Movies! Movies! Movies! (Non-Japanese)

adub2adub wrote:

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.

Yeah I used to live in NY for 3 years....everything is more expensive. Well where ever you choose to watch the film I hope you enjoy it.

adub2adub wrote:
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?

Hard to say. I think it really depends on how you personally feel about Imax. In my case, Imax presentations don't impress me at all so it's not worth it. If all things were equal and it's the only screen with tickets, then I would. There are scenes in the movie that will take advantage of Imax, like whenever Batman is gliding on top of a city. The "trouble" comes in fight scenes because they are mostly filmed the way everyone does now: up close, quick and constant cutting. Even on a regular screen it's just a mess, and the size of Imax makes it a giant mess. However, since the fight scenes are not the whole movie, don't feel it's a deterrent. If you want to see it in Imax, then do it.

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?

Mostly the first two. The underlying theme was about what the Batman really was, but it was lost when the movie devolved into a "brainless" action movie. It's difficult to get into detail without giving away spoilers. The Joker is there to push the limits of Batman, but his plots became more and more incredulous that it became cartoony, working against the whole "realistic" Batman feel that made Batman Begins so good. Although I thought Ledger's performance was good, I wasn't awed like many others; I certainly didn't find him creepy or frightening. I also didn't think the performance "stole the movie" as much as the movie was written too much around him which detracted from the theme they were going for. Essentially, they pulled a "Sosuke" with the Joker; when he should have been the catalyst of plot they ended up turning him into the focus. On the technical side, they crammed too many scenes together with no flow that the movie kind of kept tripping over itself. The ending did redeem it, pulling the theme out of the mess. Keep in mind, this is how I saw it.

One thing. Raz al Ghul was right. Batman did lack the courage to do what was necessary.

Kijinnmaru wrote:One thing. Raz al Ghul was right. Batman did lack the courage to do what was necessary.

But those two characters have different moralities.

I just saw The Dark Knight (finally) and, like so many others, I was completely blown away by Heath's Joker. I wasn't sure he'd be as good as Jack's... but he blew Jack outta the water.

I have a question tho.

Spoiler — click to reveal

When Batman had the choice between saving Rachel or Dent, he said he'd save Rachel, but instead saved Dent. Was this his intention, or had Joker purposely switched the addresses on him?

Wynter wrote:I just saw The Dark Knight (finally) and, like so many others, I was completely blown away by Heath's Joker. I wasn't sure he'd be as good as Jack's... but he blew Jack outta the water.

I have a question tho.

Spoiler — click to reveal

When Batman had the choice between saving Rachel or Dent, he said he'd save Rachel, but instead saved Dent. Was this his intention, or had Joker purposely switched the addresses on him?

Spoiler — click to reveal

I think the addresses were switched... Also, Gordon went to the other address, albeit too late.

Wynter wrote:I just saw The Dark Knight (finally) and, like so many others, I was completely blown away by Heath's Joker. I wasn't sure he'd be as good as Jack's... but he blew Jack outta the water.

Yeah his performance was pretty "sick" ~ figuratively and literally.

Wynter wrote:I just saw The Dark Knight (finally) and, like so many others, I was completely blown away by Heath's Joker. I wasn't sure he'd be as good as Jack's... but he blew Jack outta the water.

i think jack's joker was just as good. tim burton's batman was more comic book and so it was right for that movie. chris nolan has gone down the very serious route and hence heath's psycho joker fits the new film.

saw Psycho. the thing is, it was actually recommended by my dad. and what seems to be his synopsis turns out to be the ending of the movie. :tired:
so there was absolutely no surprise. and all i got was 108 minutes of black&white cheesy murders.

monta wrote:saw Psycho. the thing is, it was actually recommended by my dad. and what seems to be his synopsis turns out to be the ending of the movie. :tired:
so there was absolutely no surprise. and all i got was 108 minutes of black&white cheesy murders.

Psycho is a suspense classic....

So typical of the younger crowd to diss a black and white film... Obviously, you need to stick with lame color movies, like Speed Racer. :shakehead:

kenjilina wrote:

i think jack's joker was just as good. tim burton's batman was more comic book and so it was right for that movie. chris nolan has gone down the very serious route and hence heath's psycho joker fits the new film.

Yea, but in the comics, the Joker was a psycho-path, so I thought Heath's joker wasn't that far off. I mean, there was the absence of toys and gimmicks, which the original batman had loads off, but I think it was a decent portrayal.

monta wrote:saw Psycho. the thing is, it was actually recommended by my dad. and what seems to be his synopsis turns out to be the ending of the movie. :tired:
so there was absolutely no surprise. and all i got was 108 minutes of black&white cheesy murders.

Psycho was an AWESOME film! I show it in my F&V class. Granted, the first half hour is a bit boring, but that's the point. The movie actually starts when the protagonist dies. Right in the middle of the movie. How often does that happen?

bmwracer wrote:
Psycho is a suspense classic....

So typical of the younger crowd to diss a black and white film... Obviously, you need to stick with lame color movies, like Speed Racer. :shakehead:

uh, i wasn't dissing the fact that it was black&white but i was disappointed because i was spoiled and thought the stabbing was cheesy.

when my dad recommended me this movie he said

Spoiler — click to reveal

it's a story about psycho guy who has a motel. he kills the people that go the motel. he's mother is actually dead but he still thinks he lives with his mother

so boy, i was sooo surprised with the ending of movie



geez, you older guys need to chill

monta wrote:uh, i wasn't dissing the fact that it was black&white

Your quote:

108 minutes of black&white cheesy murders

:rolleyes:

bmwracer wrote:

:rolleyes:

i only mentioned that it was black&white. it's 'black&white cheesy murders' not 'cheesy black&white murders'.

^ LOL, like that makes a REAL big difference. :hehe: :rofl:

bmwracer wrote:^ LOL, like that makes a REAL big difference. :hehe: :rofl:

It makes sense to me. I don't think that monta was dissing the black & white picture, just the cheesiness of the murders that happened to be a b&w film.

But yeah, I agree that Psycho was a classic. I saw it about 5 years ago or so and I was shocked at the ending. Yes, it's been an old classic movie all this time, but I had no idea what the ending was. Thank goodness for that! :D

cori wrote:It makes sense to me. I don't think that monta was dissing the black & white picture, just the cheesiness of the murders that happened to be a b&w film.

Then the fact that it was a black and white film was pointless, so why bring that up in the comment?









It's sunny and 83F right now..... And that's just as pointless.

bmwracer wrote:It's sunny and 83F right now..... And that's just as pointless.

If you posted this in the correct thread, it wouldn't be. :beaten:

"The Dark Knight" leads box office for third weekend

By Dean Goodman
Sun Aug 3, 4:01 PM ET

"The Dark Knight" fended off a strong challenge from the new "Mummy" sequel to lead the North American box office for a third weekend, and is on track to become the second-biggest movie of all time.

The Batman blockbuster earned $43.8 million for the three days beginning Friday, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said on Sunday. Universal's "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" followed with $42.5 million.

The Walt Disney Co. political comedy "Swing Vote" came in at No. 6 with just $6.3 million, the latest disappointment for its star, Kevin Costner, who has not had a $100 million movie since 1992's "The Bodyguard."

The total for "The Dark Knight" rose to $394.9 million. Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc, said it expects the film to add at least $100 million, surpassing the $461 million haul of 1977's "Star Wars" and its two reissues, the current No. 2 movie of all time in the United States and Canada. The $601 million record, held by 1997's "Titanic," seems watertight. Adjusted for inflation, though, "Titanic" ranks at No. 6, far behind "Gone with the Wind" at $1.4 billion, according to tracking firm Box Office Mojo.

"The Dark Knight" will add yet another record to its impressive tally on Monday or Tuesday, when it breaks $400 million, which would be its 18th or 19th day of release. The old record of 43 days is held by 2004's "Shrek 2."

Internationally, "The Dark Knight" has earned $205 million, Warner Bros. said. Top markets include Britain with $50 million and Australia with $32 million.

It looks to me like monta's Dad ruined it for him by telling him too much. And you have to remember, when this movie first came out (1960) there weren't very many homicidal cross dressers. Now it's an everyday occurence. If you don't believe me, check out the COSPLAY thread. :shakehead:

gaijinmark wrote:It looks to me like monta's Dad ruined it for him by telling him too much.

If he didn't, would monta have any motivation to see a *cough* black and white *cough* movie?




When I suggested that my niece check out Citizen Kane, the first thing she asked was, "is it in color?"

Darn fool kids.