What Movies Are You Watching Lately - Page 412

Originally Posted by idfnl 

Mmmmmh. Say Dark Knight when you do it big boy.

Originally Posted by in stitches 

Because it was a movie.

Originally Posted by idfnl 

Mmmmmh. Say Dark Knight when you do it big boy.

BTW... the 'its a movie' excuse died decades ago. Rebuttals welcome. None forthcoming? I officially declare TDKR a piece of shit.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman 

Gump isn't bad, but it's inexcusable it beat out Pulp Fiction that year. I'll always have hate in my heart for it because of that.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman 

How many of these thousands of movies have you seen? Gump is a retard. They have retards in all kinds of movies. The only good thing about Gump is the background, what happens to him, and what happens to those around him. Gump is a blank wall. He's the least interesting character of all time.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman 

Right, but you said he was "one of the most unforgettable movie characters of all time." I suppose he might be memorable, and if that's all you meant then that's fine. But if you meant it was a good performance, or Gump is an interesting or exciting or compelling character then I must take issue with that.

Originally Posted by LawrenceMD 

"its a movie" premise still holds.

Originally Posted by LawrenceMD 

its a movie based on a comic book right? comic books are pretty much ridiculous tales of fantasy/supernatural/outlandishness but sometimes have great characters and character development, but they are confined by a certain number of static illustrations within a page. Its a medium that lends itself to plot holes galore. So transferring it to screen only exposed such inconsistencies further.

"its a movie" premise still holds.

also idfnl... why so many spoilers? You may not like the movie, but you don't have to completely ruin the movie by giving away key twists and turns in the story. Its a disservice to this thread to those who may have not have seen this particular movie. Go ahead and spoil all you want and rant and rave in the specific batman movie thread.

Originally Posted by b1os 

I enjoyed the movie a lot, but this scene made no sense. Should've come up with a better solution to how they contact their base.

Originally Posted by MrG 

I will be receiving TDKR from Netflix tomorrow. With any luck, I'll have time to watch it this weekend and let you guys know who is correct about its quality.

This is really just your just desserts for giving a rat's ass about awards shows.

I agree, for the most part. The thing that made Gump a good movie was the stuff that happened around him. He was just sort of an endearing character around which they based a history of about 40 years of American culture. I do think he's a memorable character, however. I mean, everyone knows about that character, but I don't think he's particularly poignant or deep.

Originally Posted by why 

Seriously? I don't understand how any person with either a semblance of intelligence or a high school education can think that all orders of nonsense can be excused by such a trivial statement. People would say this to me when I was in grade school and I realized how absurd it was then.

Even if you want to ignore all aesthetic theory that has been developed on this matter, you still have to contend with the basis of the theory that prompted it -- specifically that when a work of fiction is presented to an audience it can't be construed as anything meaningful if it doesn't make sense. This is obvious: even a child understands intuitively that all stories must make sense and they are constructed on this logical, rational basis (even if the child's stories only make sense to the child). That's why I'm convinced that people that find TDKR entertaining must be lacking (by will or otherwise) the necessary rationality and thought processes that make it so utterly ridiculous to anyone with such capacities. As a simple corollary example to demonstrate the point, it's the reason moviemakers strive for continuity; if this could all be dismissed with a simple 'it's a movie' there wouldn't be a point to making sure a character wounded in one scene acts wounded in the next and Hollywood could (and would) cash in on lowered production costs by not re-shooting scenes or editing scripts because audiences wouldn't care -- after all, 'it's a movie'.

Besides, even if you won't concede the points above, an argument specific to TDKR is that Nolan's version of Batman isn't the same one in the comics anyway.

Originally Posted by LawrenceMD 

^in a vacuum yes. that's just common sense.

but this movie is but just a part of a well established story line. its merely an interpretation of a story that has already been told succinctly before.

and you know what? even the source material is a re-interpretation of the original story.

so any gaps in story telling for this particular movie already has a built in crib sheet, it can be viewed as a cheap tactic, but thats the advantage of this franchise.

its just a movie.... a batman movie... the third installment of the dark night series adapted from a famous comic book series.... nothing to get riled up about when you realize the context.

edit: my wife and I tried to watch A Fish Called Wanda the other night. damn that movie didn't age well... i think i was less than 10 years old when that movie came out, and I remember how my parents were simultaneously covering my eyes/ears whenever something adult happened. I also remembered how much/hard they laughed throughout the movie. The wife and I just stopped watching and went to sleep.

Originally Posted by why 

So if the plot holes were fixed the movie would be the same to you?

And I don't know what 'in a vacuum' means in this context. If you mean that what I wrote can't be placed into context, then I disagree. What I wrote can be applied generally, which is why I gave general examples that demonstrate the absurdity of 'it's a movie' as some kind of excuse for sloppiness.

Plus, as I've posted before (in The Hobbit thread, I think) the idea that the source material of a movie needs to be considered alongside the movie is preposterous. Again, this is trivially true when taken to its limit: if I made a movie that was a black screen for two hours but said it was inspired by King Lear should this somehow affect the fact that it's literally a black screen?

That movie is still great. What didn't age well in it?
I'm beginning to think you don't know what's good.

Originally Posted by why 

Watched it maybe three months ago. Kevin Kline is awesome. I count it among the movies that makes me smile throughout. I actually don't like the Monty Python movies much and think they're really, really overrated.

And I have no idea what 'improved efficient improv comedic training' is. Some stuff will pretty much always be funny.

Or are you referring to watching people fall off roofs or autotuned remixes of viral videos on Youtube as some brand new sort of comedy that makes A Fish Called Wanda not funny?

Originally Posted by LawrenceMD 

as for a fish called wanda. I understand that its a beloved comedy. I wanted to laugh and follow the story, but with the advent of improved efficient improv comedic timing thats pervasive in the last 15 years in TV/Movies/commercials/youtube shorts it just felt off paced. I'm a huge fan of the monty python troop/descendant comedies but some of that comedy/movies isn't as funny as it was back in the day.

when was the last time you watched the movie? I watched it on wednesday and well it didn't hook and make me laugh. I realized "its just a movie" and turned it off. Its a simple procedure and saves a lot of undue stress.