Hard News: Just Friday
171 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
and I seem to be the only person on earth who found The Dark Knight ludicrously over-rated and at least 45 minutes too long.
One of my favourite lines from a movie review comes from James Berardinelli's take on Goldeneye.
Also, there's more action in Goldeneye than in previous 007 entries -- enough to keep a ninety-minute film moving at a frantic pace. Unfortunately, this movie isn't ninety-minutes long -- it's one-hundred thirty
-
Incidentally, that argument amongst American critics was kicked off by the great critic David Bordwell in this piece, which is well worth a read if you've ever wondered why action films seem more confusing now than ever before:
-
But what about the christian zombies?? No-one ever considers them...
All hail Peter Jackson
I kick ass for the Lordfollowed by
Zombie sex -
You're right about Bond -- it's a confidence trick played on the movie-going public every two years. Those are very ordinary action movies at best.
True. A largely overrated franchise that dates badly. Having said that, Casino Royale was better than average. It had some really good action scenes and one classic (the crane set piece). Like almost all the later bond movies it saves its weakest action set piece for the end. I always come out of Bond films feeling let down by the end. Come to think of it, Goldeneye wasn’t too bad either, and had one of the more satisfying final confrontations. Martin Campbell’s Bond seems to be about as good as it gets.
The Forster effort was okay-ish, but you’re right about the action directing – or at least some of it. The car and boat chases near the start were pretty clumsy.
-
I seem to be the only person on earth who found The Dark Knight ludicrously over-rated and at least 45 minutes too long
Craig Ranapia is.....__The Omega Man__!
The sole survivor of an overblown marketing disaster that has left humanity as brainwashed zombies who think The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, he continues his desperate struggle to find a cure.
Gasp! as he argues that the film could have done without the 'hostages on boats' end sequence!
Thrill! as he explains why Heath Ledger wasn't all that great, actually, and probably shouldn't be awarded an Oscar!
Coming soon, to a message board near you!
-
I seem to be the only person on earth who found The Dark Knight ludicrously over-rated and at least 45 minutes too long.
I thought it slightly overrated and about 10 minutes too long.
I didn’t have a problem with the action scenes in either of Nolan’s Batman efforts, except the car/van chase in Dark Knight (just prior to the truck flip part, I think), which was a bit Bourne-lite.
There was a big argument amongst critics in the US last year around The Bourne Ultimatum, shot on handheld and edited to hell. It gives you an adrenalin rush or a jolt but you simply can't get a sense of who's doing what where and to whom. Action should be about choreography -- these films are like shooting a 30s musical in a bunch of handheld close-ups with no wide shots of the whole chorus line.
I don’t entirely agree – or at least I’d say that that “action verite” style of the likes of Paul Greengrass can be appropriate. Also, Greengrass’ execution of that approach was a cut above Forsters. The chase/fight scene in Morocco midway through Bourne Ultimatum was far superior to any of the action scenes in Quantum of Solace.
That Bordwell piece sounds interesting, Philip. I’ll check it out when I have the time. (I’m meant to be working now.)
-
Speaking of Bond, I still can't get over the name of the latest incarnation. I mean, Quantum of Solace? Really? It sounds like a Norwegian post-rock band.
-
I think that is an honest Flemming title. I heard it was based on one of his short stories (though changed beyond recognition).
-
Yep, I'm right. From IMDb trivia:
"First James Bond movie to take its title from an original Ian Fleming short story since The Living Daylights (1987), a gap of twenty-one years. It is also the first time since this movie that James Bond has visited the opera."
-
Thrill! as he explains why Heath Ledger wasn't all that great, actually, and probably shouldn't be awarded an Oscar!
He should have won an Oscar -- in 2005 for Brokeback Mountain, which in my view was a rather mediocre film (and I'm saying this as a huge Ang Lee fan) with wonderful performances by Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams. Hamming it up as a sadistic psycho is the kind of flashy crap that gets people's attention. But conveying the inner life of a character who is so tightly wound he's eternally on the brink of imploding takes real skill. And honestly, not a skill I thought Ledger possessed.
I don’t entirely agree – or at least I’d say that that “action verite” style of the likes of Paul Greengrass can be appropriate.
Sure, but so is grainy mockumentary-style wobble-cam. I still was glad Cloverfield wasn't a frame longer than it was. Perhaps I'm a total wuss, but nausea isn't really my idea of good time. Any any technique is "appropriate" if there's a purpose to it, and I'm not sure Foster had one. Apart from "action verite" being hip -- and if you've got to try and be cool, you're not.
-
Hamming it up as a sadistic psycho is the kind of flashy crap that gets people's attention
Couldn't have put it better myself. He was good. But Oscar good? Nah.
The 'shooting style' thing is an odd one. Few directors seem to have the confidence to step beyond the style du jour, and use a mix of techniques and styles to give an overall spectrum, rather than a single style. Pity.
-
Any any technique is "appropriate" if there's a purpose to it, and I'm not sure Foster had one. Apart from "action verite" being hip -- and if you've got to try and be cool, you're not.
I agree. I felt Greengrass had a vision for his Bourne entries, that made the approach an honest stylistic choice (plus he executed it better). I don't think Forster used that style for any reason other than it is the "style du jour". I assume with the Bond films, though, that the producers have a huge say in that kind of thing too. They may have basically insisted on the approach.
I think you're underrating Ledger as Joker, though. Nicholson hammed it up as a sadistic psycho. Ledger's performance was far superior. It can be easy to dismiss ostentatious, maniacal performances, but I think it must be difficut for an actor to get these things just right. Ledger did. I like to see him nominated, anyway.
Cloverfield was a good film. It did make me nauseous, though. I'm also glad it wasn't any longer, but of course it didn't need to be long.
For some reason, The Blair Witch Project did not give me nausea. (Though I did feel kinda sick when I realised how much money they made from that piece of crap.)
-
See, I was very pleasantly surprised by The Dark Knight (possibly because I hated Batman Begins, but still). It was the first time in any incarnation that I've found the character of the Joker at all threatening - usually you have Batman, with his brilliant mind, unbeatable martial arts abilities and near unlimited resources against the Joker, who... is crazy. Maybe it was the writing more than Ledger's acting, I dunno.
And the "hostages on the boats" thing was the whole point - that was the real conflict of the film, and it's where the Joker lost. Getting beaten up by Batman was pratically incidental. The screenwriters had definitely read Alan Moore's excellent "The Killing Joke". Christian Bale is still a terrible Batman, though.
As far as shakey-cam goes, I agree with seems to be the consensus here - a good technique when used right; often used wrong. I thought the first brief fight scene in the hotel room was excellent - guy jumps Bond; violence happens; guy is dead. That actually told you something about the character of Bond and what happens when you mess with him. On the other hand, I had no idea what the hell was going on during the car chase at the start, when I felt that I should have. And The Bourne Ultimatium seemed to be the result of some sort of fetish - the damn camera never stopped moving, even when it was just a shot of two people sitting down and talking...
-
Because films are being discussed here could I mention Roger Ebert's 'evolution' into a major social critic in his journal entries. He is now using film as a starter to range across a broad swathe of interesting social issues. His comments section is nearly as interesting as PAS.
-
And the "hostages on the boats" thing was the whole point - that was the real conflict of the film, and it's where the Joker lost. Getting beaten up by Batman was pratically incidental.
That being the case, it shouldn't have felt like a post-script to the actual film. When I was in the cinema, I was almost reaching for my coat when they suddenly jumped into that sequence, and then I'm sitting there for another 45 mins. Mentally, I was ready to go home. I certainly wasn't 'in the moment' for the last act.
-
I didn't find that at all. I didn't feel that the movie seemed anywhere near finished that early. I do think it dragged on too long, and the 10 or 15 minutes after the Jokers last appearence, with Gordon's family and Batman's final confrontation with Two-Face, was ackward (and had me thinking of the end of Return of the King). It wasn't really a coda, but more like another climatic scene. It's obvious the Nolan's couldn't quite figure out how to get everything they wanted in, but they gave it a good try.
-
Complete change of subject, but while I'm here, here is the latest case of class jouralism, Children paid to watch TV violence shock.
Okay, as a story in itself, it might be fine, and it would make sense on page 5 or somesuch, as a straight bit of reportage.
But front page of the Dom Post, with the intro blarring "Children as young as 14 have been subjected to footage of rape, sadism and domestic violence as part of research directed by two broadcasting watchdogs." Come on.
Once you read the full story, most of it is 'nothing to see here' stuff, and then there's the pointless inclusion of comment from Family First's Bob McCoskrie. He said the fact that parents had consented for their children to take part "says something about the parents".
Well, thank God someone is thinking of the children.
-
McCroskie is a numbskull. That is all.
-
Heh heh. "ackward" and "jouralism". What a numbscull.
-
Actually having had the time to think about this properly, what I should have said is:
Given the stuff that a 14-year-old can just walk into a theatre and watch these days, how can McCroskie expect us to move towards his family-friendly utopia if we can't actually monitor kids' reactions? It's a bit rich of him to talk about scientific method in this respect. I think he'd just prefer an R18 for all non-Christian films, allowing movies like Mel Gibson's Jesus snuff to spread the gospel uninhibited.
-
You had it right the first time, Sam
Post your response…
This topic is closed.