Reply With Quote
Isn't the original better?
Edit: I haven't seen Nolan's version.
Memento is actually the one movie of his I have yet to see.
Isn't the original better?
Edit: I haven't seen Nolan's version.
i haven't seen the original, I just know Nolan's version is great. I didn't loathe Al Pacino every second he was on camera, so he must have done something right. he took two of the worst over the top overactors in movie history (Pacino and Robin Williams) and got great performances out of them.
Memento is top three for me along with Inception and The Dark Knight. You should definitely see it.
I was just about to use Insomnia as Nolan's worst, MONGOLOID!!!
The Prestige: 76% on RT with 90% from the audience, 8.4 on IMDB
Insomnia: 92% on RT with 67% from the audience, 7.2 on IMDB
unless you're a critic it looks like you're in the minority
Batman went dark before Burton's movie came out.
Well, since this thread is about three directors, I'll ask this question: Se7en or Fight Club? I think Fight Club is better.
Fight Club. Although Se7en still has one of the most disturbing scenes ever (Sloth).
The sucker is still alive!
You're wrong there. Insomnia is great, but I also love The Prestige as well. Both great movies tbh.
Fight Club. That movies "cool" factor is off the charts.
I thought Fight Club was stupid, but I think Palahniuk is a hack anyway.
I was gonna ask what's everyone's favorite movie out of all 3 of their's combined was. Mine would be Fight Club. Unfortunately it comes on tv like once a week on at least 3 different channels so I've pretty much burned myself out on it cause I can never bring myself to change the channel
IMO - Fight Club is the most fun movie, Memento is the most creative, and The Social Network is the most artistic (yeah that sounds gay but you know what I mean)
it was both cool and stupid
1. The Dark Knight
2. Inception
3. Fight Club
4. Memento
5. Se7en
6. The Big Lebowski
7. No Country For Old Men
8. The Prestige
9. Batman Begins
10. Fargo
What, did I spell it wrong?
That's very unhipsterish of you.
In my mind, "comic book movie" and "masterpiece" are mutually exclusive concepts. Nolan is a great director, but he's more Steven Spielberg than Ingmar Bergman, which is a compliment, mind you. Nolan makes mass-market, popcorn films in a highly artistic way (like Spielberg). He's indeed the best blockbuster director working today, and I guess you can argue of the new century, but his films (for me personally) lack the substance to be considered masterpieces. And his style (which includes direction, writing, editing, etc) isn't strong and unique enough to stand on its own as the main artistic component where you can throw substance out the door and declare the film a masterpiece simply based on his form (like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction or Takeshi Miike's work, for example).
I din't think the source material for a film should preclude it from being called a masterpiece, or anything else for that matter.
At the end of the day it's a guy in a bat suit punching bad guys in the face and squaring off with a lunatic who paints his face like a clown. Not exactly the kind of content that is favorable to producing great art. Entertaining as ? Yes. High cool factor? Yes. Would I rather watch it than Andrei Rublev? Probably. A "masterpiece" of the action genre? Definitely. A masterpiece of film as a whole? No. And this is coming from someone who thinks "low brow" art can stand alongside the high brow on equal ground. I just don't think Nolan succeeded in doing that with The Dark Knight, as Tarantino did with Pulp Fiction, Sergio Leone did with his stylized Westerns, etc.
You can oversimplify lots of movies into that.
The Big Lebowski is only about cartoonishly idiotic bowling buddies who around and try to solve a non-mystery.
Pulp Fiction is about referencing other films more than anything (as are most of Tarantino's works).
Interesting that you should mention spaghetti westerns, because Leone's movies were not even respected that much by critics because their genre wasn't seen as a serious one. Hindsight being what it is, people now put The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly up there with The Godfather, Citizen Kane, etc. as one of the better movies of all time.
I personally don't care either way. If a director makes a great film, I don't care if one of the characters is wearing clown make-up, or that nothing actually happens plot-wise.
And I do think The Dark Knight is a great film. I actually never said otherwise. I just don't think it's one of the best films of all-time, on the level of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, and the countless foreign masterpieces, like so many claim.
And what differentiates "substance-less" films that also happen to be all-time great films, like Pulp Fiction and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, is that their style and feel are unmistakably unique, their respective directors putting something of their iden y into either film. Whereas if you told me Spielberg, Zack Snyder, or Sam Raimi directed The Dark Knight, I'd probably believe you. There's really nothing that stands out enough for me about The Dark Knight to put up there with cinema's all-time best; and Ledger's performance failed to captivate me to the degree like it did many others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions