(1) So much ground to cover just in this one sentence. Pretentious how? Dull, how? "Dull" doesn't exactly qualify a statement. "Derivative" or "well-tread" would speak to how something was dull to you. And again I ask, pretentious how? Unrealistic, what, for a superhero movie? And how does it claim to be realistic? At what point do the characters break the fourth wall and ask the audience, "You get that this is supposed to be realistic, right?" Overrated isn't quite as preposterous, but it is usually a claim made by someone who can present an alternative that they prefer and why. Even if that's not always the case, stating that something is overrated is acknowledging that it is merely overrated in your own view - you didn't like it as much as so many others. That isn't evidence that a movie "sucked." I'd also suggest that you look up "pretentious." It doesn't mean that you didn't enjoy the movie. It means that the movie was trying desperately to appear a certain way to the audience instead of simply being a certain way. But I'll bite: in what way was The Dark Knight pretentious, pretentious, pretentious and also pretentious?RT said:
(2) Doesn't he save the day, and kick a whole lot of ass? I can only surmise that you mean that he had to take the blame to save the city and didn't just spend the whole 2 hours going on a rampaging ass-kick-a-thon, therefore clearly he is impotent. Let me know when YOU wage a one-man war on the entire mob dressed up in an animal costume using ninja tactics and sci-fi weapons if you ever struggle in a fight. I guess that's also why A BATMAN MOVIE was unrealistic. Oh well. Somebody call Joel Schumacher, we need a retcon. The growling bothers some friends of mine, and overall I have to say I enjoyed how he did it in the first one better. Still not a reason why a movie objectively sucked. Christopher Nolan is a very traditional director when it comes to effects and fight choreography. To some, this means that his films look "dated" because they don't ape the Wachowskis like just about every friggin' director from the past decade. Not to me. I like in-your-face action, shaky cam, and slow-mo as much as the next guy - just not as often, and only in the hands of talented directors. I also like to see a movie wherein the human beings move like human beings. I will admit, there were some action sequences in Inception that were underwhelming. But I'd rather watch them than someone other than Paul Greengrass doing epilepsy cam any day. The action in Braveheart, Aliens, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade still hold up. They aren't dull simply because they aren't filmed in glorious Robert Rodriguez vision. And the fact that you credit (what you consider to be) bad fight choreography to the character or the actor says that you're not quite a critic yet, young padawan. Keep telling Christian Bale he's fat, though.
(3) At this point I'm just convinced you're on acid (MODS: I AM IN NO WAY CONDONING DRUG USAGE).
(4) Make that cocaine (MODS: I WOULD NOW LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO PERSONALLY CONDEMN COCAINE USAGE).
(5) Yup. Cocaine.
(6) So, because the Joker is not a killer clown, but rather a killer dressed as a clown, it's unrealistic? Have you consulted John Wayne Gacy on this?
(7) Interestingly, and I really thought I'd be alone here, most of my friends who care more about quality of acting and less about using their legitimate films as pornography also find the choice of the admittedly less good-looking Maggie Gyllenhall over the cute-as-Hell-but-not-terribly-talented Katie Holmes to be a good one. But you disagree, again because she's "horrible." I'm sorry, "was playing was horrible and looked horrible." I'll bet you hate Kathy Bates as well. Because, of course, women are only here for us to pretend we're fucking.
(8) I don't know, maybe they didn't give Harvey DID because they wanted the movie to me more, y'know, realistic. DID is usually not spontaneous.
(9) T-shirt!
(10) I would love to pretend this is a reference to Michael Clarke Duncan in The Green Mile. How unfortunate that I know better. I'm fairly certain, given that Christopher Nolan has never shown any racism or race-pretentious tendencies in his films, that the race of Lucious Fox is inconsequential.
(11) I don't know what you're talking about at all, but you do have a point: what realism are you seeking in a movie wherein a guy dressed up like a bat fights a clown? I will tell you, though, that most of the weapons, physics and science in the game are all based on real-world things/phenomena, and that The Dark Knight is so highly regarded not just for how good a Batman film it is, but for how good a movie it is on its own merits, how it transcends being a simple popcorn film, and how it makes a comic franchise seem like realistic fiction.
(12) No, it really doesn't, so again we have to infer. I'm guessing you just didn't like it because it's not what you're used to, and you don't see movies to see something you haven't experienced before (and apparently because it was longer than 90 minutes, which in your book is a no-no). There really wasn't any objectivity in your description at all. That's OK - you just need to admit it. And clear up some of the muddy stuff in there. "It sucks because it sucks" isn't an adult description.
