What Movies Have You Seen Recently?

Ok haven't got around to watching hancock.... Watch a film called 'Bug' It is a "thriller" they say it is quite disturbing in my opinion, worth a watch though I can't really say much withouth messing it up.... Basically to keep no detail whatsoever it is about a woman that lives in a motel and a man comes to stay with here, and then the bugs come..... (Note this isn't like a horror movie! Oh here come teh bugz zomgz!) there is a plot to it.


Drillbit taylor(Budget bodyguard) It on the cards fror tonight... And this looks funnny as!
 
Batman, dark knight....

Didn't like it. :/ The main bits that bothered me....

No one plays the joker like Mr Jack Nicholson.... Period.

But trying to be big and strong and looking past this major issue lol.... What happened to the story? It lacked continual play... Batman didn't know the joker... Yet the joker is the man that shot his parents...... And they have a "relationship" Yet there was none.... The joker was chucked away in a prison for the "criminally insane" Yet here he is, no explination and he is out causing chaos...

The joker was an ex mafia member of some rank... (in this one he is an unknown shadow of sorts)He got back stabbed and shot into a barrel of waste/acid/something it melted his face.... In this one the only reason for the make up is to hide a chelsea smile... I didn't get it....

I am not a fan of the james bond movies, and I see batman becoming the american james bond, which his tech side kick Mr Fox... And all his gadgets and such in the gadget room... Very james bond specially the way he tinkers with the gadgets and has accidents..... :rolleyes:

5 out of 10.... I am being generous...

---edit---


Just seen my last post... Watched Hancock... Good film, funny, interesting and yeah entertaining :D 8 out of 10 :D
 
I saw The Dark Knight on Sunday and loved it. I saw Batman as symbolic of an ascetic who places value on what is good and true while the Joker was symbolic of a hedonist who places ultimate value on what is beautiful. Batman I saw as order and Joker as chaos, even though it was clear that the Joker's chaos was organized despite his statements to the contrary. Two-Face was unwilling to choose between order and chaos and so through the entire story his actions were led by one force or the other. At the same time I saw in the Joker the yetzer ra and in Batman the yetzer tov.

Batman's interactions with the Joker changed him. They helped him to realize the importance of aesthetic in life. From this he became able to tell his own story differently for the benefit of the rest of Gotham. He learned that the truth is not always the best answer. The art direction and acting was excellent. I really liked how much edgier the characters were.

I wonder if The Joker sees himself as a necessary force. Given the transformation of perspective in Batman, it might suggest that The Joker sees himself as taking on a necessary role. When he sort of breaks the 4th wall in a comment toward the end of the movie it seems to suggest that he sees himself that way, and that he sees Batman in the same light.

-- Dauer
 
Alex,

not at all. It's a tradition for comic book superheroes to be repeatedly reinterpreted and retconned. The art imo is in revealing new depth within a particular mythos by changing some of those types of details. If The Dark Knight felt like the old live action Batman tv series with Adam West I wouldn't be satisfied. In comic books Batman has evolved a lot and it is good to see that evolution continuing on the big screen.

-- Dauer
 
what i dont get is that these comic book superheroes that all kids absolutely love are great in most of the comics. and yet the modern day version of them on the big screen is not suited to little kids. Look around and you will see any preschooler with a spiderman or batman luchbox or t shirt and yet, the movies of that name are not suited to their age group. The first ones, maybe, (spiderman1 etc) but no way are they suitable for little ones. imo. At least the batman/robin televised in the 70s(?) as lame as it was, WAS suitable for the little kids as well as the big ones, ooof, bifff wack, kapow.... LOL
 
A lot of the more mature versions of the comic book characters are not very suitable for children. The content is as bad or worse as what gets into the movies. It's just not in video.
 
dauer said:
Alex,

not at all. It's a tradition for comic book superheroes to be repeatedly reinterpreted and retconned. The art imo is in revealing new depth within a particular mythos by changing some of those types of details. If The Dark Knight felt like the old live action Batman tv series with Adam West I wouldn't be satisfied. In comic books Batman has evolved a lot and it is good to see that evolution continuing on the big screen.

-- Dauer
Click to expand...


I'm not a comic reader... I'm a movie watcher... So to me it's destruction of tradition ;)
 
Aha!

The dark knight series that began with Batman Begins is not considered a continuation of the previous Batman films. It's considered a separate take on the Batman mythos. It is named for the dark knight comic books which were a much grittier version of Batman's world. I don't read comic books either, but I do enjoy the DC and Marvel universes and have known enough people who do/did read them to be aware of these things.

-- Dauer
 
Then you might be ideal to answer this about the movie.... We saw more than one of the usual baddies right? The film also had scarecrow, two face and riddler?

Scarefcrow was doing the drug deal when the wannabe batmans arrived at the start?

Two face was the "hero" DA that bat man put his trust in

The riddler was that guy from Wayne Enterprise that found out about "things"

Close?
 
i think alot of people have the mistaken idea that comics are for kids simply because of the medium in which they are rendered.

that same view extends towards animation of any sort, really. though i assure you that many genres of Japanese animation are for adults only.

to the OP...

i've recently seen 7 movies, all new to me but not new:

Balls of Fury: boring, a few funny bits and worth what i paid to see it, nothing.

Walk Hard: the Story of Dewy Cox: entertaining, some slow scenes and some funny bits that dragged on too long. worth what i paid to see it, nothing.

Fearless: fantastic, great action scenes scripted by one of the most talented martial artists of our generation, Jet Li. the cinematography was spectacular as it was shot all in China though some of the screen play was unusual in that many of the Chinese characters seemed to be western caricatures of Chinese, even though the movie was written and directed by Chinese. it was subtitled which i enjoy far more than overdubbed.

National Treasure 2: fairly slow with a few good action scenes, not as engrossing as the first one though i did do some independent research on some of the claims made in the movie and found, to my great surprise, that much of it was based on historical evidence. i discovered a whole new secret society to investigate with my free time :)

The Golden Compass: part of a trilogy so there is no conclusion in this movie, it had some slow bits but i found it pretty entertaining overall. though it stars children it really isn't for children in that there is a fair amount of killing of bad guys that goes on.

10,000 B.C.: I enjoyed it quite a bit though some of the geography threw me off. given the subject matter it wasn't as violent as i suspected that it would be. i think that the editing was the problem more than the story in the sense of developing empathy for the protagonist.

300: Frank Miller = win. of the group of movies listed here, this was by far the best one that i have seen. the historical significance of this battle cannot be overstated, the use of the narrative to provide the backstory and context is technique which has to be done right to work and i think they pulled it off, the directors use of the camera really created a great deal of tension for the story. i would have paid to see this.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
Balls of Fury: boring, a few funny bits and worth what i paid to see it, nothing.
Click to expand...


*done in a dodgy forgien accented english* What is this word? Paid? I know not of what you speak of...

Balls of fury is funny! :/ *starts hitting ping pong balls at you* lol I love it when he kills that guy in the show.. and the FBI guy is all like "I found that funny as hell!"

300 is good ya... You'd of paid to see it? I wouldn't of lol... Still a great film but screw that lol. 'Sin City' Is Frank Millers finest..... I can't wait for the next one.
 
greymare said:
what i dont get is that these comic book superheroes that all kids absolutely love are great in most of the comics. and yet the modern day version of them on the big screen is not suited to little kids. Look around and you will see any preschooler with a spiderman or batman luchbox or t shirt and yet, the movies of that name are not suited to their age group. The first ones, maybe, (spiderman1 etc) but no way are they suitable for little ones. imo. At least the batman/robin televised in the 70s(?) as lame as it was, WAS suitable for the little kids as well as the big ones, ooof, bifff wack, kapow.... LOL
Click to expand...
I 100% agree, my kids are 15 and this is the first Batman they've seen as they've all gone so dark when they were younger I wouldn't take them.

I grew up with batman comics and the tv show ...pow....slam.... good clean fun, ridiculous, trite, enjoyable, but with a lot of adult undertones, that go over the heads of youngsters...

The decision to make them for older audiences probably relates to revenue as usual.
 
Alex,

Yes to all except that I'm not certain if that was The Riddler or not. It didn't occur to me when watching the film. Was his name Edward? I have to google this now. xD I have googled compulsively and found nothing. :/

-- Dauer
 
I didn't think he was the riddler, however thinking back I've got a little riddler feel for him. ie as if he'll grow into the role...

Scarecrow felt like a copy cat to me along with the phony batmen.

I liked the joker, I also like Jack, but I liked this joker better...especially in a nurses uniform, that scene ending was just classic.

I was surprised at the James Bond bit, that they didn't improve upon that...
 
Well seeing the character details changed for the joker I thought it may apply to other baddies? He seems like a candidate for the riddler.... :/ No Jim carrey but yeah lol...

The best baddie is scarecrow... If I could be any of them I'd be he... And if I could have any other as my ally it be Cat woman ;)
 
I think The Riddler would do very well in the sequel in that he and the Joker are similar in some ways. They're both psychotic and playful. They've just got different shtick. I prefer the Joker personally. He's more jovial. That scene leaving the hospital was so hilarious. He really seemed to know more than anyone else in the movie about what was going on. That suits the joker too.

I'm curious to see what they do for the next film. I mean they've set it up with Batman now despised by the people. That leaves the potential for, say, a conflict between he and another superhero or a villain posing as a hero to manipulate the masses. If there's a conflict between he and another superhero, that leaves room for a villain to take advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top