Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Dark Knight - overlong, poor plot and most importnatly no heart - I didn't care about anyone in those IMO terrible films - I watched two and couldn't stomach another - at least that Nolen guy is not going to amke any more turgid nonsense.

but your view may differ

I will agree with you on Begins, and Rises (to an extent). But, IMO, Knight is the best Batman film to date. Say what you will about Christian Bale, but I think that Heath Ledger's Joker absolutely MADE the film.

His Joker was very good and was indeed well done - although the sheer amount of plot shields he had was very annoying - for me it was worse than some series of 24 in that the bad guy has "a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan and I can predict absolutely everything" yawn.

The only thing that disappointed me about HL Joker as opposed to Jacks one was that HL just didn't cause enough havoc and/or kill enough people to make him seem truly dangerous. Jack was absolutely insane and sooo much more dangerous.

Where HL killed a few mobsters (the pencil joke was very good) and blew up an empty hospital, Jack was torturing his own girlfriend with acid till she committed suicide, wiping out a whole museum full of people just so he could be alone on a date with Vicky, randomly poisoning beauty products etc etc. He absolutely did not care who he killed.............

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not creating a universe thats just putting bits at the end of movies.

That's not even accurate.

Yea it really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
They made a great successful commercial franchise, enjoyable popcorn movies, but to call it " Greatest Achievement in Film History?" i don't think so!

Agreed.

Watched the planet hulk film yesterday day, was pretty enjoyable though I felt the voice acting wasn't up to standard.

As for this whole debate, I don't think there even is anything like a "Greatest Achievement in Film History" except for maybe the invention of camera's. The subject matter in movies is always going to be more to some peoples liking then others so it's a bit of a moot point anyway. Just like the oscars.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The only thing that disappointed me about HL Joker as opposed to Jacks one was that HL just didn't cause enough havoc and/or kill enough people to make him seem truly dangerous. Jack was absolutely insane and sooo much more dangerous.

Where HL killed a few mobsters (the pencil joke was very good) and blew up an empty hospital, Jack was torturing his own girlfriend with acid till she committed suicide, wiping out a whole museum full of people just so he could be alone on a date with Vicky, randomly poisoning beauty products etc etc. He absolutely did not care who he killed.............

Yeah, and then there was....Partyman! Party-maaa-aaan!

Dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

I fell asleep partway through Avengers, or wanted to.
Thor I was boring.
Thor II was boring, with no background development at all. Why were the bad guys bad guys? Why is Loti a bad guy? Why are the GG's using shields and spears???
Captain America was unwatchable. The wife fell asleep and I went to surf the internet.
Hulk II was about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie wading pool. Most of it was a bad rehash of Ang Lee's superior film.

These movies have no plot, poor writing, poor development, and are just CGI vehicles.

Sorry Fraz, but the fact that you consider Ang Lee's film to be superior proves you've finally gone senile and your opinion can't be trusted. That was an absolute crap movie that never should have seen the big screen.

I'm going to back Fraz here somewhat.

Lee's 2003 film was flawed. He's since admitted it and said he should have had more fun with it and added more Hulk smash over some of the psychodrama. HOWEVER, I'd argue that stuff is also part of what made it a *FAR* more ambitious film. The psychodrama attempted to actually explain where Banner's rage comes from...which is an important point if you stop to think about the character for even a few seconds. His film also had far more visual experimentation and visual style, with the multiple panels, some moving, etc. The Hulk doesn't look as good as in the 2008 film, but that was the technology of the time. The Avengers Hulk looks better yet. And TBH, they *all* look CGI. I also like 2003's cast better.

The 2008 film has more smash and is more fun in that regard, but it's *paper-thin* otherwise. Not that that's a shocker coming from the director of such masterpieces as Clash of the Titans. A-bomb/Roth didn't really make for a great villain (Tim Roth as some hyper-special forces operative? Um...). However, it was better than the whole WTF Absorbing Man-ish thing/whatever they had going on at the end of 2003, so that's easily a point in its favor.

Ultimately IMO the 2003 film had some clear and significant strengths but also clear and significant weaknesses. Personally I'll take that over the competent enough, but fairly forgettable 2008 film.

Banner in the new Avengers film is just spot on and so well played - its a pity that the first two films mean its not likely the current excellent actor gets to do a whole film.

Yeah, and then there was....Partyman! Party-maaa-aaan!

Dumb.

Nope awesome - love the song, love the whole movie.

Mr Morden wrote:
The only thing that disappointed me about HL Joker as opposed to Jacks one was that HL just didn't cause enough havoc and/or kill enough people to make him seem truly dangerous. Jack was absolutely insane and sooo much more dangerous.

Where HL killed a few mobsters (the pencil joke was very good) and blew up an empty hospital, Jack was torturing his own girlfriend with acid till she committed suicide, wiping out a whole museum full of people just so he could be alone on a date with Vicky, randomly poisoning beauty products etc etc. He absolutely did not care who he killed.............

Nicholson also looked like he was having fun with the role and what the Joker was doing, which I feel is important to the Joker as a character. Ledger's was well acted, but(and I know this was a fault of Nolan's Super Serial style for the movies) Ledger's Joker was too much meticulous planner without having fun with it. He seemed too much like some one on a mission to prove himself right and less someone with an elaborate and incredibly deadly practical joke who wants it to succeed and ultimately shrugs it off when it doesn't. Yes, comic Joker has a serious side(and how much it shows comes from who's currently writing) but it's ultimately all about the game he plays with Batman.

gorgon wrote:

The 2008 film has more smash and is more fun in that regard, but it's *paper-thin* otherwise. Not that that's a shocker coming from the director of such masterpieces as Clash of the Titans. A-bomb/Roth didn't really make for a great villain (Tim Roth as some hyper-special forces operative? Um...). However, it was better than the whole WTF Absorbing Man-ish thing/whatever they had going on at the end of 2003, so that's easily a point in its favor.

To be fair, I think the villains in the Hulk movies suffer from the fact that, aside from the Leader, his comic villains tend to be pretty forgettable c-list characters with lame or copy cat powers so that they can they and Hulk can just beat on each other. You see it in this very thread: The most memorable story lines with hulk are things like Planet Hulk where he's going against people like the Silver Surfer or conquering the planet or World War Hulk where he takes on pretty much the entirety of Marvel's A-list hero selection and not those where he takes on his own established villains.