Please visit our forum sponsors
Duality got banned? Did i miss something in another thread?
About heath and day-lewis. I think both palyed their parts better but for how they performed and with the amount of time to learn the character Heath did a better job. Daniel Day-Lewis had a year to prepare for his role in There Will Be Blood and Heath had only a few months. The jokers character has many more tangibles than Plainview.
Line, as always you have posted some very solid arguments. I don't believe you think you are the be all and end all of critics as others have implied. You have seen a ton of movies that most of us haven't and may never. You can clearly justify why you rate movies the you do, so your reviews get my respect.
I will respectfully disagree and rate "The Dark Knight" a 9.5/10 and i will tell you why. As for all art, you don't appreciate cause someone else tells you to, you appreciate it because it speaks to you. This is how everyone should watch movies, critics are a good way to get a feel for a movie, but no one can tell you if it will speak to you or excite you. The Dark Knight spoke to me. I have always loved superheroes, especially DC, now don't get me wrong, i am no fanboy. I have always enjoyed movies, stories, video-games that remove the reader/viewer/player from the real world to tell a story about morality and complexity. The Dark Knight took me to Gotham, it made me believe the joker was a force to be reckoned with. It made me feel the weight of batman's choices, to give in and kill the joker and abandon his moral code and become no better than the joker. I understood the reasons that Harvey Dent went off the deep end. I felt understood the need to keep Dent's reputation solid to give gotham hope. Most importantly, i saw the very faint line between good and evil, order and chaos defined in two characters. I saw how they were the same and how they were different.
I may be reading too deep, but the movie spoke to me. For 2.5 hours, i wasn't in the theatre, i was in Gotham, i was right there watching good and evil duke it out. Maybe i don't have the most cinematically discerning palette, but the thematic elements, the music, the characters, the cinematography and the story. This movie drew me in, asked me questions and showed me some cool perspectives and lets face it some awesome action. I had a great time at that movie and it provoked thought in me.
Anyways thats just my two cents about a movie i saw, take it for what its worth.
God Loves Bodybuilders, and everyone else for that matter.
@ the titty shot....
slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.
Ledger, on the other hand, gave an incredible performance but his character had no true center and was obviously inspired by several classic American actors. Yes, DDL definitely was channeling John Huston a bit but I found Ledger's inspirations a bit more obvious and despite the "sociological" interests that the Joker demonstrated I didn't find the character all that deep or enlightening. That's not to say that Ledger didn't do a fantastic job with the source material or his direction but I find it's far too early to say whether or not his performance should be as heralded as it already is. I won't hesitate to say that his range was larger than that of Day-Lewis but I find Plainview to be a far more pertinent figure in American cinema and almost all of that is attributed to the performance itself.
Also, it shouldn't go unmentioned that the two have completely different approaches to acting. DDL is a highly publicized method actor meaning he never breaks character, even off the set or in between shoots. Did he have a year to prepare? Sure, but that's nothing compared to the distance he puts between himself and reality to put forth such a performance. I don't feel comparing said methods is effective in determining the overall magnitude of a performance though as I was just providing some food for thought.
Thank you.Originally Posted by Ryeland
That's a fine way of viewing things but I believe you're divulging a bit much into pure subjectivity. Art is creationism, yes, but it's also a very formatted and real process. There are no arbitrary decisions made during production of any work and very few true artists strive for sole reactionary critique. Our impulses tell us in immediacy what is enjoyable and good to us but I think it's a bit of an oversight to not want to intellectually examine something past direct stimulus. There's absolutely no shame in falling in love with a work for reasons you can't explain but I try to avoid such pitfalls in formal crits in order to better find what the picture is truly trying to say instead of merely how it felt as an experience.Originally Posted by Ryeland
Part of my complaint is that despite having very well managed characters that focused and channeled moral issues it wasn't very complex and, often times, far too spelled out. The film played out well based on character motifs but it could have explored more challenging dilemmas without losing its audience or the spirit of its players. Again, this is not my full-out issue with the film but there were moments that were made much too obvious even to the common viewer.Originally Posted by Ryeland
But he didn't kill The Joker and his moral code was not abandoned. Vigilantism is a pertinent issue in the film and one that could lead many personalities to a moral crisis but Batman has already pushed aside said values in order to do what he feels is right. That in itself is at the very spirit of the character because essentially he is breaking the law just by acting in the name of good. So, in a nutshell, he's only expanding how far he is willing to cater to his own initial social construct, not necessarily abandoning it outright.Originally Posted by Ryeland
Well, yes, it's a very simple metaphor in terms of dealing with Dent and Two-Face. Eckhart's performance was very under discussed and I think he truly did shine here in the face of an already star-studded ordeal. Sadly, his character arc was horribly rushed and the potential to have a truly great villain was discarded rather quickly instead.Originally Posted by Ryeland
I'm glad it provoked though in you because, truthfully, that's a very unheralded quality of cinema that few care to bother with. I'll certainly be the first to concede that it's a very well crafted film but now that you've seen what a movie can do to you intellectually, just wait until you discover some of the other stuff that is out there. I'm glad, in a way, that the film was able to bridge a gap and allow people to take on thought post-viewing but it's really just a lead in to what film can truly become and what can be accomplished intellectually through this medium.Originally Posted by Ryeland
Again, I'm glad you enjoyed it but I feel that sensationally it doesn't hold an escapist candle to the surrealist works of Lynch and, from a more grounded perspective, Nolan is far from reaching in and examining the human condition in the way Tarkovsky, Allen, Kar Wai, Herzog, Godard, Kurosawa, Bergman, Antonioni, Melville, Altman, Kubrick, von Trier, etc...do.
Of course, and it's worth quite a bit. I enjoy civilized discussion and some give-and-take far more than most realize.Originally Posted by Ryeland
Duality is not going to be too pleased when he comes back tomorrow. However, if he's going to act like this to Admins. than he better get used to it. Learn from my mistakes as Kickazz23 Duality, don't piss off the wrong people, especially the ones that let you "live" in their server. :keke: Anyways, titty shot, not really happening for me. I feel it utterly disturbing that she's arroused by her kid sucking it.
Line you scare me.