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.

Il take ANY Joker over Leto any day. Joker has a purpose. Leto just growls at people and drives shiny cars. Granted we haven't seen him really get a chance to do anything yet. But what we have seen is nothing to be excited for.

Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

 Mr Morden wrote:

I thought the best thing in that first film was the Scarecrow - he was good,

Ledger was Ok as a bad guy with super precog abilities but IMO both Nicoolson and more recently Leto were much more dangerous, unpredictable and insane.

Yes to Scarecrow, have always been a fan of that guy. But didn't spend enough time in custom for me either.

Also agree on Leto. It's not Ledger's fault, he had to play him how he was written, but Nolan just didn't make him crazy enough. Psycho yes, but Joker is insane. He def had purpose in Suicide Squad, and I also do love Harley Quinn in any form. The pair are perfect together.

I would say that the scene where Joker comes into the club is one of my favorite Joker scenes. Everyone looks like a rational badass, but then he walks in and everyone gives him his space. His attire, crew, etc, was how I see Joker. Leto's Joker is capable of moving on to bigger and more insane things while I feel Ledger's is kind of limited. May be more realistic but thats not what I really want from that character. He should be over the top.

For the record, I really like Suicide Squad even tho I hate Will Smith as Deadshot. Everything else was fine. Tom Hardy as Flagg would have put it over the top tho.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I thought the best thing in that first film was the Scarecrow - he was good,

Ledger was Ok as a bad guy with super precog abilities but IMO both Nicoolson and more recently Leto were much more dangerous, unpredictable and insane.

Yes to Scarecrow, have always been a fan of that guy. But didn't spend enough time in custom for me either.

Also agree on Leto. It's not Ledger's fault, he had to play him how he was written, but Nolan just didn't make him crazy enough. Psycho yes, but Joker is insane. He def had purpose in Suicide Squad, and I also do love Harley Quinn in any form. The pair are perfect together.

I would say that the scene where Joker comes into the club is one of my favorite Joker scenes. Everyone looks like a rational badass, but then he walks in and everyone gives him his space. His attire, crew, etc, was how I see Joker. Leto's Joker is capable of moving on to bigger and more insane things while I feel Ledger's is kind of limited. May be more realistic but thats not what I really want from that character. He should be over the top.

For the record, I really like Suicide Squad even tho I hate Will Smith as Deadshot. Everything else was fine. Tom Hardy as Flagg would have put it over the top tho.

I think Harley was good. Enchantress was good. El Diablo was good. Croc was a lot of nothing. Katana never stole a soul with her soul stealing sword. Captain Boomerang threw like... 3 boomerangs. Will Smith just Will Smithed his way through the film. Who else was even in it? I honestly can't remember.

 Lance845 wrote:

I think Harley was good. Enchantress was good. El Diablo was good. Croc was a lot of nothing. Katana never stole a soul with her soul stealing sword. Captain Boomerang threw like... 3 boomerangs. Will Smith just Will Smithed his way through the film. Who else was even in it? I honestly can't remember.

Well, there certainly were a lot of characters and its hard to give everyone their time. How many boomerangs did Captain Boomerang have to throw? Katana was useless but I thought she was the worst character anyway. Croc could have been better. But for all its faults its still by far one of the top 3 modern DC movies. Some of the visuals were just awesome.

Honestly - another factor I feel is necessary to be considered a classic is a unique idea or historical reenactment. Comic book movies by definition aren't unique or historic- they are rewrites of characters from comic books. Ergo - they aren't classics and can't be classics. Not saying they can't be good films and this is my own personal definition of "classics" but I really doubt TCM is going to be playing Batman Begins in 30 years.

On the subject of Nolan - he is very overrated.

Dunkirk - which is a movie you can't hate because it is a story about a great historical event and the good guys win. FFS it has Spitfires in it...how can you hate it?

Too bad Nolan missed the mark big IMO - It is visually stunning. It has incredible music and sound effects. It is also historically inaccurate BIG TIME. This is a crucial flaw in a movie about a historical event.

You've got fighters flying at sea level ready to get rekt by any high altitude fighter to "conserve fuel" on their 50ish mile trip to Dunkirk from England. Absolutely appalling. Fighters never would have done that - it is a death sentence. ESP in an area you expect to have German fighters.

The movie makes it seems like the British don't have a Navy. The French general is like "Where are the destroyers? We need destroyers?" Uhh...They had nearly 60 destroyers and hundreds ofl other Navy vessels from both England and France assisting in the evacuation. I get Nolan is trying to up the desperation factor and really pump up the scene where the small ships come into "save the day" but this is a hugely inaccurate representation of what happened there.

I think more time should have been spent showing the French defend the town. Plus the scene where Hardy (Ferrier) decides to become a POW instead of ditching in the water to get picked up by his comrades is just stupid. This makes Nolan stupid.

Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honestly - another factor I feel is necessary to be considered a classic is a unique idea or historical reenactment. Comic book movies by definition aren't unique or historic- they are rewrites of characters from comic books. Ergo - they aren't classics and can't be classics. Not saying they can't be good films and this is my own personal definition of "classics" but I really doubt TCM is going to be playing Batman Begins in 30 years.

On the subject of Nolan - he is very overrated.

Dunkirk - which is a movie you can't hate because it is a story about a great historical event and the good guys win. FFS it has Spitfires in it...how can you hate it?

Too bad Nolan missed the mark big IMO - It is visually stunning. It has incredible music and sound effects. It is also historically inaccurate BIG TIME. This is a crucial flaw in a movie about a historical event.

You've got fighters flying at sea level ready to get rekt by any high altitude fighter to "conserve fuel" on their 50ish mile trip to Dunkirk from England. Absolutely appalling. Fighters never would have done that - it is a death sentence. ESP in an area you expect to have German fighters.

The movie makes it seems like the British don't have a Navy. The French general is like "Where are the destroyers? We need destroyers?" Uhh...They had nearly 60 destroyers and hundreds ofl other Navy vessels from both England and France assisting in the evacuation. I get Nolan is trying to up the desperation factor and really pump up the scene where the small ships come into "save the day" but this is a hugely inaccurate representation of what happened there.

I think more time should have been spent showing the French defend the town. Plus the scene where Hardy (Ferrier) decides to become a POW instead of ditching in the water to get picked up by his comrades is just stupid. This makes Nolan stupid.

Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

Sounds like I was right in picking up a DVD of the excellent 1958 film rather than seeing another showy Nolan film

I also prefer the Longest Day to Saving PR

It's worth seeing just for the Spitfire sceens IMO - even if they never would have started at those altitudes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
but isn't part of Sucker Punch's schtick that we the audience are complicit in watching the girls exactly because they are hella purty, and their oddball fantasy escapism sequences are essentially teenage / dirty old pervs sticky fetish fever dreams that 'we' think they should have further demeaning them for 'fun'

Correct - it's no accident that the audience of men in the dream layer are sleazy and slimy AF. Snyder could have cast guys that looked like John Hamm, a father that looked like George Clooney, etc. but he chose not to. The casting choices and how they present in the various layers are very deliberate. One should assume implicit intent.

The question wasn't about the casting. It was about us, the audience, not the sleazeballs in the movie.

In a quick reference to Ledger vs Leto...

The Joker is a Nihilist (Dark). In The Joker's view, nothing matters. Because nothing matters, he can do anything he wants. Something he enjoys is holding a mirror up to the world to show it the errors of following law and order. Because it's meaningless. It's all a big joke!

He's got other issues, but that's his core LACK of purpose. The killing joke is all about his attempt to break Gordon, whom he sees as a champion of order. If he can crack Gordon, he can show Gotham that he's right, and all it takes is one bad day to strip a person of their rational humanity.

So to me, when Ledger burns the money, and screws the mob, he's doing that to completely destabilize the power structure, so that he can get the "Normies" to act as he wants. Ignoring the law and without organized crime, he can get the citizens to realize there's no order anywhere, it's just an illusion.

That's how I see The Joker from a Nihilist (light) perspective. For me, The Joker is a dark mirror of what I see in myself, and I feel Ledger's Joker did a better job of that. The inconsistent story of the scars. Holding the gun to his head while Harvey flips the coin (holding the hammer, if you look closely), taking a pretend swig of champagne at the party before tossing the glass. In these cases, he's displaying his disregard for expectations, and changing his "beliefs" to suit the needs of the moment. He doesn't need money. Gas and dynamite and knives are cheap. He doesn't really need much else, like fancy cars or his own helicopter.

I relate more to those aspects of The Joker's personality, so I enjoyed that portrayal more.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

Best war movie is Yesterday's enemy. Fite me!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

Best war movie is Yesterday's enemy. Fite me!

I'll fight you with 'Went the Day Well?', CGI Spitfires and bloody horror beach landing are nowt to Thora Hird with a BFG

 KTG17 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I think Harley was good. Enchantress was good. El Diablo was good. Croc was a lot of nothing. Katana never stole a soul with her soul stealing sword. Captain Boomerang threw like... 3 boomerangs. Will Smith just Will Smithed his way through the film. Who else was even in it? I honestly can't remember.

Well, there certainly were a lot of characters and its hard to give everyone their time. How many boomerangs did Captain Boomerang have to throw? Katana was useless but I thought she was the worst character anyway. Croc could have been better. But for all its faults its still by far one of the top 3 modern DC movies. Some of the visuals were just awesome.

Thats not saying much. There is only one good modern DC (DCEU) film (Wonder Woman) and they have only made 4 so far IF you include Man of Steel. Asking how many Boomerangs CaptB has is like asking how many arrows Hawkeye has to shoot. He should have had All the boomerangs. We should have been spoiled for choice in trick boomerangs. Some exploding ones. Some that do odd stuff. We got 1 camera one that culminated in a scene of the entire team huddled around an Ipad and 2 regular bladed ones. He threw more boomerangs in his little into with the flash then he did fighting hordes of CGI mud men. People who went to watch that movie without any knowledge of those characters thought he was the guy with knives.

As for number of characters and time. Civil War, Infinity War, Avengers 1 and 2. The Mystery Men. The X men Movies. Having a lot of characters isn't a good reason to write them poorly or give most of them nothing to do for most of the film. It was just a poorly written film with good visuals and a couple fun action beats and a couple stand out moments/characters most of which we will never see again on film probably.

OMG, someone is defending Suicide Squad? "Skwad"?

Sorry, but when She. Lincoln Osiris is a better Aussie than the movie's stereotypical Boomerang Guy, it's not a good sign

____

Rather than try to explain Sucker Punch in too much detail, I will instead link to this article, which should be read *after* watching the Director's Cut:

http://www.lunalindsey.com/2011/03/analysis-of-sucker-punch-feminist.html?m=1

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

Best war movie is Yesterday's enemy. Fite me!

you spelled tora tora tora incorrectly

the more I think about movies over the last 10 years none of them really seem like a classic and timeless piece unless it already has a major brand name and following attached to it.

Sox I'm just going to go with pixels. because it amuses me everytime I watch it.

Whilst I didn't rate Suicide Squad I think DC/WB trying to push it as a 'big' movie didn't help, if it was left as a mid-budget quirky 2nd tier effort I suspect it would have got off far lighter

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Whilst I didn't rate Suicide Squad I think DC/WB trying to push it as a 'big' movie didn't help, if it was left as a mid-budget quirky 2nd tier effort I suspect it would have got off far lighter

Agreed. I think there is a good movie in there somewhere. But it got lost in inflated budgets and studio interference pushing certain characters (Harley and Will Smith) to the front at the expense of every other character. It's amazing that El Diablo came out as good as he did despite that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dunkirk - not a classic.
Saving Private Ryan...Now that is a classic.

Best war movie is Yesterday's enemy. Fite me!

Should I be ashamed I havn't seen it? Well before my time but I will give it a shot.


Saving Private Ryan though is a classic - you agree?

Enemy at the Gates (2001) is a classic... if you enjoy seeing the rather clear inspiration for the Imperial Guard.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Rather than try to explain Sucker Punch in too much detail, I will instead link to this article, which should be read *after* watching the Director's Cut:

http://www.lunalindsey.com/2011/03/analysis-of-sucker-punch-feminist.html?m=1

“If you think feminists are a bunch of angry women who whine for no reason, or bra-burning dykes seeking revenge against males, go see Sucker Punch, and then come back and read my analysis.”
Or watch Jailhouse 41 and you don't even need to come back it's already there in the movie .

I am entirely unconvinced by the review. If that movie was dark, then I've watched some Duncan Hill Coffee movies! I've watched actual feminist revenge fantasy and like watching those much more than movies that just mimic the stuff it is supposed to denounce. If the action sequences are meant to represent disassociation, they are really bad at it. Worst thing: it then makes disassociation looks cool! It makes them look like something we'd all love to have. But it's not and it's not supposed to be cool. Who things “Hey, a good way to illustrate the disassociation that happens when someone is sexually abused is to show them having a talk with their (Caucasian) mentor in a clearly Japanese inspired building, then have them fight with a katana against a random mecha”, especially when none of this has any specific symbolism for the victim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Should I be ashamed I havn't seen it?

Definitely not! On the contrary, it's pretty cool that you can still discover it.
Congrats, you are part of the lucky 10 000 .
https://www.xkcd.com/1053/

So...I read that review without having seen Suckerpunch yet. Holy gak, I want to see that movie! It sounds INCREDIBLY and emotionally powerful from that perspective. Hard to watch, and might even require a “timeout” during it, like I needed with Saving Private Ryan. But wow; that sounds like a tragic tale of just pure holy crap. Actually, the review was pretty awesome; it painted an incredible picture, and I could feel the raw emotion and pain of the film within the review. I’m willing to give it a shot, even if it’s a Zak Snyder movie.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...I read that review without having seen Suckerpunch yet. Holy gak, I want to see that movie! It sounds INCREDIBLY and emotionally powerful from that perspective. Hard to watch, and might even require a “timeout” during it, like I needed with Saving Private Ryan. But wow; that sounds like a tragic tale of just pure holy crap. Actually, the review was pretty awesome; it painted an incredible picture, and I could feel the raw emotion and pain of the film within the review. I’m willing to give it a shot, even if it’s a Zak Snyder movie.

You really should not have read that review. You are going to be really disappointed when you realize it is just a very long music video.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...I read that review without having seen Suckerpunch yet. Holy gak, I want to see that movie! It sounds INCREDIBLY and emotionally powerful from that perspective. Hard to watch, and might even require a “timeout” during it, like I needed with Saving Private Ryan. But wow; that sounds like a tragic tale of just pure holy crap. Actually, the review was pretty awesome; it painted an incredible picture, and I could feel the raw emotion and pain of the film within the review. I’m willing to give it a shot, even if it’s a Zak Snyder movie.

You really should not have read that review. You are going to be really disappointed when you realize it is just a very long music video.

Or really love it - or maybe not. Some of us see more it in and less in other more "critically aclaimed" films, but then why anyone needs critics to tell them what to watch and how to enjoy it is beyond me - same with food or books...

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...I read that review without having seen Suckerpunch yet. Holy gak, I want to see that movie! It sounds INCREDIBLY and emotionally powerful from that perspective. Hard to watch, and might even require a “timeout” during it, like I needed with Saving Private Ryan. But wow; that sounds like a tragic tale of just pure holy crap. Actually, the review was pretty awesome; it painted an incredible picture, and I could feel the raw emotion and pain of the film within the review. I’m willing to give it a shot, even if it’s a Zak Snyder movie.

You really should not have read that review. You are going to be really disappointed when you realize it is just a very long music video.

Or really love it - or maybe not. Some of us see more it in and less in other more "critically aclaimed" films, but then why anyone needs critics to tell them what to watch and how to enjoy it is beyond me - same with food or books...

What's fascinating to me is the visceral reaction that SP provokes, mirrored by the impassioned defenses. The disconnects with expectations, preconceptions, and assumptions are HUGE. Mark my words, SP will be regarded as a future classic, but not for the superficial reasons that people are picking at. It's exceedingly powerful art with some hard criticism for many of its viewers, that's for sure. That's why I categorize SP as the biggest budget art film, ever.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's exceedingly powerful art with some hard criticism for many of its viewers, that's for sure.

This interestingly mirror my own claim that I found the movie demeaning and insulting to it's audience. Well I guess we at least agree on something about that film!


Makes me remember too, do you think The Room will become a classic?




Timetowaste85, try Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41, Thriller - A cruel picture and Ms. 45.

Sucker Punch is the cinematic equivalent of being... well, sucker punched in the face, it has no place being even mentioned here.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Enemy at the Gates (2001) is a classic... if you enjoy seeing the rather clear inspiration for the Imperial Guard.

That has Ed Harris's second-best performance as a nazi, after The Truman Show.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Enemy at the Gates (2001) is a classic... if you enjoy seeing the rather clear inspiration for the Imperial Guard.

That has Ed Harris's second-best performance as a nazi, after The Truman Show.

I disagree. I don't think it brings enough to an overdone genre that separates it from the pack. It's comparable with We Were Soldiers in that it is good, but not classic.

Only "classic" modern war films would be Saving Private Ryan and Blackhawk Down. Hurt Locker might end up being one, but it really shouldn't.

In defence, it isn't a movie yelling "Murica, feth yeah!". It's a war film starring the Russians.

And the whole You get a rifle, you get ammo, you get a rifle, you get ammo.

Gunning down the retreating soldiers? There are some seriously unforgettable scenes from that movie.

And... Guardsmen. Seriously. It may not be a classic to the rest of the universe, but if you've ever sympathised with a Guardsman's fate, this movie is for you.

 KTG17 wrote:
Part of the problem is that Batman has moved from fighting simple criminals with revolvers to terrorists with assault weapons. Is he really not going to be lethal with guys like that? Its one thing to track down a serial killer and take him in, but a dozen guys with assault rifles? That's where I think it goes a little too far.

Except the Arkham games are a thing, where a solid 80% of the gameplay is Batman gadgeting and punching and kicking his way through crowds of mooks armed with assault weapons, and the supervillains are full-on comic book-evil. Yet I don't recall killing anybody in those.

Batman resolving not to kill to differentiate himself from those he fights and using a combination of intellect, martial arts skills, and gadgetry to keep to that resolution(even if "I only cripple the low-income mooks who's only option for work in this garbage city is low level criminal stuff, condemning them to a medical system that will either bankrupt them, let them die for want of money to pay for treatment, or drive them to commit even more serious crimes to pay for it - I'm the good guy here!" is, as usual with Bats, a bit hilarious) is the least implausible thing about most Batman stories, and pales in comparison to some of the leaps of logic and suspensions of disbelief required to even accept that many superheroes could even exist with the powers they have.

I don't think the Nolan Batmans will be considered a classic by comic book movie fans, but they probably will be by the broader moviegoing action-blockbuster crowd and the critics because they're the poster-child for that whole "you can't translate comic books to the screen with any depth or maturity unless they're, like, super-dark and, like, super-deep brah" school of thought that prevailed until the MCU really took hold.