MR

Have you watched the movie "Thor"?
& Whats your impression of it?

tater1977 wrote:Have you watched the movie "Thor"?
& Whats your impression of it?

Went in with somewhat low expectations. But I thought it was really good. What I was skeptical of was Marvel being able to pull off the whole intergalactic thing. I was really impressed with the way they did Asgard and the battle with the frost giants.

Along with Wolverine, the best super hero movie that was made.

No Surprize wrote:Along with Wolverine, the best super hero movie that was made.

Wolverine left me with a bad taste in my mouth. {No jokes, assholes!}
But Thor was very good.

Gideon wrote:

No Surprize wrote:Along with Wolverine, the best super hero movie that was made.

Wolverine left me with a bad taste in my mouth. {No jokes, assholes!}
But Thor was very good.

Wolverine just felt too rushed. Most movies go on for too long, but I definitely felt Wolverine would have benefited from an extra 30 minutes. Haven't seen Thor yet, but it's on the short list of Redbox rentals.

No Surprize wrote:the best super hero movie

The Dark Knight.

Ehwmatt wrote:

Gideon wrote:

No Surprize wrote:Along with Wolverine, the best super hero movie that was made.

Wolverine left me with a bad taste in my mouth. {No jokes, assholes!}
But Thor was very good.

Wolverine just felt too rushed.

Add 'sloppy' and I'll give you a thumbs up for this post. The massive continuity error that is Sabretooth's relationship with Logan is... severe.

verslibre wrote:The Dark Knight.

I used to think that, too. Saw the film 6 times or so in the theater and was just floored by the plot and Ledger.
Now I think a lot less of it. From a storytelling perspective, I think Nolan was ridiculous the way that he made the plot fit the Joker's equally ridiculous schemes. It seems very forced.

Gideon wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

Gideon wrote:

No Surprize wrote:Along with Wolverine, the best super hero movie that was made.

Wolverine left me with a bad taste in my mouth. {No jokes, assholes!}
But Thor was very good.

Wolverine just felt too rushed.

Add 'sloppy' and I'll give you a thumbs up for this post. The massive continuity error that is Sabretooth's relationship with Logan is... severe.

verslibre wrote:The Dark Knight.

I used to think that, too. Saw the film 6 times or so in the theater and was just floored by the plot and Ledger.
Now I think a lot less of it. From a storytelling perspective, I think Nolan was ridiculous the way that he made the plot fit the Joker's equally ridiculous schemes. It seems very forced.

The Dark Knight stands as a great movie in its own right. The first few times I saw it, I thought "Man, this blows Batman Begins away." But with the distance of time and seeing Batman Begins and Dark Knight back to back a couple times, I've realized that Batman Begins is far and away the stronger film. It just doesn't have the tour de force that was Ledger's performance as Joker. But overall, it's a much better film.

I think I'd agree, but I haven't seen Begins in years. Neeson, Murphy, and Wilkinson were a great trifecta of villainy, though.

I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy. The Joker is so intelligent as to approach psychic, able to detect the precise time and distance a bus will travel through a wall to incapacitate his attacker? He's so rhetorically gifted as to be able to persuade Harvey dent to unleash his wrath in Gordon and Batman's direction for failing to save his girlfriend rather than the guy who intentionally killed her? And Batman, who was willing to let Ra's al Ghul die in the first film... feels inclined to spare the Joker??

Gideon wrote:I think I'd agree, but I haven't seen Begins in years. Neeson, Murphy, and Wilkinson were a great trifecta of villainy, though.

I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy. The Joker is so intelligent as to approach psychic, able to detect the precise time and distance a bus will travel through a wall to incapacitate his attacker? He's so rhetorically gifted as to be able to persuade Harvey dent to unleash his wrath in Gordon and Batman's direction for failing to save his girlfriend rather than the guy who intentionally killed her? And Batman, who was willing to let Ra's al Ghul die in the first film... feels inclined to spare the Joker??

Good points about The Joker. It definitely became a lot more comicesque in large part because of the scenes you cite here.

But, go watch Batman Begins again. I'd be curious to see what you think... especially if you can manage watching both films in a close timeframe (a day or two).

Gideon wrote:I think I'd agree, but I haven't seen Begins in years. Neeson, Murphy, and Wilkinson were a great trifecta of villainy, though.

I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy. The Joker is so intelligent as to approach psychic, able to detect the precise time and distance a bus will travel through a wall to incapacitate his attacker? He's so rhetorically gifted as to be able to persuade Harvey dent to unleash his wrath in Gordon and Batman's direction for failing to save his girlfriend rather than the guy who intentionally killed her? And Batman, who was willing to let Ra's al Ghul die in the first film... feels inclined to spare the Joker??

I know, there were so many bait and switches that it would make M. Night Shamlamadingdong blush!

Thanks for your thoughts guys. Will definitely have to watch it now
and some others that were mentioned here...
I hear that Thor II is coming out in 2013..with possibly Patty Jenkins
directing it..
Never heard of Wolverines ...sounds good though...Thanks..

Gideon wrote:From a storytelling perspective, I think Nolan was ridiculous the way that he made the plot fit the Joker's equally ridiculous schemes. It seems very forced.

With as long a film as it, it felt forced? The Joker's mind does not traverse the boundaries of a rational person's, so where you see something ridiculous, I see great characterization.

Ehwmatt wrote:I've realized that Batman Begins is far and away the stronger film. It just doesn't have the tour de force that was Ledger's performance as Joker. But overall, it's a much better film.

I enjoy both films thoroughly and it's hard to pick one over the other. Yes, it's Ledger's performance, but it's also the best follow-up to the best origin film. When the third movie is out, it'll be the third act, presumably the most violent, and it'll be best to consider all three as one long chronicle. There's nothing wrong with preferring Begins, but to say it is "far and away the stronger" of the two is too arguable a point to ever be considered gospel. It's not the same case as with, say, the first two X-Men films, since the first one is a laugh riot, so the second film is indisputably recognized as "far and away" the better of the two.

Gideon wrote:I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy.

What a weird thing to say. I don't recall anyone saying that about Nicholson's Joker in 1989. The Joker is the most famous of the Bat-villains. The Joker is to Batman as Lex Luthor is to Superman as Sinestro is to Green Lantern as The Red Skull is to Captain America. Nolan's interpretation of Batman is based on select Bat-titles, including Year One, and (for Joker), The Killing Joke. Read up on these and you'll have a better connection to what's going on in the films.

Ehwmatt wrote:Good points about The Joker. It definitely became a lot more comicesque in large part because of the scenes you cite here.

As opposed to what? It's a film sourced from various Batman titles. Any superhero film requires suspension of disbelief. As for Ra's al Ghul, was he a criminal being actively pursued by Gotham's finest?

tater1977 wrote:Have you watched the movie "Thor"?
& Whats your impression of it?

I've seen it twice and really liked it -- it was pretty good, but I don't think it was one of the best. Though there is a decent amount of angst, it became fairly light-hearted once he got to Earth and never really developed the emotional depth that films like the Spider-Man series or Iron Man did.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/10/8256648-superhero-arrested-accused-of-pepper-spray-assault#comments

Posted in the comments: "I bet he watches Blankman ten times a day."

verslibre wrote:

Gideon wrote:From a storytelling perspective, I think Nolan was ridiculous the way that he made the plot fit the Joker's equally ridiculous schemes. It seems very forced.

With as long a film as it, it felt forced? The Joker's mind does not traverse the boundaries of a rational person's, so where you see something ridiculous, I see great characterization.

Ehwmatt wrote:I've realized that Batman Begins is far and away the stronger film. It just doesn't have the tour de force that was Ledger's performance as Joker. But overall, it's a much better film.

I enjoy both films thoroughly and it's hard to pick one over the other. Yes, it's Ledger's performance, but it's also the best follow-up to the best origin film. When the third movie is out, it'll be the third act, presumably the most violent, and it'll be best to consider all three as one long chronicle. There's nothing wrong with preferring Begins, but to say it is "far and away the stronger" of the two is too arguable a point to ever be considered gospel. It's not the same case as with, say, the first two X-Men films, since the first one is a laugh riot, so the second film is indisputably recognized as "far and away" the better of the two.

Gideon wrote:I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy.

What a weird thing to say. I don't recall anyone saying that about Nicholson's Joker in 1989. The Joker is the most famous of the Bat-villains. The Joker is to Batman as Lex Luthor is to Superman as Sinestro is to Green Lantern as The Red Skull is to Captain America. Nolan's interpretation of Batman is based on select Bat-titles, including Year One, and (for Joker), The Killing Joke. Read up on these and you'll have a better connection to what's going on in the films.

Ehwmatt wrote:Good points about The Joker. It definitely became a lot more comicesque in large part because of the scenes you cite here.

As opposed to what? It's a film sourced from various Batman titles. Any superhero film requires suspension of disbelief. As for Ra's al Ghul, was he a criminal being actively pursued by Gotham's finest?

Of course both films require suspension of disbelief. But to me, the thing that Batman Begins pulled off that was totally remarkable in hindsight was that it actually suspended my suspended disbelief (no, that's not a typo). It was so dark, so undeniably comic book-based, but somehow, it felt pretty damn real.

Like I said, Dark Knight is an AWESOME film and one I'd gladly watch tonight. I'm just saying as time went on, I began to realize that BB is stronger in my eyes.

Ehwmatt wrote:It was so dark, so undeniably comic book-based, but somehow, it felt pretty damn real.

And that's why Nolan's take on Batman is the best.

Rip Rokken wrote:

tater1977 wrote:Have you watched the movie "Thor"?
& Whats your impression of it?

I've seen it twice and really liked it -- it was pretty good, but I don't think it was one of the best. Though there is a decent amount of angst, it became fairly light-hearted once he got to Earth and never really developed the emotional depth that films like the Spider-Man series or Iron Man did.

I disagree here. When he got to earth (Thor), sure it changes, but that's the way it happened in the comic, he fell for a mortal. At least in Thor, they finally cast

someone who was a close to the character as you can get. Wimpy Toby Maguire ruined Spiderman for me and Robert Downey jr. as Ironman was just ok.

Downey was a good choice, I just thought he should have been a bit more serious as Ironman. There is going to be another Thor and I hope it has something

to do with "Thanos" or "Mephisto".

The trailer alone made me hate that movie...I never want to see it. It looks like a cheesy SyFy Channel movie of the week.

verslibre wrote:

Gideon wrote:From a storytelling perspective, I think Nolan was ridiculous the way that he made the plot fit the Joker's equally ridiculous schemes. It seems very forced.

With as long a film as it, it felt forced? The Joker's mind does not traverse the boundaries of a rational person's, so where you see something ridiculous, I see great characterization.

Gideon wrote:I just disliked the way Nolan became a complete and total Joker fanboy.

What a weird thing to say. I don't recall anyone saying that about Nicholson's Joker in 1989. The Joker is the most famous of the Bat-villains. The Joker is to Batman as Lex Luthor is to Superman as Sinestro is to Green Lantern as The Red Skull is to Captain America. Nolan's interpretation of Batman is based on select Bat-titles, including Year One, and (for Joker), The Killing Joke. Read up on these and you'll have a better connection to what's going on in the films.

[/quote]

I suppose I should clarify. The Joker's characterization {i.e. the totality of his personality, his assemblage of traits, his attitude, behavior, and motivation} were very well done and that, along with Ledger's performance, are things that I don't dispute.

What I do take issue with is the absolutely superhuman intellect that the Joker demonstrates throughout the film, which at times is beyond genius and more akin to omniscience. Nolan crafted the plot in such a manner that overemphasizes how smart the Joker is and that undermines the quality of the film.

For example, the last time I saw a mastermind in this sort of genre on par with the Joker was Palpatine from Star Wars. Yet if you watch the films, Palpatine is simultaneously presented as brilliant yet fallible. While he ultimately achieves his goal, he suffers numerous setbacks and defeats throughout all six films, culminating in his death in Return of the Jedi. Lucas and co. make him formidable and absolutely dangerous without indulging in what I'd call fanboy writing.

I'm fucking up the quote function badly, I hope it's still readable.