|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 6, 2019 22:57:27 GMT
Phoenix was sublime.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 7, 2019 1:00:02 GMT
Odds of winning for Best Actor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 7, 2019 2:18:37 GMT
Odds of winning for Best Actor? very high, so far nobody comes even close this year in male leads. also cinematography, production design / sublime / and music.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 7, 2019 2:46:45 GMT
Odds of winning for Best Actor? very high, so far nobody comes even close this year in male leads. also cinematography, production design / sublime / and music. Driver';s still the favorite right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 7, 2019 12:12:17 GMT
very high, so far nobody comes even close this year in male leads. also cinematography, production design / sublime / and music. Driver';s still the favorite right now. for marriage? |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 7, 2019 12:12:44 GMT
very high, so far nobody comes even close this year in male leads. also cinematography, production design / sublime / and music. I haven't seen yet Nora, but you didn't find it middling and lacked thematic quality??? no mot at all i quite enjoyed it. for sure worth seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 7, 2019 23:01:40 GMT
Driver';s still the favorite right now. for marriage? yep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 8, 2019 5:51:51 GMT
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 8, 2019 17:54:49 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction.
I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 8, 2019 19:35:35 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction. I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed. The Thomas Wayne and Joker link was tacky beyond belief. For a film that prides itself on being the edgiest of comic book movies, that was a cheesy predictable twist proving otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 9, 2019 7:27:21 GMT
I don't know - what someone considers "tacky" is obviously subjective but this isn't a film which is going anywhere further, it's just a film to be judged in it's own right. Some may consider the Hangover director taking a popular comic book character to ensure audience, dropping that character in a proto Taxi Driver setting to ensure a cinematic stylism, then leaving it essentially open to interpretation and thus really not having anything to say "tacky" or perhaps "hacky"!
I just thought placing Thomas Wayne - with certainty - as the villain of the piece would have been a nice twist, with the Joker realising he'd been manipulated into murdering his mother by his own father. And although they're not connected, it would also have added a nice little layer when watching other Batman material, where Thomas Wayne is always this 2d benevolent, rich dude who got murdered and that's about it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 9, 2019 9:10:48 GMT
I just thought placing Thomas Wayne - with certainty - as the villain of the piece would have been a nice twist, with the Joker realising he'd been manipulated into murdering his mother by his own father At the risk of you having another seizure over the word "tacky" again: yeah, that still sounds tacky. Poorly written daytime soaps masquerading as comic book movies is just not my cup of tea. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2019 13:25:51 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction. I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed. what did you feel was ambiguous? |
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 9, 2019 14:11:43 GMT
I just thought placing Thomas Wayne - with certainty - as the villain of the piece would have been a nice twist, with the Joker realising he'd been manipulated into murdering his mother by his own father At the risk of you having another seizure over the word "tacky" again: yeah, that still sounds tacky. Poorly written daytime soaps masquerading as comic book movies is just not my cup of tea. Not sure I was having a seizure there, merely pointing out differences between what people may consider tacky. However I do love your confident assertion that a comic book movie would be written to any higher standard than a daytime soap 😂 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 9, 2019 14:15:52 GMT
It was alright but they copped out going in the David Lynch "let's make it entirely ambiguous and let the viewer fill in the gaps as they see fit" direction. I wish they'd fully gone on the whole thing being Thomas Wayne's fault and the Joker being his creation. No ambiguity. That would have given this film the bang it needed. what did you feel was ambiguous? The entire film was ambiguous, e.g. the example I've given re his mother is not definitively answered, the fact that we're shown his relationship with his neighbour was entirely in his head means we can't assume anything we saw to have definitely happened, the ending throws up the possibility that the entire film was all a fantasy played out in his head. |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Oct 9, 2019 15:14:12 GMT
At the risk of you having another seizure over the word "tacky" again: yeah, that still sounds tacky. Poorly written daytime soaps masquerading as comic book movies is just not my cup of tea. However I do love your confident assertion that a comic book movie would be written to any higher standard than a daytime soap 😂 👍 Why not. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 9, 2019 16:29:45 GMT
what did you feel was ambiguous? The entire film was ambiguous, e.g. the example I've given re his mother is not definitively answered, the fact that we're shown his relationship with his neighbour was entirely in his head means we can't assume anything we saw to have definitely happened, the ending throws up the possibility that the entire film was all a fantasy played out in his head. wait what, the relatiinship with the neighbor was entirely im his head? i missed that part... how did they reveal that? |
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Oct 9, 2019 18:27:58 GMT
The entire film was ambiguous, e.g. the example I've given re his mother is not definitively answered, the fact that we're shown his relationship with his neighbour was entirely in his head means we can't assume anything we saw to have definitely happened, the ending throws up the possibility that the entire film was all a fantasy played out in his head. wait what, the relatiinship with the neighbor was entirely im his head? i missed that part... how did they reveal that? Are you just kidding or did you really miss that? 🤔 He went in her apartment and she was terrified that he'd sat himself down on her couch. It then re-showed earlier scenes to reveal she hadn't really been there with him at all. |
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
 
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 9, 2019 18:53:41 GMT
Ugh as if people really need that fantasy in his head being spelled out on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 9, 2019 19:09:34 GMT
Ugh as if people really need that fantasy in his head being spelled out on screen. Probably my biggest gripe with the film. It was obvious she wasn't there even as it was first happening. They established it with the Murray fantasy early in the film, and there's no reason anyone in their right mind would associate with this guy. The reveal was unnecessary; the flashback with her there and then suddenly not there was just an insult to the audience. They may as well have made the following statement in parenthesis on the screen. (SHE WAS NEVER REALLY THERE, FOLKS! GET IT? THIS GUY IS NUTS!)
|
|
