|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 27, 2018 12:23:45 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff.
Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 12:32:29 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. Virtually every scene with Bruce/Batman in BvS is riveting stuff. One of the most fascinating characters in movie history.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 27, 2018 14:40:00 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. What would have made it better is if he didn't kill anyone. I'm all for Batman breaking bones, but this fight is really cheapened by the fact he kills basically everyone.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 27, 2018 14:42:22 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. Virtually every scene with Bruce/Batman in BvS is riveting stuff. One of the most fascinating characters in movie history. Unfortunately, a lot of it boils down to him being stupid and basically played by Lex Luthor. I feel like Bruce would have immediately found out that Lex is pulling strings.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 14:59:06 GMT
Virtually every scene with Bruce/Batman in BvS is riveting stuff. One of the most fascinating characters in movie history. Unfortunately, a lot of it boils down to him being stupid and basically played by Lex Luthor. I feel like Bruce would have immediately found out that Lex is pulling strings. He was out of his mind. This version of Bruce is a megalomaniac with a catalog of psychological disorders, that's what made him so compelling to me. He already harbored hatred and resentment for Superman, all Luthor did was help go where his mind already wanted to go. Overall the movie is a trainwreck, Eisenberg's Luthor is cartoonish and terrible in every way. But the Bruce/Batman stuff in BvS is second to none as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 15:02:22 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. What would have made it better is if he didn't kill anyone. I'm all for Batman breaking bones, but this fight is really cheapened by the fact he kills basically everyone. Why? Burton's Batman kills people. Cap kills people in the Avengers movies. These aren't street thugs mugging someone in an alley, they're armed terrorists intent on death and destruction. Those are people you kill.
|
|
hanswilm
Sophomore
old imdb name was Hans-Wilhelm but this site tweaked it to hanswilm
@hanswilm
Posts: 679
Likes: 416
|
Post by hanswilm on Aug 27, 2018 15:09:25 GMT
I didn't see anything political like that at all.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 27, 2018 15:13:56 GMT
What would have made it better is if he didn't kill anyone. I'm all for Batman breaking bones, but this fight is really cheapened by the fact he kills basically everyone. Why? Burton's Batman kills people. Cap kills people in the Avengers movies. These aren't street thugs mugging someone in an alley, they're armed terrorists intent on death and destruction. Those are people you kill. Cap is a soldier and it never been establish he doesn't like killing people. Burton's Batman came at a time where not a lot of people cared how much a comic character stayed to true to the source material, but today, his no killing rule is literally the core of his character, regardless of how bad the criminals are. He might as well pick up a gun and just shoot them all if he's going to kill. And if mindless goons are worth killing, then Leto's Joker should have been killed long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 16:21:26 GMT
Why? Burton's Batman kills people. Cap kills people in the Avengers movies. These aren't street thugs mugging someone in an alley, they're armed terrorists intent on death and destruction. Those are people you kill. Cap is a soldier and it never been establish he doesn't like killing people. Burton's Batman came at a time where not a lot of people cared how much a comic character stayed to true to the source material, but today, his no killing rule is literally the core of his character, regardless of how bad the criminals are. He might as well pick up a gun and just shoot them all if he's going to kill. And if mindless goons are worth killing, then Leto's Joker should have been killed long ago. Not in this film.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Aug 27, 2018 17:22:06 GMT
Has anyone watched this recently at all? I'm convinced that Ben Afflect Bruce Wayne was modeled after Donald Trump. Yeah... Cause Trump would be on his helicopter flying INTO a crumbling city trying to save everyone. Perfect analogy, surprised nobody's mentioned it till now...
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Aug 27, 2018 17:23:24 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. And that is the major problem with Zach Snyder as a director. He creates great moments but is incapable of putting those moments together into a comprehensive long form narrative.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 27, 2018 18:06:32 GMT
Cap is a soldier and it never been establish he doesn't like killing people. Burton's Batman came at a time where not a lot of people cared how much a comic character stayed to true to the source material, but today, his no killing rule is literally the core of his character, regardless of how bad the criminals are. He might as well pick up a gun and just shoot them all if he's going to kill. And if mindless goons are worth killing, then Leto's Joker should have been killed long ago. Not in this film. And that's the problem. Snyder made this film with the mindset of a priapic teenager who thinks everything about his film and his characters has to be "cool". Hence, he thought it was cooler if Batman didn't care if he killed criminals while fighting them. That's an example of style over substance. Even though they're mindless mooks we don't know, killing them takes away from the substance of Batman's character. It was the wrong direction to take.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 27, 2018 18:30:35 GMT
This film has many brilliant moments. One is the warehouse fight. One of the best CBM fight scenes second only to things like the iconic Maul lightsaber-fight in the TPM, or Logan or some Burton/Nolan stuff. Why is it great: the fight has stakes, Batman is vulnerable and desperate. The choreography is REAL and brutal a la The Raid and well shot (I cant believe this was not R rated). This is how you have to do it. And that is the major problem with Zach Snyder as a director. He creates great moments but is incapable of putting those moments together into a comprehensive long form narrative. not from what I have seen from him. Quite the contrary actually. Watchmen and Dawn were brilliantly and coherently shot films: genre milestones; Watchmen is Top 3 of my favorite CBMs ever (this story was considered as un-filmable, yet Snyder managed it astoundingly well - that alone falsifies the claim). 300 was a well done adaption of the (admittedly silly and pseudo-historic) Miller graphic-novel. I also like BvS and MoS. BvS in the long version a bit more than MoS, but even MoS as a rehash of SM 1 and 2 improved vastly on Clarks character arc from conflicted young man to the split Clark-Supes guy we know, as well as on the SciFi elements; a little wonder that he managed to cram so much in one film. Justice League was mostly impaired by the unfunny Josh Whedon input; no marvel people demand the Snyder cut. Have not seen the rest of Snyders films.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 18:33:18 GMT
And that's the problem. Snyder made this film with the mindset of a priapic teenager who thinks everything about his film and his characters has to be "cool". Hence, he thought it was cooler if Batman didn't care if he killed criminals while fighting them. That's an example of style over substance. Even though they're mindless mooks we don't know, killing them takes away from the substance of Batman's character. It was the wrong direction to take. This Film? That's every Snyder film, isn't it? Subtlety is not his forte (see: the hilarious wreckage in the background in the shape of a cross during the Superman death scene). Anyway, I'm fine with it here because this take on Batman is fascinating to me. He's a lunatic, the ultimate control freak who literally states his need to kill a stranger if there's a 1% chance he's evil. I mean, wow. He's not your mother's Bruce Wayne, that's for sure. But for me he made the film worth watching. Twice in theaters, in fact. I don't disagree with your criticism of Snyder and I completely understand your distaste for this iteration of Batman; but if I'm being honest, I would've watched a trilogy featuring this particular take on the character.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Aug 27, 2018 18:43:12 GMT
Batman hitting Superman over the head with a sink has got to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in any comic book movie, and following it up with "I'm a friend of your son's" a few minutes later only made it funnier.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 18:44:21 GMT
And that is the major problem with Zach Snyder as a director. He creates great moments but is incapable of putting those moments together into a comprehensive long form narrative. not from what I have seen from him. Quite the contrary actually. Watchmen and Dawn were brilliantly and coherently shot films: genre milestones; Watchmen is Top 3 of my favorite CBMs ever (this story was considered as un-filmable, yet Snyder managed it astoundingly well - that alone falsifies the claim). 300 was a well done adaption of the (admittedly silly and pseudo-historic) Miller graphic-novel. I also like BvS and MoS. BvS in the long version a bit more than MoS, but even MoS as a rehash of SM 1 and 2 improved vastly on Clarks character arc from conflicted young man to the split Clark-Supes guy we know, as well as on the SciFi elements; a little wonder that he managed to cram so much in one film. Justice League was mostly impaired by the unfunny Josh Whedon input; no marvel people demand the Snyder cut. Have not seen the rest of Snyders films. I also enjoy Watchmen quite a bit. The problem is that it's emotionally hollow. Dr. Manhattan translates well since the point of his character is how emotionally distant he's become. Likewise with the black & white morality of Rorschach. The rest of the characters, heavy on nuance in the comics, are one dimensional in the film. Particularly in the case of Ozymandias, one of my favorite comic book characters of all time (for the record, I think he was right in the story and I'm glad he won). Snyder took one of the most nuanced villains in history and turned him into a stock Bond villain. Snyder is an incredible visual director, but he does not understand how to illustrate complex emotional stories, so far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 27, 2018 18:57:42 GMT
not from what I have seen from him. Quite the contrary actually. Watchmen and Dawn were brilliantly and coherently shot films: genre milestones; Watchmen is Top 3 of my favorite CBMs ever (this story was considered as un-filmable, yet Snyder managed it astoundingly well - that alone falsifies the claim). 300 was a well done adaption of the (admittedly silly and pseudo-historic) Miller graphic-novel. I also like BvS and MoS. BvS in the long version a bit more than MoS, but even MoS as a rehash of SM 1 and 2 improved vastly on Clarks character arc from conflicted young man to the split Clark-Supes guy we know, as well as on the SciFi elements; a little wonder that he managed to cram so much in one film. Justice League was mostly impaired by the unfunny Josh Whedon input; no marvel people demand the Snyder cut. Have not seen the rest of Snyders films. I also enjoy Watchmen quite a bit. The problem is that it's emotionally hollow. Dr. Manhattan translates well since the point of his character is how emotionally distant he's become. Likewise with the black & white morality of Rorschach. The rest of the characters, heavy on nuance in the comics, are one dimensional in the film. Particularly in the case of Ozymandias, one of my favorite comic book characters of all time (for the record, I think he was right in the story and I'm glad he won). Snyder took one of the most nuanced villains in history and turned him into a stock Bond villain. Snyder is an incredible visual director, but he does not understand how to illustrate complex emotional stories, so far as I can tell. well, I did not read the book, so there is that. I found the Manhattan guilt & dehumanization story extremely interesting (a good analogy well scored); I enjoyed how NiteOwl and Silk rediscovered their passion and vocation mutually - reminded me of Incredibles. I LOVED Rorschach's (flat) arc and humanity and death (one of the best characters in this genre). Admittedly, the bad guy was a little bland and a plot device, but at least he had a plan that made more sense than "villains" do usually. Thus, no complaints. And some of the things I saw from the comic, like a giant alien squid-thing falling on town, frankly, I am grateful those are not in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 19:06:51 GMT
I also enjoy Watchmen quite a bit. The problem is that it's emotionally hollow. Dr. Manhattan translates well since the point of his character is how emotionally distant he's become. Likewise with the black & white morality of Rorschach. The rest of the characters, heavy on nuance in the comics, are one dimensional in the film. Particularly in the case of Ozymandias, one of my favorite comic book characters of all time (for the record, I think he was right in the story and I'm glad he won). Snyder took one of the most nuanced villains in history and turned him into a stock Bond villain. Snyder is an incredible visual director, but he does not understand how to illustrate complex emotional stories, so far as I can tell. well, I did not read the book, so there is that. I found the Manhattan guilt & dehumanization story extremely interesting (a good analogy well scored); I enjoyed how NiteOwl and Silk rediscovered their passion and vocation mutually - reminded me of Incredibles. I LOVED Rorschach's (flat) arc and humanity and death (one of the best characters in this genre). Admittedly, the bad guy was a little bland and a plot device, but at least he had a plan that made more sense than "villains" do usually. Thus, no complaints. And some of the things I saw from the comic, like a giant alien squid-thing falling on town, frankly, I am grateful those are not in the movie. Agreed on the squid, that was a positive change. And they nailed Rorschach in the film. But I think you'd have a lower opinion of the film had you been more familiar with the source material. Adrian comes across as affable to the point of being obnoxious. For him to suddenly be the villain at the end is truly stunning; it's a shame they turned him into a cardboard cutout in the film. His perspective is also more compelling in the original story because the politicians are more sinister; the rubber nosed Dick Nixon of the film makes it difficult to take the threat seriously. Even still, I appreciate the film more than most. Maybe some of the complaints (including my own) about the lack of depth are unfair, considering the material is dense enough to deserve a mini-series as opposed to a single film.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Aug 27, 2018 19:40:39 GMT
well, I did not read the book, so there is that. I found the Manhattan guilt & dehumanization story extremely interesting (a good analogy well scored); I enjoyed how NiteOwl and Silk rediscovered their passion and vocation mutually - reminded me of Incredibles. I LOVED Rorschach's (flat) arc and humanity and death (one of the best characters in this genre). Admittedly, the bad guy was a little bland and a plot device, but at least he had a plan that made more sense than "villains" do usually. Thus, no complaints. And some of the things I saw from the comic, like a giant alien squid-thing falling on town, frankly, I am grateful those are not in the movie. Agreed on the squid, that was a positive change. And they nailed Rorschach in the film. But I think you'd have a lower opinion of the film had you been more familiar with the source material. Adrian comes across as affable to the point of being obnoxious. For him to suddenly be the villain at the end is truly stunning; it's a shame they turned him into a cardboard cutout in the film. His perspective is also more compelling in the original story because the politicians are more sinister; the rubber nosed Dick Nixon of the film makes it difficult to take the threat seriously. Even still, I appreciate the film more than most. Maybe some of the complaints (including my own) about the lack of depth are unfair, considering the material is dense enough to deserve a mini-series as opposed to a single film. The problem is that the Squid made Ozy's plan work. The subsitution would never have worked. The Squid was meant to be a third party threat that the entire world could bond together to defend against. By using Manhattan, after an initial moment of peace, someone would have gone "Wait a minute, Dr. Manhattan is American, he is an American soldier, America created him. All of our people are dead because of America!" It actually have escalated things so much farther so much faster.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Aug 27, 2018 19:49:06 GMT
And that is the major problem with Zach Snyder as a director. He creates great moments but is incapable of putting those moments together into a comprehensive long form narrative. not from what I have seen from him. Quite the contrary actually. Watchmen and Dawn were brilliantly and coherently shot films: genre milestones; Watchmen is Top 3 of my favorite CBMs ever (this story was considered as un-filmable, yet Snyder managed it astoundingly well - that alone falsifies the claim). 300 was a well done adaption of the (admittedly silly and pseudo-historic) Miller graphic-novel. I also like BvS and MoS. BvS in the long version a bit more than MoS, but even MoS as a rehash of SM 1 and 2 improved vastly on Clarks character arc from conflicted young man to the split Clark-Supes guy we know, as well as on the SciFi elements; a little wonder that he managed to cram so much in one film. Justice League was mostly impaired by the unfunny Josh Whedon input; no marvel people demand the Snyder cut. Have not seen the rest of Snyders films. Dawn of the dead is a good movie, and a lot of fun, but the characters are thinly drawn and move quickly from one action sequence to the next. It's a series of moments tied together with minuscule character development and narrative. Not saying it needs to be anything other than that to be what it needed to be, but it isn't an epic narrative like some of the other films he has attempted. Same with 300...thin, but interesting characters just flowing from action scene to action scene to orgy to action scene. Watchmen he held white knuckled to the comic book, so he had that as a crutch... His opening credits sequences are works of art...again, small narratives. Sucker Punch should have worked the same way for him, but he tried to create developed characters in between his action sequences and made one of the dullest action movies ever conceived and still didn't succeed in giving the characters depth nor in telling a great long form narrative. He is a great short form storyteller. He is a great cinematographer. He even has a really great eye for casting. But he cannot tell a well developed long form story with full narrative and rich characters.
|
|