Movies! Movies! Movies! (Non-Japanese)

Kijinnmaru wrote:Too bad they screwed up the rest of the movie. :beaten:

I think I liked it more than most... I thought it was a noble effort, particularly for a Hollywood flick.

I saw this post on another forum about the IMAX version of Dark Knight:Saw it in IMAX yesterday. First time seeing a regular theatrical release in IMAX. I don't recommend it. Too big. I used to love the old 70 mm, but this setup just isn't right. You have to sit with your head tilted upward, to be able to see everything and it's just weird. [/list:u] Anybody else see it in IMAX? [/list:u]

gaijinmark wrote:I saw this post on another forum about the IMAX version of Dark Knight:Saw it in IMAX yesterday. First time seeing a regular theatrical release in IMAX. I don't recommend it. Too big. I used to love the old 70 mm, but this setup just isn't right. You have to sit with your head tilted upward, to be able to see everything and it's just weird. [/list:u] Anybody else see it in IMAX? [/list:u]

I've only ever seen 3D movies in Imax. It costs so much, I want to get value for money :sweat:

LOL, i guess i'm the oddball. but i'm used to that...

Speed Racer *vrooom!!.... vrooom!!!...*

:hehe:





man, SpeedRacer must be really awsome on IMAX :ashamed:

monta wrote:man, SpeedRacer must be really awsome on IMAX :ashamed:

You mean really awful, ne? :beaten:

gaijinmark wrote:I saw this post on another forum about the IMAX version of Dark Knight:Saw it in IMAX yesterday. First time seeing a regular theatrical release in IMAX. I don't recommend it. Too big. I used to love the old 70 mm, but this setup just isn't right. You have to sit with your head tilted upward, to be able to see everything and it's just weird. [/list:u] Anybody else see it in IMAX? [/list:u]

I think Triky was planning on seeing the movie in IMAX... Not sure if he has yet.

gaijinmark wrote: Anybody else see it in IMAX? [/list:u]

i wanted to but it was sold out. :beaten:

bmwracer wrote:
I think Triky was planning on seeing the movie in IMAX... Not sure if he has yet.

Not yet. In a couple of days...too many showings were sold out even days after the premiere.

bmwracer wrote:
You mean really awful, ne? :beaten:

wait, nah, i'm not on any type of alcohol or crack :beaten:

Imax for Dark Knight is an iffy kind of thing. On the one hand, any scenes with Batman jumping off a building and gliding over cityscapes will look magnificent on Imax because they take advantage of the huge screen. However, Dark Knight films its action scenes like many others: Up close with many cuts, and in the dark. On a giant 60 ft screen, you can't really follow the action that way; it's difficult enough to follow the action on a regular screen.

So I finally had the time to catch this movie. I'm well aware that movies rarely ever live up to the hype around it, and I went in not expecting anything too grand. I have to say that Dark Knight not only did not live up to the hype, it didn't even come close. It wasn't bad, but it was mediocre at best. It had none of the atmosphere or feel of the first film. The scenes were jammed together with a choppy flow. They should have chopped at least 30 minutes to an hour off the film. The underlying theme of Batman was very intelligent, but it was lost in execution. I know his dealing with the Joker was suppose to push the envelope of Batman's limits and purpose, but I found myself rolling my eyes too many times to care after a while. And Maggie Gyllenhal was horrible. Not only was she hard on the eys, she accomplished the impossible: she acted worse than Katie Holmes!

I thought Heath Ledger's performance was good, though I credit much of the Joker's "feel" to the writer than to him. He executed it well, but he didn't create the character. It certainly was no oscar performance(not like I think highly of the oscars), and I think the buzz only came around because he's dead. The best scenes were between Bruce and Alfred, because they added to the central theme of the movie. And I thought the ending was really well done. Closed and open ended at the same time, like Batman Begins.

Kijinnmaru wrote:I have to say that Dark Knight not only did not live up to the hype, it didn't even come close. It wasn't bad, but it was mediocre at best. It had none of the atmosphere or feel of the first film. The scenes were jammed together with a choppy flow. They should have chopped at least 30 minutes to an hour off the film. The underlying theme of Batman was very intelligent, but it was lost in execution. I know his dealing with the Joker was suppose to push the envelope of Batman's limits and purpose, but I found myself rolling my eyes too many times to care after a while.

Wow. :shocked:

And Maggie Gyllenhal was horrible. Not only was she hard on the eys, she accomplished the impossible: she acted worse than Katie Holmes!

I totally agree with that.

I thought Heath Ledger's performance was good, though I credit much of the Joker's "feel" to the writer than to him. He executed it well, but he didn't create the character. It certainly was no oscar performance(not like I think highly of the oscars), and I think the buzz only came around because he's dead. The best scenes were between Bruce and Alfred, because they added to the central theme of the movie. And I thought the ending was really well done. Closed and open ended at the same time, like Batman Begins.

So you liked Batman Begins a whole lot more, ne?

I begrudgingly agree about the buzz surrounding Ledger's performance as a result of him dying tragically, but his performance was really scary and unpredicatable, just like Anthony Hopkins performance as Hannibal Lechter in Silence of the Lambs... Whether it's Oscar material is another story... That again, is a result of Ledger's untimely death.

Kind of a slow day, so I paid my semi-annual visit to One Eyed Jacks http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055257/[/list:u] I've seen it I don't know how many times, it will always be my favorite western. :applaud: (also, it's the only movie Marlon Brando directed)

I saw Dark Knight on IMAX...it was pretty spectacular...I had no problem whatsoever seeing the film. I was sitting near the upper middle dead center so I was eye level with the middle of the screen. I could see the entire screen, ginormous as it was, with no problem whatsoever...all this talk about not being able to see the screen comfortably or whatever is frankly bullshit, unless you have tunnel vision.

I could see everything perfectly and I didn't have to look up or down in order to follow the action on screen...maybe different IMAX theaters are configured differently but the one at The Bridge rocks...12,000 watts of sound pumping out of 6.1 channels...it's a totally immersive experience and it's better than the best theaters that I've been to, which include the Hollywood Chinese and the Cinerama Dome @ the Arc Light. Moreover if you really need to move your head for whatever reason, the seats recline a fair bit.

The Rachel Dawles performance was wack as has been mentioned numerous times but I thought the movie was really enjoyable....far better than the other summer blockbusters, notably Indy 4 which was weaksauce.

finished downloading Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 Psycho and Quentin Tarantino's Planet Terror


*is happy*

Kijinnmaru wrote:Imax for Dark Knight is an iffy kind of thing.

So, would you recommend seeing the film in IMAX or in a regular theater if everything else was fixed (i.e. cost/seating)?

I know 20 minutes of the film was filmed with IMAX cameras, but were the "non-IMAX" parts worse than if viewed in a typical theater?

The underlying theme of Batman was very intelligent, but it was lost in execution.

I don't quite get what you mean by poor "execution" .... meaning that the script was not very good, scenes didn't transition well, or the story just didn't make much sense?

Kijinnmaru wrote:Imax for Dark Knight is an iffy kind of thing. On the one hand, any scenes with Batman jumping off a building and gliding over cityscapes will look magnificent on Imax because they take advantage of the huge screen. However, Dark Knight films its action scenes like many others: Up close with many cuts, and in the dark. On a giant 60 ft screen, you can't really follow the action that way; it's difficult enough to follow the action on a regular screen.

So I finally had the time to catch this movie. I'm well aware that movies rarely ever live up to the hype around it, and I went in not expecting anything too grand. I have to say that Dark Knight not only did not live up to the hype, it didn't even come close. It wasn't bad, but it was mediocre at best. It had none of the atmosphere or feel of the first film. The scenes were jammed together with a choppy flow. They should have chopped at least 30 minutes to an hour off the film. The underlying theme of Batman was very intelligent, but it was lost in execution. I know his dealing with the Joker was suppose to push the envelope of Batman's limits and purpose, but I found myself rolling my eyes too many times to care after a while. And Maggie Gyllenhal was horrible. Not only was she hard on the eys, she accomplished the impossible: she acted worse than Katie Holmes!

I thought Heath Ledger's performance was good, though I credit much of the Joker's "feel" to the writer than to him. He executed it well, but he didn't create the character. It certainly was no oscar performance(not like I think highly of the oscars), and I think the buzz only came around because he's dead. The best scenes were between Bruce and Alfred, because they added to the central theme of the movie. And I thought the ending was really well done. Closed and open ended at the same time, like Batman Begins.

I generally agree with this. There were almost no WOW moments for me, where I was simply inspired by the presentation enough to spontaneously react. It was a fine action movie and worthy of a 8/10, but I don't think it was as impressive as the first one.

Tu_triky wrote:I saw Dark Knight on IMAX...it was pretty spectacular...I had no problem whatsoever seeing the film.

Same question for Kijinnmaru with you ... would you still recommend seeing the film in IMAX over regular theater?

I'm still debating if I should see this in IMAX or not. :banghead:

The Rachel Dawles performance was wack as has been mentioned numerous times but I thought the movie was really enjoyable

I very much enjoyed Batman Begins ..., but in your opinion, is the Dark Knight better?

adub2adub wrote:Same question for Kijinnmaru with you ... would you still recommend seeing the film in IMAX over regular theater?

Yes.

I definitely don't regret seeing it in IMAX and I thought it was a more enjoyable experience, personally...the sound, and the video (way more pixels) are much better as they are higher quality...and in fact, what many people might not know...The Dark Knight was actually partially filmed with an IMAX camera...this is the first feature length Hollywood film EVER shot with an IMAX camera...I think they are six scenes in total that were shot with an IMAX camera. The next feature film shot in IMAX will be Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

I very much enjoyed Batman Begins ..., but in your opinion, is the Dark Knight better?

I think there were elements in the Dark Knight that were better...the villanous character of Joker as portrayed by Ledger was much more fascinating than Liam's character as Raz Al Gul (sp?). A credit to Ledger's laudable performance. I enjoyed the pacing of the film, too, as well as the geographic locations featured in the film. Bale is also still fun to watch. I would recommend seeing it if you enjoyed the previous film.

About IMAX...I don't know where you live...but paying an extra dollar or $1.50 for an IMAX screening is worth it....not to say that's the major factor in your decision to watch it on a 35mm or the 70mm IMAX print.

I just finished re-watching Batman Begins... :victory:

I do like it more than The Dark Knight only because first-time "Origin of" stories are more fascinating to me... Which is why I really liked Iron Man... That armor is awesome. :victory: :applaud:

Tu_triky wrote:About IMAX...I don't know where you live...but paying an extra dollar or $1.50 for an IMAX screening is worth it....not to say that's the major factor in your decision to watch it on a 35mm or the 70mm IMAX print.

Well, I'm from NY .. but there's actually alot bigger price difference between IMAX ($15) and normal theater ($6.50) here. Although that wouldn't prevent me from going ... I just wanted to know if there was a big difference in video as I've never seen a full length motion pic in IMAX.