What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Dialogue isn't that strong in any other comic book movie that I've watched, either, or rather, superhero movies specifically. That's kind of the territory of that genre, though.

That said, I highly disagree with that sentiment. Say what you want about Nolan's films, but the fact that he always tries something different with each film is a testament to his ability to take risks and actually have them pay off, considering that a majority of the films that he directs have been received with well above average reception.

Secondly, The Dark Knight is a great film, IMO. Not only is it probably my 2nd (or 3rd) favorite film in the genre (next to Captain America), but on an objective level, it did far more to get people and critics alike to have a newfound respect for the superhero genre that was previously lacking than just about any other film in the genre since the 1978 version of Superman. I mean, people really liked X-Men and Spider-Man, and IMO the 2nd X-Men movie was a legitimately great film, whereas the first was definitely a good film, but even those didn't really push the genre into the mainstream nearly as much as TDK did. That is to say, people largely still thought of superhero movies as "just silly fun" and didn't really take them that seriously, outside of hardcore fans. With TDK, Nolan pretty much proved that you could take the subject matter seriously, as ridiculous as the premise was, by cleverly adapting it in a way that modern audiences could relate to. That is to say that, as a Batman movie or a superhero movie, TDK is definitely around the top of its genre, but as a movie in general, it also still holds up completely well, even if you never read a single comic book or watched anything else related to superheroes in your life, save for maybe Batman Begins, as the first entry in the series.

Basically, it's a great film because it's just well-paced, well-written (and really, only Bruce and Alfred's dialogue can be a bit wonky at times, everyone else was pretty spot on), and well put together in general. The fact that it's a comic book movie is almost irrelevant since the movie works any way that you decide to view it. If that doesn't speak to how great a film is, then I don't know what does.

Also, keep in mind that this is me reflecting on the film over 6 years after its initial release, which is plenty of time to analyze it from an unbiased viewpoint, and in fact, for the record, I used to find the film a tad overrated back WHEN it was super hyped up. Now, it's much easier for me to appreciate it for the legitimately great piece of cinema that it is. Now, is it besr movie of all time material? Not even close. But would I say that it's an all around great film. Definitely.

On top of that, I can also vouch for Memento, Insomnia, and The Prestige as legitimately great films as well, and Batman Begins, Inception, and The Dark Knight Rises as good ones (even though I find the former two to be a tad overrated). That's a pretty solid track record that honestly very few directors, even ones that many consider to be great, can boast. Even if Interstellar turns out to be shit, one bad movie can hardly tarnish all of that good stuff.

At any rate, my point being that Nolan has earned his status as a great director. If you wanted to nitpick the common shortcomings in his films, I could easily do that for just about any other director that most people consider to be great. The point is that these directors each bring something to the table that makes their films so memorable, and that absolutely no one but they themselves can match.

[talonmalon333]

I actually agree with a lot of what you just said, about Nolan and The Dark Knight. I was mainly referring to the some of the huge Nolan fans who I feel kind of go to the extreme with him. And in terms of the moving being great, that might be a semantics thing where we were using the word differently. Like, I guess one way I could put it is that I feel a great film would be like a 9/10. The Dark Knight would, to me, be more like an 8.5 or something. Just coming up short of being great, but still a very good movie nonetheless, and I do recognize the appeal that it has for people now.

EDIT

Also, I do feel that Iron Man also pulled that off to a certain extent, in getting more people to appreciate the superhero genre. But I will admit that it was The Dark Knight that really did it.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

What you are talking about in terms of your number ratings is just more of a subjective way of looking at it, though. Granted that, I'd rate the film higher than that, myself, but that's also besides the point. What I was getting at is that, putting just personal preference aside, you can't deny how some of Nolan's films, in addition to mostly being critically praised, have either pushed a genre forward in some ways, or in other cases have had a lot of influence on movie-making in general. That's usually the sign of a great director. For instance, Spielberg is considered to be a great director, because of how much his films have influenced the medium, but he, like any other director, also went in with his own influences from the previous generation. That incorporation of his influences, and in turn his influence on many other directors through his films, is what establishes him as great, even if you consider the fact that he's made more than a few turds over the years.

Also, since you mentioned Alfred Hitchcock, while I agree with anyone that he's one of the greatest directors of all time, take into consideration just one thing: Can you remember any films that he did after The Birds that were great? Sure, there are plenty before it, such as Rope, Dial M For Murder, Vertigo, and Psycho, just to name a few, but most everything else that he did after that ranged from forgettably mediocre to critically panned, yet that's never used against him for what he did do great. That said, my basic point is that he isn't perfect, and neither is anyone, but when you look at Christopher Nolan's "nearly" spotless track record after over a decade of making films, it does say a lot that he's generally managed to stay so consistent with his critically praised films.

And going back to dialogue again, I would have to say that the complaint of his dialogue feeling unnatural and not realistic is a bit hypocritical if you actually are a fan of Hitchcock. Rather, the dialogue is suited to his style of telling a story, but most of it is always important with very few, if any, throwaway lines outside of the humor. If you watch films like The Dark Knight and The Prestige again, listen very carefully to what's being said, and how almost all of it is subtly paid off later in the story in ways that you may have never noticed before on an initial viewing. Guess who was famous for doing the same thing in his films? Alfred Hitchcock of course, but if you actually listen to the dialogue in his films, it doesn't really sound natural, either, even with excellent acting. Once again, it works because it suits the tone and nature of his films, and just about every spoken sentence has weighted importance and meaning behind it.

Anyways, I wouldn't call Nolan the next Hitchcock either, not so much because of a level of quality (though I do like Hitchcock's best output way more, admittedly), but more so because their general styles and qualities, aside from that one comparison that I just mentioned, are pretty much nothing alike to begin with. That doesn't mean that Nolan isn't still a great director for this specific era of film, though, and most of his films have stood the test of time so far, at least up to The Dark Knight.

[talonmalon333]

I wasn't necessarily talking about how the dialogue being unrealistic in my original post. That's something I'm fine with in the context of a film. It happens in many movies, such as Hitchcock, as you mentioned. Also, a movie that I recently saw, Network had more than one scene of characters talking in monologue, and they were never weren't great. My thing about The Dark Knight is that it tends to come off as a bit too analytical. One moment in particular that I never liked was when Bruce was mourning Rachel's death, and Alfred talks about how "You spat in the faces of Gotham's worse criminals". It's like... the women this guy loves was just murdered. Let him be, Alfred... Alfred had a moment in Mask of the Phantasm (which is a Batman movie that I would call great), where he gave Bruce a speech after Andrea seemingly died, and I liked that moment a lot more.

Basically, I feel the dialogue in The Dark Knight isn't quite as strong as the movies I mentioned above.

Overall, though, I can't deny the validity of most of your points, because you're right about Nolan and The Dark Knight being significant (but I do believe there are exceptions to the idea that pushing the genre is the mark of a great director, though that's aside the point). But in the end, the point that I was making at first was that, even though I do think Nolan has made some very good movies, and he's made his mark, I'm just not one of his biggest fans, and I don't think The Dark Night is good as Hitchcock's or, say, Speilberg's best works. I've seen some major Nolan fans that have treated him like the greatest thing ever, though I suppose it's true that that's the case for many fans of many things.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

First of all, I already mentioned how Alfred was one of the few characters who didn't come off right in terms of dialogue, but that hardly applies to every other character in the entire series. You seem to be just taking one point and using it to hold against the whole film. The dialogue, in the context of the film and the tone that it goes for, fits the story and characters, IMO.

You also kind of missed my point about why he's a great director. Pushing the boundaries of expectations is certainly one thing, but when it comes to the lesser quality ties of his movies, almost every weakness that you listed of him could also be applied to other so-called great directors, such as Hitchcock and Spielberg, or at the very least they would have their own set of issues even in their best films.

Also, I'm not a super huge Nolan fan. It's just that I can't deny that he is still a great director based on the same criteria that makes some of those other ones great. If you want another example, take Quentin Tarantino. Personally, I can't really get into a majority of his movies, but I can recognize why many people consider him so great and the appeal that each of his films have. Being a fan of him or not has nothing to do with it. It's what his films have managed to do themselves that cements his status. As for The Dark Knight, the movie is not perfect, much like any movie, but what it does do well is legitimately great. The performance of The Joker, the way it deconstructs the character of Batman and his world, and the themes portrayed in the film are all done extremely well in a way that no other film in the genre can really match, so far.

If you were to hold flaws against it, that would only be fair for other great movies as well. For instance, you mentioned that MOTP was great, which I agree with, but if I were holding things against it, I could be harsher on it for haphazardly throwing The Joker into the story. Did you ever realize that both thematically and in terms of plot that The Joker is not really needed at all? As far as story goes, you could replace him with almost any other villain in the Batman mythos and it wouldn't affect the story at all, outside of the final fight scene. In terms of the theme of the story about Bruce confronting his past and his relationship with Andrea, how exactly does The Joker contribute or connect to that? In all honesty, he's really just there because he was Batman's most popular villain and just had to be there. Now, if you directly compare it to Return of The Joker or The Dark Knight, he was completely core to both the plot and themes of those movies, and IMO was utilized more effectively in each of them. That said, I really still don't hold it against MOTP because I consider the rest of the film to be great, just like how I don't hold TDK's few shortcomings against it either.

I also noticed that, on the subject of whether Nolan is a great director or not, you only seem to be targeting TDK when it comes to your criticisms. That's fair enough when it comes to saying why you don't think that it in particular is a great film, but what about his other films that don't share the same set of problems, like Insomnia or The Prestige, for example?

[talonmalon333]

First of all, I already mentioned how Alfred was one of the few characters who didn't come off right in terms of dialogue, but that hardly applies to every other character in the entire series. You seem to be just taking one point and using it to hold against the whole film. The dialogue, in the context of the film and the tone that it goes for, fits the story and characters, IMO.

Alfred's a big character, though, and of course Bruce is too. And as for others, I do think it kind of applies to Ra's (though that's Batman Begins). You can say the same was done with Hitchcock, but I just think it came off as stronger and more straightforward in his movies. With Vertigo in particular, there was a whole lot going on that wasn't said.

If you were to hold flaws against it, that would only be fair for other great movies as well. For instance, you mentioned that MOTP was great, which I agree with, but if I were holding things against it, I could be harsher on it for haphazardly throwing The Joker into the story. Did you ever realize that both thematically and in terms of plot that The Joker is not really needed at all? As far as story goes, you could replace him with almost any other villain in the Batman mythos and it wouldn't affect the story at all, outside of the final fight scene. In terms of the theme of the story about Bruce confronting his past and his relationship with Andrea, how exactly does The Joker contribute or connect to that? In all honesty, he's really just there because he was Batman's most popular villain and just had to be there. Now, if you directly compare it to Return of The Joker or The Dark Knight, he was completely core to both the plot and themes of those movies, and IMO was utilized more effectively in each of them. That said, I really still don't hold it against MOTP because I consider the rest of the film to be great, just like how I don't hold TDK's few shortcomings against it either.

That was Jack Nappier, though. Yeah, they're the same person, but I think it was a fair twist since he was a mobster. That one didn't bother me much since I don't think it was too extreme. The movie didn't need him, but he did make it a bit nicer by being there.

You also kind of missed my point about why he's a great director. Pushing the boundaries of expectations is certainly one thing, but when it comes to the lesser quality ties of his movies, almost every weakness that you listed of him could also be applied to other so-called great directors, such as Hitchcock and Spielberg, or at the very least they would have their own set of issues even in their best films.

I also noticed that, on the subject of whether Nolan is a great director or not, you only seem to be targeting TDK when it comes to your criticisms. That's fair enough when it comes to saying why you don't think that it in particular is a great film, but what about his other films that don't share the same set of problems, like Insomnia or The Prestige, for example?

I actually meant to put this into my last post (I could've sworn I typed it up, too), but I meant to include a paragraph saying that... admittedly, there are still movies of his that I need to see, such as Insomnia and The Prestige. I've only seen The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, and Memento (and for Memento, I don't have a full enough memory of to properly critique), which is why I haven't gone into the topic of him quite as much. The Dark Knight is the main movie I wanted to address in the first place, since that's his most popular film and the one people seem to consider his best. I just wanted to point out that I don't think the Nolan favorite is quite as good as other people do. But in retrospect I kind of feel a bit guilty about criticizing Nolan as a whole when I'm not especially educated on his films. The main point I should have made from the first place is that I don't like his movies that I have a grounded enough knowledge of, as much as some other people, such as The Dark Knight.

But I do want to make it clear that I'm not hating on the movie, either. And I agree with this point of yours:

The performance of The Joker, the way it deconstructs the character of Batman and his world, and the themes portrayed in the film are all done extremely well in a way that no other film in the genre can really match, so far.

It's not one of my favorite movies, but it's probably my favorite live action superhero film.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Alfred's a big character, though, and of course Bruce is too. And as for others, I do think it kind of applies to Ra's (though that's Batman Begins). You can say the same was done with Hitchcock, but I just think it came off as stronger and more straightforward in his movies. With Vertigo in particular, there was a whole lot going on that wasn't said.

You were talking about the dialogue specifically being too analytical, though, and Alfred was the only character who really did that in TDK, and to a much lesser extent, Dent was somewhat analytical. Bruce really wasn't, nor was Gordon.

That was Jack Nappier, though. Yeah, they're the same person, but I think it was a fair twist since he was a mobster.

That completely ignores the point that he still could have been replaced by any other mobster. The Joker, as a character, really added nothing to the story. I also wouldn't say that his presence made the film better. I mean, it didn't make it worse, but I would have much rather had a more intense confrontation between Bruce and Andrea as he had to bring himself to take her down, despite their romantic feelings for each other. If anything, The Joker kind of served as a distraction from that.

I actually meant to put this into my last post (I could've sworn I typed it up, too), but I meant to include a paragraph saying that... admittedly, there are still movies of his that I need to see, such as Insomnia and The Prestige. I've only seen The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, and Memento (and for Memento, I don't have a full enough memory of to properly critique), which is why I haven't gone into the topic of him quite as much. The Dark Knight is the main movie I wanted to address in the first place, since that's his most popular film and the one people seem to consider his best. I just wanted to point out that I don't think the Nolan favorite is quite as good as other people do. But in retrospect I kind of feel a bit guilty about criticizing Nolan as a whole when I'm not especially educated on his films. The main point I should have made from the first place is that I don't like his movies that I have a grounded enough knowledge of, as much as some other people, such as The Dark Knight.

Fair enough. I was never arguing against your personal opinion on those movies, anyways. I was just stating my disagreement with your earlier point, in how I feel that those films do, in fact, deserve their praise, even when putting subjective viewpoints aside.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I saw Interstellar and liked it up until a certain point that if you've seen it, you probably know what I'm referring to. The ending was weak, too.

That said, it was ambitious, tried new things, and was really fresh. If only more people in Hollywood would try more new things like Nolan does.

[talonmalon333]

That completely ignores the point that he still could have been replaced by any other mobster. The Joker, as a character, really added nothing to the story. I also wouldn't say that his presence made the film better. I mean, it didn't make it worse, but I would have much rather had a more intense confrontation between Bruce and Andrea as he had to bring himself to take her down, despite their romantic feelings for each other. If anything, The Joker kind of served as a distraction from that.

I do get what you meant. I was just saying, really. Though I do like having the Joker there, and I thought the final confrontation was fine as it is, so this'll have to be another agree to disagree stance.

At the very least, I do like the Joker's reveal in this movie more than The Dark Knight Rises twist reveal at the end. I think we can both agree there.

[gunswordfist]

it was the best joker and btas fight. also, i heard that motp was going to originally be the end of btas so i can see why they would want to fit him in.

[talonmalon333]

it was the best joker and btas fight. also, i heard that motp was going to originally be the end of btas so i can see why they would want to fit him in.

If that were true, that would make sense. The final scene does kind of seem like the Joker's end, and I never understood how he ended up surviving that (even though Andrea did).

[Avaitor]

I got to see Nightcrawler tonight, and I think I was the only one in the club who wasn't in love with it.

I mean, the film made me feel uncomfortable throughout, but I'm pretty sure that was the intention, so that worked. And Jake Gyllenhaal gave a fascinating performance for a fascinating character. But I'm still trying to determine how the narrative treated him. He was a pure sociopath, but the film often took a matter of fsct approach to almost everything he does, which is what makes me wonder. This isn't an easy watch at all, but worth a rewatch from me somewhere in the future.

[gunswordfist]

just found out angels with filthy souls is a fake movie.

[talonmalon333]

I forgot to mention, recently, my friends and I were watching The Godfather movies.

And what can I say? They are two of the all time greats. Now, I had already seen the first movie in the past, and it's still just as great as ever. Then you have The Godfather Part II,  which is one of the most legendary sequels of all time. I love seeing Al Pacino in this movie as his calm persona slowly crumbles. And, as a counterpart to him, could you get any better than Robert De Niro (they're practically the same person as it is)? Fantastic. I do think it's not as good as the first movie, partially because The Godfather belongs to Marlon Brando just as much as it does Al Pacino, partially because I found that the movie was more complicated than the first movie, and not necessarily in a good way. Either way, though, both are fantastic, as we know.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I'm a big fan of the original novel, which is honestly my preferred version, but the first 2 films are still great. They also had Mario Puzo consulting with the screenplay, so the first movie was a really faithful adaptation of the source material, though unfortunately had to cut out a ton of backstory. We did get to see part of that backstory adapted well enough for the biggest character in the first movie, with the flashback scenes featuring Robert De Niro as Vito Corleone (or Andolini, if you remember his true family name) and those parts were the highlights of the second film for me. The film in general does feel like it really is what would happen in the continuation of the Corleone family story, but I'm in disagreement with the people who say that it's superior to the first film, mainly because I find that the supporting characters aren't nearly as interesting this time around. Even so, it's still a great movie.

Then there's The Godfather Part III, which is certainly one of the most unecessary sequels of all time (though I'd argue that the second movie wasn't necessarily needed as a follow-up, either), but I also feel that the massive hate that it gets is way overblown and largely undeserved. Is it a great film on par with the first 2 movies. No. But it's well written enough and put together in such a way that it's certainly not a bad film by any stretch, either. And yes, I know that Coppola casting his relative in the role of Michael Corleone's daughter was a big mistake and she was horrible, but one bad actress (for a character who honestly doesn't even appear that much in the film), does not kill the entire movie. It's one of those deals where people hate on the movies ore because everyone else does, these days, rather than judgining it properly. On its own, its a decent enough mobster flick. As a Godfather film, however, it's most certainly the weak link in the trilogy.