extra 30 minutes contain?Originally posted by marwash22
a great deal of 'Casino Royale' was dull. Really? Care to elaborate on which parts, exactly? Are you one of those who finds the poker scenes boring?Originally posted by dadudemon
You would give each a 9? I would give each atleast a 9/10. They're all spectacular films. Wouldn't you?Originally posted by dadudemon
I felt that Inglorious Basterds was more delicious to watch, on the first viewing. It was a very intelligent film, having little gems in it that would necessitate a second viewing, if even just to see some of the delicious acting. I just loved it. It was definitely the best film I had seen in a long while. Some many things were done just perfectly in that film. While it was not a perfect film, it was certainly the best on that list...but I liked The Watchmen, as well. I just remembered how delicious the opening seen was in Inglorious Basterds, and knew that it was my more favored film. I think The Dark Knight might be the best on the list. With these films, for me, it's day-to-day. But Inglorious Basterds was certainly the most diverse of the four. It contained great suspense, comedy, action, and a story. Waltz is unbearably good as is Pitt. I laughed out loud FAR more in Inglorious Basterds than I did in the other three. When Pitt speaks Italian it is hilarious. The opening scene is wonderful. It evolves. Nothing more need be said.

Tie between The Dark Knight and Basterds; I'd give em both 9/10.

And the other two?

Casino Royale 9/10

Watchmen 9/10

Dark Knight 8/10

Inglorious Basterds 7/10

Originally posted by Darth Martin
And the other two?

I'd give Casino Royale maybe an 8.5; it's been a while since I've seen it. Watchmen: Directors Cut maybe a 7.5.

1.The Dark Knight 9-Best Batman movie ever

2.Casino Royale 9-The movie that got me watching Bond movies

3.Watchmen 8-Very good movie,never read the novel

4.Inglorious Besterds 9-Quientin at his best

Watchmen is easily my least favorite of the 4 (I liked it, but I loved the other 3), and I struggle between Dark Knight and Inglorious Basterds as my favorites of the bunch. At the moment this is what I feel:

1. Inglorious Basterds
2. Dark Knight
3. Casino Royale
4. Watchmen

That's pretty much how I feel.

I hated (Not really. "strongly disliked" all of them, but if I had to rate them I would say:

The Dark Knight
Casino Royal
Inglorious Bastards
Watchmen

Originally posted by Myth
Watchmen is easily my least favorite of the 4 (I liked it, but I loved the other 3), and I struggle between Dark Knight and Inglorious Basterds as my favorites of the bunch. At the moment this is what I feel:

1. Inglorious Basterds
2. Dark Knight

I cant chose between them two either,Although slightly favouring The Dark Knight,only beacause It's possibly the best comic book movie ever and it has raised the bar for the rest,for years to come

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I hated (Not really. "strongly disliked" all of them, but if I had to rate them I would say:



hysterical


Good joke,That one was funny man

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Really? Please elaborate. Not disagreeing, just curious to know why as I'm a Bond fan.

to me, QoS had better action and a better story

That's ridiculous ^ I mean it's your opinion blah blah, but Casino Royale was so far superior.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I would give each atleast a 9/10. They're all spectacular films. Wouldn't you?

I gave Casino Royale an 8 out of 10, but it was close to a nine. There really were some boring parts to the film. That's probably because I couldn't care less about "the fate of the world" resting on a card game.

Movie had great acting, some nice action, excellent plot, and REALLY did well to reboot the Bond series with a new Bond.

IMO, Craig looks and acts the closet to Ian Flemmings James Bond. A world class, Spy, Assassin, hacker, etc. etc. That person would look to be in top physical shape, something none of the other bonds have looked. He would also be an expert martial artist and not have fights like Indiana Jones, but more like the Bourne fights or Transporter fights.




Originally posted by Darth Martin
I think The Dark Knight might be the best on the list. With these films, for me, it's day-to-day. But Inglorious Basterds was certainly the most diverse of the four. It contained great suspense, comedy, action, and a story. Waltz is unbearably good as is Pitt. I laughed out loud FAR more in Inglorious Basterds than I did in the other three. When Pitt speaks Italian it is hilarious. The opening scene is wonderful. It evolves. Nothing more need be said.

Indeed.

I loved the crap out of The Dark Knight. Before it became a huge fad, I saw it. Opening night. I was the second in line. The film was not as delicious as IG, but it was close.

I would say that Casino Royale was the weakest of that group. It just didn't wow me like the other three did.


Originally posted by SnakeEyes
That's ridiculous ^ I mean it's your opinion blah blah, but Casino Royale was so far superior.

I found the QoS to be better, in some areas, worse in others. It is hard to say, but I'd say that second entertained me more. I still would give the second an 8 out of 10...

The Dark Knight 9

Casino Royale- 7

Watchmen (Director's Cut) 6

Inglorious Basterds 8

Watchmen is love or hate, hit or miss, for most everyone. I think it's an amazing film. The Dark Knight set the bar when it was released, granted, IMO Watchmen (Director's Cut) met or went higher.Originally posted by dadudemon
He would also be an expert martial artist and not have fights like Indiana Jones, but more like the Bourne fights or Transporter fights. While I do think Craig looks the best out of all the actors and has by far the best on-screen charisma, I have to disagree with you. Bond shouldn't be a master martial artsist like Bourne or Martin. He's more of a brawler but very effective in his power and technique(atleast Craig's Bond is). Bond would content with Martin or Bourne(both these guys are better than Bond in H2H) and Bond would murder Jones.Originally posted by dadudemon
I loved the crap out of The Dark Knight. Before it became a huge fad, I saw it. Opening night. I was the second in line. As did I, I saw it on July 18 and was second in line as well.Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
to me, QoS had better action and a better story It had more action, not better. The story in CR>QoS. Had a much better Bond girls as well, plus a much better villain. Dont't misunderstand me, QoS is a great Bond film, I rank #2 in the series behind CR, and all of these qualities QoS is very good in, but not better than CR. Just my opinion of course.

The Dark Knight 10

Casino Royale- 5

Watchmen (Director's Cut) 8

Inglorious Basterds 7

Dark Knight - 9.5
Inglourious Basterds - 8.5
Casino Royale - 8
Watchmen (DC) - 7

The Dark Knight 9

Casino Royale- 8

Watchmen (Director's Cut) 6

Inglorious Basterds 8

Voted TDK, cause I only like the joker bits

1)Casino Royale-Far and away the best of the four and actually a good movie.

2)Inglorious Basterds-A decent film with some solid humor, but suffered from some pacing issues.

3)Watchmen-Watchable, but nothing to write home about.

4)The Dark Knight-A few of actors aside(Caine, Freeman, and Eckhart) a complete mess of a movie and even the actors that did well had little to work with.

I won't rank them yet, but the worst in that list for me is easy, Watchmen. Didn't think much of it at all, incredibly overrated.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
to me, QoS had better action and a better story

I love, both, Casino Royale and QoS but Casino Royale definitely had the better action sequences. Conceptually, QoS had the better action sequences but it failed on the execution. I'm not sure if it is the fault of the editing, or directing or both but a lot of the action scenes in QoS felt quite amateur. They're still good, but they rely a lot on the audiences concentration. In other words, the editing relies on your brains ability to piece the scene together. I still think it has some of the best, Bond action we've seen and, Conceptually it has some of the most epic but again, a lot of the scenes were poorly shot and edited.

I think Casino Royale has the best action from any, Bond movie. It's tight, clean and mostly all practical. It was the first time that we got to see, Bond in a realistic foot chase and fight scene.

Originally posted by Nightstick
4)The Dark Knight-A few of actors aside(Caine, Freeman, and Eckhart) a complete mess of a movie and even the actors that did well had little to work with. How does it compare to the Anthology films?

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
to me, QoS had better action and a better story



How did QOS have a better story then Casino Royale?

I might have to watch QOS again,cause if it had a story,I think I missed it

For me there is a major gap between the best two and the worst two the this group of four.

1.) The Dark Knight (9/10): Dark, brooding, upsetting, beautifully photographed, and very well acted and a solid script to boot (although the dialogue is far better than the drama so far as writing is concerned). Far from perfect: it isn't nearly as deep as it pretends to be, and lacks a strong central narrative pull, but these seemingly large missteps are easily overlooked in the face of film-making that is this dazzling and inventive. This is mainstream entertainment of the highest order. (also introduces one of the greatest screen villains of all time)

2.) Casino Royale (9/10): Just a tick lower than The Dark Knight. This is the best Bond since Goldfinger. Half the movie is the outstanding performance by Daniel Craig who is often overlooked as this is an action movie. People also seem to underrate the wit and cleverness of the dialogue which i thought was quite good. It does have its problems. It runs at least ten minutes too long and it is front loaded with action. It starts off like gangbusters with an excellent black and white opening followed by a great (if pointless) prolonged chase scene. The energy starts to run out of this picture down the stretch however, and the climax feels completely empty and arbitrary as if it had just dropped out of a standard Brosnan bond picture. Still, Craig is good, as are Eva Green and Judi Dench. Their performances keep it alive.

3.) Inglorious Basterds (6/10): The Good: well, its a big shiny hollywood WWII movie that has QT's name slapped on it. So you can understand why this might excite people. Unfortunately, after Christophe Waltz's performance there isn't much to hold our attention. Thinly plotted and despite the fact that nearly the entire movie is a series of conversations that don't forward the plot at all, it also manages to fail at any real characterizations besides Waltz's character. The wit and charm of QT's dialogue has all but evaporated, and while he still knows how to film an interesting scene, he doesn't know how to make a movie with any type of narrative drive that carries from one scene to the next. I've loved a lot of his work in the past, but I think he's starting to show himself as a one-trick-pony and that one trick is wearing pretty thin.

4.) Watchmen (3/10): Anything remotely good about this film has more to do with the source material than the film-making. As a film, Watchmen is a disaster. It is aggressively bad in ways that one could not think of without watching it. It somehow manages to be excessively violent while at the same time being soft and complacent. It is bloated and flabby when it should be hard and raw. Despite the gratuitous violence, I found it dull and empty. I soon myself watching in a state of mild disgust that I would usually associate with scraping dog crap off the bottom of my shoe. It's unpleasant, but its unpleasantness is outweighed by your own disinterest. Watching this movie is slightly worse than scrapping crap of your show however because with the former, it takes nearly three hours to get through it, and with the latter, at least your shoe gets clean.

my two cents. thanks to anyone who read it

Originally posted by Rapscallion
For me there is a major gap between the best two and the worst two the this group of four.

1.) The Dark Knight (9/10): Dark, brooding, upsetting, beautifully photographed, and very well acted and a solid script to boot (although the dialogue is far better than the drama so far as writing is concerned). Far from perfect: it isn't nearly as deep as it pretends to be, and lacks a strong central narrative pull, but these seemingly large missteps are easily overlooked in the face of film-making that is this dazzling and inventive. This is mainstream entertainment of the highest order. (also introduces one of the greatest screen villains of all time)

2.) Casino Royale (9/10): Just a tick lower than The Dark Knight. This is the best Bond since Goldfinger. Half the movie is the outstanding performance by Daniel Craig who is often overlooked as this is an action movie. People also seem to underrate the wit and cleverness of the dialogue which i thought was quite good. It does have its problems. It runs at least ten minutes too long and it is front loaded with action. It starts off like gangbusters with an excellent black and white opening followed by a great (if pointless) prolonged chase scene. The energy starts to run out of this picture down the stretch however, and the climax feels completely empty and arbitrary as if it had just dropped out of a standard Brosnan bond picture. Still, Craig is good, as are Eva Green and Judi Dench. Their performances keep it alive.

3.) Inglorious Basterds (6/10): The Good: well, its a big shiny hollywood WWII movie that has QT's name slapped on it. So you can understand why this might excite people. Unfortunately, after Christophe Waltz's performance there isn't much to hold our attention. Thinly plotted and despite the fact that nearly the entire movie is a series of conversations that don't forward the plot at all, it also manages to fail at any real characterizations besides Waltz's character. The wit and charm of QT's dialogue has all but evaporated, and while he still knows how to film an interesting scene, he doesn't know how to make a movie with any type of narrative drive that carries from one scene to the next. I've loved a lot of his work in the past, but I think he's starting to show himself as a one-trick-pony and that one trick is wearing pretty thin.

4.) Watchmen (3/10): Anything remotely good about this film has more to do with the source material than the film-making. As a film, Watchmen is a disaster. It is aggressively bad in ways that one could not think of without watching it. It somehow manages to be excessively violent while at the same time being soft and complacent. It is bloated and flabby when it should be hard and raw. Despite the gratuitous violence, I found dull and empty and instead found myself watching in a state of mild disgust. Watching it was kind of like scrapping dog crap off the bottom of your shoe. It's unpleasant, but its unpleasantness is outweighed by your own disinterest. Watching this movie is slightly worse than scrapping crap of your show however because with the former, it takes nearly three hours to get through it, and with the latter, at least your shoe gets clean. Oh, the movie had a pretty good soundtrack though.

my two cents. thanks to anyone who read it





Nice post,I think your being way to harsh on Watchmen though,but thats just my opinion

Originally posted by K.Diddy
I think your being way too harsh on Watchmen though, but that's just my opinion

I think most people are far to critical on, Watchmen. As a long time fan of the graphic novel i was a bit disappointed by the adaptation but i was still very satisfied with it and i actually think many of the changes worked out better for the film, most notebly the ending. As a fan of the novel i have to appreciate that all of the characters were represented so well in the adaptation.

I hate to compare these two but much like the Harry Potter films i have to look at the films differently than i do the books. This is something that i think everyone should do when they watch a Novel to film adaptation. As a film, separate from the graphic novel, Watchmen showcases some very deep story and character development that provokes philosophical and societal thought. The spirit of the characters are very well adapted on to the screen. Most of which feel like their lifted directly from the pages of, Frank Millers masterpiece. This is a testament to the directing and acting. For a three hour movie i thought the movie had great pacing. For having so many important characters it should be appreciated how each one was given enough focus to develop their characters so deeply smoothly. When you consider the amount of key characters in the film and how much time each one was given it's also impressive that the story was able to develop as well as it did.

I understand why fans of the Novel were upset with the adaptation but to say that the movie itself, separate from the novel, is shit, surprises me. Yeah, a lot was different but i think the most important aspects were still apparent. It definitely felt like i was watching, Watchmen. When i consider the niche market that, Watchmen is apart of. I become even more surprised and appreciative of this film. The fact that this movie was handled so well and given the budget and attention it was, is kind of a miracle. You know there are a dozen other comic book movie adaptations out there that resemble nothing of their comic counterparts, but if some of those movies, Xmen, Hulk, Spiderman 3, etc.., were as good as the Watchmen, i wouldn't have minded them being so different from the comics.

1. The Dark Knight - 8.8
2. Inglorious Bastards - 8.5
3. Watchmen - 7
4. Casino Royale - 6.8

Inglorious Basterds is my favorite of all the movies listed.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I think most people are far to critical on, Watchmen. As a long time fan of the graphic novel i was a bit disappointed by the adaptation but i was still very satisfied with it and i actually think many of the changes worked out better for the film, most notebly the ending. As a fan of the novel i have to appreciate that all of the characters were represented so well in the adaptation.

Those were my exact sentiments, on the dot. You just figured out how to sum it up in couple of sentences, though.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I hate to compare these two but much like the Harry Potter films i have to look at the films differently than i do the books. This is something that i think everyone should do when they watch a Novel to film adaptation. As a film, separate from the graphic novel, Watchmen showcases some very deep story and character development that provokes philosophical and societal thought. The spirit of the characters are very well adapted on to the screen. Most of which feel like their lifted directly from the pages of, Frank Millers masterpiece. This is a testament to the directing and acting. For a three hour movie i thought the movie had great pacing. For having so many important characters it should be appreciated how each one was given enough focus to develop their characters so deeply smoothly. When you consider the amount of key characters in the film and how much time each one was given it's also impressive that the story was able to develop as well as it did.

I understand why fans of the Novel were upset with the adaptation but to say that the movie itself, separate from the novel, is shit, surprises me. Yeah, a lot was different but i think the most important aspects were still apparent. It definitely felt like i was watching, Watchmen. When i consider the niche market that, Watchmen is apart of. I become even more surprised and appreciative of this film. The fact that this movie was handled so well and given the budget and attention it was, is kind of a miracle. You know there are a dozen other comic book movie adaptations out there that resemble nothing of their comic counterparts, but if some of those movies, Xmen, Hulk, Spiderman 3, etc.., were as good as the Watchmen, i wouldn't have minded them being so different from the comics.

Indeed. Everytime I hear or read someone criticize the Watchmen movie who were big fans of the COMIC BOOKS (made later into a novel), I think they are being retarded* (read below for the exceptions..of which some of you fall under). Seriously. I can't explain it, but it's similar to the same type of stupid that makes people hate the PT but love the OT: they're just stupid. If the movie came before the novelization, they'd think the novel was sh*t compared to the film because, get this, the novel's coloring is very bland, drawn marginally, and has tons of back stories. Sure, the stories are great, and I like the back stories/side stories, but some agree that there are too many. There are better "graphic novels" stories out there and most are MUCH better drawn and colored.


*Now, this is not to say that every person that read the novel and then watched the movie, is retarded for not liking the films. Some people have legit complaints such as:

I didn't like the camera angles as they got annoying.

They focused too much on Rorsach: I wanted to see so and so developed more.

Some of the comedy felt out of place...or...there wasn't enough comedy.

The ending was confusing and the motivations behind Ozy's choices seemed a little stretched.



Etc. etc.

I want to see criticisms of the film, not reasons for b*tching about what they wanted or didn't want to see from the novel to the film. It's a damn movie: of course sh*t is going to get cut out or altered to fit onto the screen. A real comic book to screen adaptation would be a mini-series (one that I think we be even better than the movie...but, hey, that's just me.) that would be anywhere from 12-20 hours long.




The Movie was just plain ol' awesome. Awesome story (considering what had to be done), awesome visuals, great cinematography, excellent sound, decent music, nice plot, great acting, etc. etc. etc. One of the best films of 2009, easily.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Watchmen is love or hate, hit or miss, for most everyone. I think it's an amazing film. The Dark Knight set the bar when it was released, granted, IMO Watchmen (Director's Cut) met or went higher.

I must say, it was hard for me to determine which one was better, after watching them both. (not at the same time, of course.)

They had a different feel. I still liked both of them, a lot. I'd say, though, that I got more enjoyment out of TDK. Both are films you can watch more than once (even for me), though, which makes them an automatic 8 or more.




Originally posted by Darth Martin
While I do think Craig looks the best out of all the actors and has by far the best on-screen charisma, I have to disagree with you. Bond shouldn't be a master martial artsist like Bourne or Martin. He's more of a brawler but very effective in his power and technique(atleast Craig's Bond is). Bond would content with Martin or Bourne(both these guys are better than Bond in H2H) and Bond would murder Jones.

I disagree because a HK field spy is supposed to have extensive H2H combat training, weapons and electronics training, explosives training, and possibly underwater training. The HK field units are heavily recruited from the Special Forces units such the Seals, Green Berets, etc. It takes years to train the field operatives, which is why they recruit the best military units.

In the fictional universe of James Bond, MI6 has field operatives that have a license to kill. (They don't publically say they have those, in the real MI6...but I don't believe that for a minute.) SIS has training that lasts well past 2 years for their highly speciaized units, just the same as the CIA. This includes extensive weapons training, information gathering, torture, isolation, depravation, extensive H2H combat training, explosives training, computer hacking, digital forensics, language training, aquatics (depending on their deployments), history and cultural training, and social engineering. The list can get much bigger.


That's the reality. You would see a Jason Bourne type of figure (though not to the extend of the secret program that they protrayed in the films) working as an HK spy, for SIS (MI6), for sure. Their training would consist more of Jiu Jitsu, submission holds, weapns disarming, etc. Not Kung Fu B.S. I'm just guessing, but I'm quite sure that they would do improvisational work, too, as the environment is key, in some scenarios, for a desirable outcome. (Think of how Jackie Chan uses all sorts of objects in his choreography, throw in a large helping of realistic, and that's the type of stuff you'd see being taught.)



Closer to topic: when I say that Craig's bond is closer to reality in look and skill, it's because he is. Sure, the stuff they do in the film is highly stylized for entertainment purposes, but reality would see a Bond that, if needed, would quickly "neutralize" a leak or through in an operation with any means necessary, and as quietly as possible. You wouldn't have a long chase scene, for sure.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
The following films are possibly my four favorite films to come out of this decade. They are relatively close, I know, but are all amazing IMO. BTW, I'm not stating that these four are the better than yours, but I would like to hear your opinions on the following and how you would rank them amongst each other. The below listings are not in any order, here it goes.....

Casino Royale (2006) - Martin Campbell

Watchmen: Director's Cut (2009) - Zach Snyder

Inglorious Basterds (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

The Dark Knight (2008) - Christopher Nolan

I would give each film atleast a 9 on a scale of 10. I have only seen Inglorious Basterds once as I rented not more than two months. I clearly made a huge mistake missing out on it in the cinema. Unfortunately, I can't attest to have seeing Casino Royale either on the big screen. I have seen The Dark Knight three times at the cinema(once in IMAX, the other two in conventional cinemas) and I must say upfront NOTHING will ever top what The Dark Knight was able to do on a first viewing basis in that sold out IMAX screening on July 18, 2008 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. That was a completely riveting experience. I literally left my seat after the end-credits, with pure adrenaline, shocked and in disbelief of what I just saw. Of course, now that 2010 is now here that feeling has well-over worn off and naturally don't get the same feeling when I re-watch the film today, but I can still remember it. I have never read Alan Moore's graphic novel but I was highly anticipating the release of Watchmen. Surprisingly, I left the theater with a sense of confusion of what to think. After having had a few nights to sleep on it I grew to the opinion that I felt it was an amazing film. When I bought the DC for it on dvd my opinion onlly grew for it.

How would you compare the acting done in all of the four films? Story? Music? Action? Cinematography? I believe all of the films end particularly well, atleast for me. They are all also "rather meaty" in their respective run times and each film(with the possible exception of TDK) has a great "lead" in Craig, Haley, and Pitt. Just as each film(with the possible exception Watchmen) have a great "standout" supporting character in Ledger, Waltz, and Green. Some even have more than one as Eckhart's performance rival that of Ledger's. The rest of the casts for each film are stellar and powerful.

I thought each film came with a unique twist of their own somewhere in the film. These four are just unique in my opinion in their ability for you to have fun watching them. They are all well directed, acted, and have a story to boot. They all look wonderful. Do dare my feelings? What do you have to say about them? In what order would you rank them?


In order?

1.The Dark Knight

2.Casino Royale

3.WatchMen

4.Inglouious Bastards

their rank?

1.10
2.7
3.4
4.2

Basterds a 2/10? Care to elaborate on that terrible, terrible rating?

DARK KNIGHT 10
CASINO ROYAL 7
BASTERDS I HAVEN'T SEEN YET
WATCHMEN 0/10 WHAT A PILE OF CRAP I FAST FORWARDED THROUGH

Originally posted by darthmaul1

WATCHMEN 0/10 WHAT A PILE OF CRAP I FAST FORWARDED THROUGH


Well that's why you thought it was crap. You're not supposed to watch anything in fast forward

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Basterds a 2/10? Care to elaborate on that terrible, terrible rating?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
In order?

1.The Dark Knight

2.Casino Royale

3.WatchMen

4.Inglouious Bastards

their rank?

1.10
2.7
3.4
4.2

well there's one more reason for me to not like you.

What he said ^

TDK 9

CR 7

IB 8

WM 7.5