|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 19, 2008 13:56:13 GMT -8
I figured it would be a good idea to keep a general movie discussion thread around for movies we are interested about. In theaters, on DVD/tape, on the internuts, whatever. Anyways, yeah. Apparently the Max Payne movie blows. I could say I told you so... so I told you so. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 19, 2008 14:12:59 GMT -8
The only thing good we got out of that movie--sorry, smelly pile of shit that was an excuse for a movie, was  and  The director sure knows how to pick 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 19, 2008 14:17:53 GMT -8
On a more positive note, I'm looking forward to Quantum of Solace, Taken, and the Blu-Ray released of THE DARK KNIGHT. We'll be having an HD New Batman Series marathon that day. Anyone is welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 19, 2008 23:41:37 GMT -8
haught
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 24, 2008 16:13:49 GMT -8
For my Science Fiction and Philosophy class that I have taken recently, we watched the director's cut of Blade Runner. I personally like the addition of the ambiguity of Deckard's humanity but just now I realized that Deckard's dream should not have been a unicorn but a sheep in order to reference to the rather open question of the title of Philip K. BONE's novel it is based on, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?. It would have pure brilliance.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Oct 24, 2008 17:51:59 GMT -8
For my Science Fiction and Philosophy class that I have taken recently, we watched the director's cut of Blade Runner. I personally like the addition of the ambiguity of Deckard's humanity but just now I realized that Deckard's dream should not have been a unicorn but a sheep in order to reference to the rather open question of the title of Philip K. BONE's novel it is based on, Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?. It would have pure brilliance. It would have been a nice reference, but wouldn't have made as much sense in the context of the film. The unicorn dream was pretty much the one thing that actually proved Deckard was a replicant. It was like Gaff's way of saying "We know exactly what's going through your head, Deckard, and you'd better get the hell out of here while you still can." |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 24, 2008 18:06:41 GMT -8
It would have still made sense if the unicorn was replaced with a sheep in both his dream and in the origami.  There's really no reason why the animal has to be a unicorn, despite the unicorn being a mythical creature. Either way, the origami would still have hinted that Gaff knows what Deckard is dreaming. Unless you want to make the case that it is common for people dream about sheep and Gaff could have been just coincidental. That only allows for the ambiguity that makes the ending so good. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 24, 2008 23:13:35 GMT -8
Blade Runner is such a great movie.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Oct 25, 2008 10:56:07 GMT -8
It would have still made sense if the unicorn was replaced with a sheep in both his dream and in the origami. There's really no reason why the animal has to be a unicorn, despite the unicorn being a mythical creature. Either way, the origami would still have hinted that Gaff knows what Deckard is dreaming. Unless you want to make the case that it is common for people dream about sheep and Gaff could have been just coincidental. That only allows for the ambiguity that makes the ending so good. This is all true, but keep in mind, Ridley Scott has a huge hard-on for unicorns. Didn't you ever see Legend? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 25, 2008 13:03:01 GMT -8
It would have still made sense if the unicorn was replaced with a sheep in both his dream and in the origami. There's really no reason why the animal has to be a unicorn, despite the unicorn being a mythical creature. Either way, the origami would still have hinted that Gaff knows what Deckard is dreaming. Unless you want to make the case that it is common for people dream about sheep and Gaff could have been just coincidental. That only allows for the ambiguity that makes the ending so good. This is all true, but keep in mind, Ridley Scott has a huge hard-on for unicorns. Didn't you ever see Legend? MIA SARA! |
|
|
|
Post by The Dankness on Oct 26, 2008 0:38:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 26, 2008 22:58:14 GMT -8
Just my thoughts, open for discussion and opinion.
An Analysis and Critique of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and speculation on a third film.
Part 1: Brief Analysis and Critique of Batman Begins
In 2005, Christopher Nolan gave us Batman Begins, a film that not only re-booted the Batman film franchise, but re-introduced the character to American audiences, saving him from the embarrassing position Joel Schumacher had left him in. In an age where comic book movies always feature some sort of newly empowered everyman, Begins came on as a fresh break from that trend, giving us a character that was far more believable and realistic, because, well, Batman simply is those things.
To Begin with, Christian Bale’s take on Batman was part for part an exact interpretation of the character as he is in the comic books. It was a decision that polarized many viewers. Personally, I see Nolan’s interpretation and Bale’s portrayal of the character as the best to date. On one side there is a complex Bruce Wayne; a man so obsessed with vengeance and bringing criminals to justice that all he really does is wait for night to come in order to become his alter ego; a man who lets himself be seen as nothing more than a partygoer, “[driving] sports cars, [dating] movie stars, [buying] things that are not for sale”, a man who fights between his desire for vengeance, and his sense of justice. Through Bale’s masterful performance we believe the nobility Wayne maintains in his private life and the charmingly careless persona he puts on for show in public.
As Batman he is just as complex. He puts on another show, altering his voice and appearance to strike fear into the hearts of criminals. We like to think that it is all perfectly calculated, that Wayne is only a man in a mask who uses his intelligence and the dark to his advantage. But through Bale’s performance we see that perhaps deep down inside, Batman Begins’ Wayne is, as Wayne is in the comics, just a little bit insane. Begins’ strongest element is exactly what the title suggests: the genesis of the Bat. Taking up the first two thirds of the film, Batman’s beginning is by far the best comic book origin story on film.
The film’s weakest element is the third act, not because we all know that the microwave emitter plot device is flawed, but because the third act is just not that interesting. There’s no real sense of danger, no urgency to save Gotham. In a movie where it is established that the source of the City’s corruption is internal, bringing in an external tormentor is somewhat of a mute point. Luckily, it is all saved by great acting, Nolan and Goyer’s script, and the fact that Batman is just awesome. Batman is different from other superheroes in the sense that his mantle actually means something, it’s more than a disguise. It is the personification of fear, his own and his victims’. It is a tool. A symbol. An ideal. Its iconography is undeniable. Any hero can say “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you” but no other hero can say that and glide away as he does, giving us the iconic expanse of the black wings, a giant terrifying bat in the night.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 27, 2008 1:40:14 GMT -8
In short, Adrian likes the new film interpretation of the Batman franchise a lot.
But I'm not so disappointed by the third act as you seem to be. Ra's al Ghul, I would say, is not a external tormentor. While he certainly is external, his desire is not to torment but to annihilate. His character conjures an ancient sense of blunt moral absolutism, a God of the Old Testament who would destroy an entire city rather than save its soul. Batman, however, takes a more intricate look at the means of production of the criminal element. This conflict is necessary for Batman's character as it sets him apart from the mere vigilante who acts as judge, jury, and executioner (as Ra's al Ghul judges and condemns Gotham) but as the knight fighting to cure the corruption within. Once Batman separates himself from this absolute justice, he then needs to do battle with the exact opposite extremism of the Joker's nihilism and its denial of justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 27, 2008 8:31:45 GMT -8
LOL American Psycho II: All American Girl
Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets Silence of the Lambs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 27, 2008 8:37:08 GMT -8
First off, thanks for responding.
Philosophically, I have to agree with you, Batman needs not just any kind of enemy, but an enemy that he can set himself apart from. An enemy that can act as a foil, an enemy that can define him, because he isn't an agent of the law, at least not a legal one, and thus can be seen and is sometimes seen as much a criminal as the villains he fights.
I just wish it was more than your typical master plan to destroy a city.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Oct 27, 2008 8:37:41 GMT -8
LOL American Psycho II: All American Girl Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets Silence of the Lambs? Oh, I see you looked up someone. Yeah. Sad. |
|
|
|
Post by You probably can't touch this. on Oct 27, 2008 8:44:37 GMT -8
Looked up someone? What?
If you mean Mila Kunis, no. I was looking up American Psycho and found that there was a straight-to-video sequel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muramasa on Nov 14, 2008 0:10:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Galaxy on Nov 14, 2008 0:14:29 GMT -8
That youtube thing was pretty cool though, I liked the music.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inaaca on Nov 14, 2008 2:47:14 GMT -8
The first video was awesome, heh.
The second..... doesn't show much, but looks like it's trying really hard to be hardcore and epic and probably won't capture the upbeat, optimistic attitude that Dragonball was all about...
|
|
