Upcoming Movies Thread

Lee Child has approved of Tom Cruise for the role of Jack Reacher. Something about the character being more than the physical attributes in the book. I'm not particularly worried, I never read the books, kind of doubt I'd go see the film.

 

Of course he "approved" of him. What else is he going to say? "The casting choice is a fucking travesty and this movie is nothing more than an idiot cash-grab attempt, so go ahead and boycott the movies based on my books!"

Even if there wasn't a clause against something like that in one of the many contracts he signed, why would he work against his own self-interest?

 

I know nothing of the books, but the trailer basically looks like a generic 80's Stallone-type actioner with slightly better hand-to-hand. What IS it with Cruise? Dummy beliefs aside, for a while he was making a share of films I liked a lot such as Collateral, A Few Good Men and Minority Report. Now, despite the fact he still makes the most coin (recent statistic) he picks this clap-trap pedestrian action bullshit.

 

Actors and directors? Sure. Writers? It's exceedingly rare.

Besides, it makes the least amount of sense for writers to complain, since most of the time, they sign away all rights to their property, and have about as much influence over the finished product as the key grip.

How so? On the contrary, I think even shitty adaptations usually lead to an uptick in the corresponding book sales. Look at something like "One For the Money".

Yes, what Tucker did was exceedingly unusual. And the result show why it was so risky, and so few authors go that route; the film was not a box office success, and Tucker made a lot less money than if he had simply signed away all his rights.

 

Sure, apart from Anne Rice (correctly) bad mouthing a film adaptation a second time with Queen of the Damned, I can think of no other writer that has ever said anything against a film adaption of their work apart from James Ellroy, Richard Matheson, Stephen King, Roald Dahl, P Travers, Anthony Burgess, Winston Groom, Bret Easton Ellis, Ken Kesey, Alan Moore, Stanislaw Lem, Clive Cussler, Ian Fleming, Tom Clancy, Brian Garfield, Gore Vidal, Robert Crumb, Elizabeth Wurtzel, and Ernest Hemingway; but they're the exceptions that prove the rule, right?

 

I wouldn't count Burgess as an example; he did, after all, call the adaptation of Clockwork Orange "brilliant" and amazing, even if he disagreed with the ending. Bret Easton Ellis ("American Pyscho") and Stephen King ("The Shining") both expressed reservations, but they certainly didn't "badmouth" the movie, especially before its release. (Only years later, in interviews, did they mention this)

I was aware of Crumb and Moore, yes. Those guys are both quite unique, though.

I'm curious about Kesey, Lem, Fleming, and (while he is a shitty, hack writer) Clancy; what adaptations did they supposedly hate?

Although perhaps you're correct. It's hard to say with there being hundreds of authors who have been adopted in the 60+ year timespan you're quoting above, and much of the criticism being subdued or well after the fact. (The latter being irrelevant to the film's success)

 

I guess my use of the phrase 'bad-mouth' was not the best one, but I still don't think Lee Child would "of course" support the casting of Tom Cruise publicly for purely commercial reasons, authors tend to say whatever they want. I don't have any investment in the franchise myself so I'm a bit detached (and the trailer underwhelmed me), but I guess I just get tired of armchair critics that rage on about how their favourite books/childhood/whatever is being "raped" on purely arbitrary reasoning. I don't think you're an idiot, but when I disagree, I'll call it out.
I read the Child quote in an Empire magazine I've since thrown out (it was mentioned in the M:I4 publicity), and it sounded reasonable to me. He said something along the lines that only using an actor who embodies the phsyical attributes of the character is stupid, and Cruise, however bizarre his personal life is, is a more than capable actor. That's it. If he felt any different, worst he would have done was shut up about it, like a lot of writers do, and then grumble later on how Hollywood doesn't respect writers.
I'm not even saying that this will equal a good movie, I just don't think there's any conspiracy to it. For the most part because I don't think most authors play things that smart, not when their pride is at stake.

And to offer more than just a special olympics event; here's a 13 minute featurette on Dark Knight Rises:


I wouldn't call Nolan's Batman films definitive, and I hated the macguffins in the first two, but he's my favourite director to emerge last decade and they are wonderful psychological exlporations of the mythos. I love scouring through seemingly arbitrary things, like the 'punk-rock' aspect of Ledger's Joker; when I heard Nolan admit that was a part of tapping into a "fear of youth" and anarchy, it really clicked in my head that these are just as thoroughly thought through as his 'puzzle box' films, his decisions aren't just made "because its cool."

 

Viral video for Robocop remake. It features Gary Oldman, Samuel L. and Dr. House himself. Meh. I know this was the classic ultraviolent 80's flick, and I hope they do it justice, but I kind of doubt it.

Also, Guillermo Del Toro, Jax from Sons of Anarchy and giant fucking robots:

Spoiler

 

Went to see Ted, and the plot of Dredd is the retarded version of The Raid: Redemption. Cersei takes over a tower, and the Judges have to go each floor up to the top. Honestly, given the fact I'm a gamer, I love the concept. Have to watch The Raid this weekend.

 

The trilogy is simply Batman For The Terrorism Age. There's what your trilogy title is, because that's what those films are: Comic book movies given a third dimension where Spider-Man failed miserably. I refuse to believe these are profound looks into the human psyche. They are about terrorism. Ra's Al Ghul: terrorist. Scarecrow: terrorist. Joker: terrorist. Bane: Anarchist and terrorist. With the help of good casting and production values, they are a step up from the usual comic-book fodder but they are still JUST COMIC BOOK MOVIES.

 

Yeah, I agree; the people who treat the movies as serious art make me laugh. "The Dark Knight" was just a really fun summer blockbuster. ("Batman Begins" was just plain garbage) It was an all-time great popcorn flick. In fact, all the Nolan films that I enjoyed are like this.

While I'm pretty sure the new one will be a bit worse, I'm interested enough to buy a ticket to see the third installment. In fact, I think with the exception of Batman films, the last superhero film I watched was Spider-man 2. And that only because it was playing for free on a premium channel at a guy's house.

 

Spoilers for length:

Spoiler

I'm not sure exactly what "serious art" is, other than something that would take itself too seriously to the point that I would lose all interest. That's certainly not what I think these films are, nor do I think they are "profound". Perhaps I was being a little too effusive, but I still stand by what I said.

I don't think Batman Begins is "absolute garbage;" there were some aspects to it that I really disliked, such as the 'microwave emitter' macguffin, the Dad being made too saintly, and the fact that every other line of dialogue seemed to be written as a possible trailer line (I tend to blame those on David S Goyer, but I can't back that up). But overall these didn't impact on my overall experience.
I really liked some of the themes brought up, largely based around fear, the will to act, and how your actions define you. Are these groundbreakingly complex treatises' on these subjects? No. But I think they were really good thematic anchors for the story. I don't think it's a didactic film, where there's just point of view you're meant to come away at the end: I think it's more a rollicking story, taking a look at some aspects of the the Batman mythology that hadn't been explored before, and at the end you can question just how broken a man Bruce Wayne really is, despite how neatly things seem to be wrapped up.
It's not just me saying this, but practically all of Nolan's long form interviews (i.e. w/ Charlie Rose or Elvis Mitchell) mention that the character's state of mind is a grey area. I also think it's worth noting that practically every lead character in a Nolan film, and often the antagonists as well, have some sort of delusional character flaw, narcissistic even, and I don't think these Batman films are an exception.

I agree that there is an aspect of modern day terrorism utilised in the storytelling, especially in The Dark Knight, but I disagree that that it is the only idea of any note. Such a view is myopic and reductionist, and the assertion that it adds just one extra "dimension" seems a bit broad to me. It's not as if they just took an old story, slapped "terrorism" on it and called it a day.
Perhaps because I live in a part of the world where terrorism seems like a faraway problem, but I tend to find terrorism allegories to be a bit trite and easy. Certainly though used here, some cool moral questions do get brought up because of this, again, especially in the Dark Knight.
My reference to Nolan stating (straight from his mouth, mind you) the design of the Joker was supposed to underpin a fear of youth and anarchy. I don't think that it represents a statement, but rather works to reveal the character in a subconscious and efficient way.
I remember a lot of people criticizing the character, because he defied logic; i.e. stating he has no "plan" and yet always seems to be in the right place at the right time, to which I say a) the character's a fucking liar, it's part of the point, and b) his unexplained appearances at the right place/time echo horror film tropes going back to Dr Mabuse (again, straight from the filmmaker's mouth). What do I read into this reference to an old timey film? That it's a great way to make a summer blockbuster.
Just like the architecture references in Inception; it's hardly a detailed discussion, but it's all part of the fun.

I'm not standing at a distance, squinting, stroking my chin and saying "hmmm... Yes..." when I watch these films. I'm not one who has a thousand conspiracy theories on Kubrick, or thinks that every Coen Brothers film is a political allegory, I get penty of that on Roger Avary's message board. They are a fun experience to have. But just because they are doesn't mean they aren't considered or bereft of ideas. They're not perfect, and I never would say they are (what film is?), but I think it's a cynical knee-jerk reaction to deny that they were made with some degree of intelligence.

And I don't think these movies are the definitive Batman story; in fact, I don't think there is one (whatever the medium). Mask of the Phantasm is one of my favourites, and it's very different. I was never able to collect the comics because I could never keep track what came out when, and I didn't like the soap opera nature of them either. Though I have a bunch of the trade paperbacks like Year One, Arkham Asylum and Dark Knight Returns. I enjoyed the recent games too.

TL;DR: I enjoyed the films as well made action-adventure entertainment, but I don't think just because that's what they are, that they are bereft of ideas worth discussing. That's my opinion anyway.
I do kinda agree that I expect DKR to not be as good as DK, and I'm having trouble envisioning a satisfactory ending, but for now I'll keep faith that I'll enjoy it. It looks good to me.

It kinda speaks to an annoyance I have with the modern movie going experience (spoiler tags for lack of relevance):

Spoiler

There seems to be two main camps these days, one is kind of the general public, who will go to see a crass and cynical machination of Hollywood like G.I. Joe, and enjoy it. Those aren't really who I identify with. Then there's a second camp who are a bit more discriminating, but more and more take it too far.
They seem use movies as sport, ravenous cynics chomping at the bit, just waiting to dismantle what they think will be the next popular thing, desperate to be the first to say that the emperor has no clothes. And if you can't see it their way, then you must be stupid. I love films, but I typically refrain from discussing them with all but a few people because you can't anymore.

A lot of people don't seem to be able to differentiate matters of taste with merit. Just because they didn't enjoy watching a movie automatically means it has to be bad. There's plenty of films out there I don't enjoy, but they weren't for me. I've watched Taxi Driver a number of times now, but I still haven't had a personal connection to the film, despite all that time I was a creepy loner. Do I think it's a bad movie? No, for whatever reason, it just wasn't for me. The Wrestler was another one, it was a well made film, but it wasn't for me.
Some films I didn't enjoy and I think they could have been done better, like the new Spiderman, but at the same time, what do I care? I have no need to rant off on it because I wasn't interested that much in the first place. There might be good reasons why what I would have done wasn't going to work.
And all of this wouldn't be so bad except these people seem to take it so personally. That any percieved problem is a direct insult to their intelligence somehow. You can't get a word in edgewise because their opinion is objective truth and there is no way they could be wrong. I try to avoid any conversations that will go this way, but it gets harder and harder for me to do what I enjoy, which is to talk about and have a social experience, relating to films. It's another way to enjoy them.
It just turns the whole deal into a joyless experience and drives me nuts.

It all seems born out of fear, these same viewers will often be the first to discount their initial feelings on movie if some "mistake" or whathaveyou is pointed out afterwards. I prefer movies you can watch multiple times, but still I think there's a lot of value in the initial viewing experience, and as such, even if it doesn't hold up, there's no reason to deny it.
I enjoyed Prometheus for the most part while I watched it. Upon reflection I saw less too it, but I'm glad it worked while it did.
But everyone's scared that they would somehow be "fooled" and it would be a black mark against them if their disbelief was suspended. Which is the whole fucking point of movies.

Of course I could just throw away my dvds and blu-rays, call everything that comes out "a piece of shit" and demand that [director] give me my money back.
But sometimes the emperor is wearing clothes, even if they're not to your taste.

Edit: It was tough getting all of my argument down, but I hope I win the prize for this:

Spoiler

 

It's always weird seeing a well-read person waste more time thinking and obsessing about a silly Batman movie than about a truly interesting, original movie or book. Yeah, the last one was a lot of fun. I'll spend my 10 bucks and 2-3 hours in a month or two. But it has about as much intellectual depth as the porn film I just watched.

That's par for the course with Nolan. He makes really great entertainment masterpieces with major plot holes and occasionally awful dialogue.

My problem with the flick was simpler than this. Here is my mini-review from Criticker;

"An idiotic premise about a billionaire vigilante who dresses up as a bat to fight crime (without a gun!) combating a terrorist from Antarctica, all played DEAD SERIOUSLY. We also get a legendarily awful performance from Katie Holmes and nausea-inducing shaky cam fight scenes, despite action being half the appeal of Batman to begin with. News flash idiots; don't play such an absurd premise seriously; either spice it up with humor like Burton did, or focus on the action and suspense, like TDK."

So yeah, God-awful fight scenes and a cliche-ridden, idiotic plot with more pretentiousness than a Malick film.

I read everything you wrote. What ideas worth discussing do you think the films have? You mentioned some vague concepts that Nolan stated in an interview and an ancient series of Fritz Lang films that even I wasn't curious enough to suffer through.

Dude, I love "The Dark Knight". But I love it the same way I do Jean-Claude Van Damme's "Bloodsport" or some of the old-school Stallone or Schwarzenegger action movies. It's cool. It's exciting.

But is it worth wasting a bunch of serious thought on a Stallone action film? Does it raise important and interesting philosophical questions? Fuck no.

If you thought "The Taxi Driver" and/or "The Wrestler" sucked and were boring, overrated trash, then say so. Don't let some critical consensus dissuade you. I'm much rather read an interesting take on a film than someone who writes the same tired praise a million other people have. (For the record, "The Taxi Driver" is one of my favorite films, and I thought "The Wrestler" was very good. But if you disagree and have well-formulated reasons why, it's worth more than a thousand generic reviews stating how wonderful both movies are)

 

I dunno. "Stop or my Mom Will Shoot!" spoke to me on a very metaphysical level.

 

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.movieswithbutter.com/blogs/critics-give-dark-knight-rises-standing-ovation-after-screening-305933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.movieswithbutter.com/blogs/c ... ing-305933</a>

"According to a critic who is quoted by Marco Gennuso on Twitter, The Dark Knight Rises is good enough to win Best Picture. Gennuso supposedly overheard the critic saying that “f this does not break the mold and win Best Picture, no comic book movie ever will.”'

 

.

This is really where we're butting heads, and I guess neither of us will convince the other. I think even Batman Begins was a little more intellectual depth than a porn film. I liked the first movie, was entertained by it and was invested emotionally in the franchise. I've loved the character since childhood. Don't know what more I could say.
And I've been following Nolan's career since Memento. I've enjoyed all his films, without really being bothered by any 'major plot holes.'

Spoiler

Oh yeah, I hated those fight scenes too, and for me Katie Holmes was the vegetables you had to finish with the rest of the meal.
For my money, though, there was an emotional kick to the story, a sense of driving excitement, a lot of which was by virtue of being an origin story. Not really sure where Antartica came from, and I'd long ago I let go of using cliche as a criticism. If you feel liek it you can reduce practically anything to being cliche.

To be honest, it's been a while since I watched them, but I remember digging the theme of fear spread throughout. As a kid, Bruce, after his fall into the cave, has a panic attack at the theatre, which leads to his parents getting killed, when they leave. Throughout the movie, he deals with fear in various ways. His disappearance from Gotham is driven by Falconi's assurance that he doesn't understand the world of crime "and you always fear what you don't understand." Eventually he faces his fears in training, confronts the bats for real on his return, and ultimately utilises fear as a tool in his mission. Fear is also what his enemies want to use to
"destroy the city." It's hardly in depth, and a bit comic-book-y, but I thought the were good storytelling way-points.
Also, I'd never heard "It's not who you are on the inside that counts" in a mainstream movie like this before and I dug the theme of taking responsibility for your actions. In part it relates to becoming a symbol and hiding his identity, not only with the Batman mask, but the fake Bruce personality that he uses too. Especially with the latter, there's a question of how damaging of his deception as the drunken mess playboy is to his relationships and life, even Alfred protests at one point, about damaging his name, his father's name. In a sense he doesn't take responsibility for his actions, because he is hiding, and a damaged man. His descent into a Chinese prison would be evidence of this. He is later given direction, and finds a moral cieling in that he refuses become an executioner, yet he still is driven by negative emotions. He fears losing control, and is obsessed by with cleaning up he world he comes from.
One thing about the macguffin, the microwave emitter is designed to eliminate an enemy's water supply,
I'm not saying these films should be the subject of a college major, but some effort and thought have been put into them. Unless you've been watching some really in-depth porn (I tried to come up with a porn parody title for The Fountainhead, but none I could think were any good).

As for the Fritz Lang films, I haven't seen them yet, but I love all sorts of films and would love to see those. I think it's great to sit through a beautiful print of Metropolis, that's an idea of a good time for me. Batman and Nolan aren't the only things I obsess about. I do have a preference for genre cinema, in general though no specific genre in particular, I just find stories I like and latch onto them. Thanks to a series of Demonoid torrents, I'm about to embark on a Hitchcock marathon that will likely stretch for months.
This is my passion I guess, I don't have it for sport or cars. And what I like is what I like, I don't tend to rank these things.
One kind of film I generally dislike are documentaries, which is a little odd, given my reading habits are mainly non-fiction, even excluding all the 'making of' books I own and pour over.

Dude, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but those old-school 80's action movies have a completely different emphasis on how they are made. Both have action, but the design of the story-telling is very different. Stallone was probably the one who cared about storytelling the most (he might never get the credit he deserves), but his style was much more emotional.
And I think I mixed up my own point a little before, because a lot of the questions in Dark Knight need to be raised and talked about and dissected, but there is purpose to using them to bolster the storytelling and make it more impactful, and I do believe that quite a lot of groundwork was put in to get the story to achieve it's effect. Even little things like Alfred's manipulation of Bruce, by destroying Rachel's letter, in order to enable him as Batman. Bruce is messed up at this point This action could be considered heroic or sinister, depending on your point of view, and while it might not have 'meaning' in a profound artistic sense, it was something devised to better tell the story.

But I didn't think they were 'bad.' They were well acted, well shot, well edited, and I couldn't think of anything I would do differently if it were up to me, I just didn't connect for whatever reason. Taxi Driver I certainly appreciate to some extent, but overall I just didn't relate, perhaps due to my age, I don't know. The Wrestler just didn't feel like my story, I didn't really latch onto it. I don't think I'd have anything interesting to say about them, because it's not an opinion, it's just how I feel.
There are plenty movies I think are crap, most of which you'd probably agree with. I hated Napoleon Dynamite, but otherwise I can't really remember films considered good that I thought sucked, apart from maybe a bunch of Oliver Stone films. Shutter Island I thought was highly polished turd, but I don't think it was well recieved anyway. I love a lot of other Scorcese though. I thought the latest Spiderman lacked some heart and energy, despite having some good ideas.
There are quite a few lauded films I've avoided seeing. Lars Von Trier annoys me whenever I hear about him (read Empire a lot, amongst other movie magazines and websites), and I don't think I'd care for his movies, but that's only going by what I've heard and read about them. I can't say I hate them, having not seen any. Same goes for that Funny Games guy. Fuck him and his ironic moralising. I generally try to avoid stuff that's intentionally elitist.

Btw, the second part of my rant wasn't really aimed at you, was more an in general vent. It'd been building for quite some time.
I do enjoy posting here on the mav_ian/KIMaster thread, but I've got to get back to sucking Christopher Nolan off. He promised me a 'surprise ending.'

Edit: Added some spoiler tags to cut down the part where I really rambled on...

 

Where are you getting the "terrorist from Antarctica" thing from? I don't recall that being part of Batman Begins, and when I google "Batman Begins Antarctica" I don't see any hits that mention it.

Also, wasn't everything in The Dark Knight played just as seriously? The Dark Knight might have been more grounded in real life than Batman Begins was but it was still a comic book movie, just like you said.

What about Maggie Gyllenhaal in The Dark Knight? She was only marginally better than Katie Holmes. Are you giving her a free pass because she didn't have as much screen time?

In regards to the shaky cam fight scenes in Batman Begins: you got the same exact thing in The Dark Knight! Once again, I think that I even remember you saying that the fight scenes in The Dark Knight were awful.

I am not a big fan of comic book movies to begin with, but I liked Batman Begins and didn't care for The Dark Knight. My only major beef with The Dark Knight was the lack of any actual plot. The most important aspect of a movie is the story; the only exception to that are movies that don't take themselves seriously (i.e. Big Trouble in Little China). The Christopher Nolan Batman films take themselves too seriously to be able to get away with not having a plot, as Batman movies should.

Batman Begins had the back-story of how Bruce Wayne became Batman, and then the thing with the Scarecrow getting prisoners to be found insane so they would be sent to his asylum. Those things worked fine for a comic movie. The series of mini-climaxes didn't work in The Dark Knight. Aside from Heath Ledger's performance, I still don't understand what there is to like about the movie (after four viewings).

 

Let me answer the shorter reply first;

It was a joke, dude. It sounded funnier than "terrorist from the Himalayas".

I think "The Dark Knight" didn't take itself quite as seriously, but regardless, they concentrated on the action and suspense throughout. That's the key difference. Compare this to all the moronic speeches, exposition, and worthless plaudits in "Batman Begins".

Notice that "The Dark Knight" had a small fraction of such speeches, and they were usually much shorter, being in the style of action movie one-liners.

That's part of it. Also, while Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance was mediocre, she was a regular Katherine Hepburn compared to Holmes' performance. The former Mrs. Tom Cruise was so awful I burst out laughing several times during her lines. I can't imagine a random high school drama student could do any worse.

Gyllenhaal was unimpressive, but at no point did she take me out of the film or make me laugh at a dramatic moment.

Absolutely! The fight scenes in "The Dark Knight" were awful. In fact, it's the only action movie I thought was good (let alone great) while having poor fight scenes. Easily my biggest gripe about the film.

Now for the longer one;

Spoiler

I'm usually not bothered by the plot holes, either. But that's because I categorize most of Nolan's films in the category of "pure entertainment" rather than "serious art". The only exception is probably "Memento", which I hated.

Among summer blockbuster super hero films, sure. Everything is a cliche. We're talking about a genre that sprouted from comic books for 6 year-old boys. But that is nowhere close to true for all movies.

While "fear" is mentioned multiple times by the various characters, it's a tool for exposition more than anything. It very rarely comes up in the actions of the various characters. Initially, Bruce Wayne is scared and weak. Then, he powers up, is no longer scared, and becomes scary and powerful himself.

That's the same arc as any kung-fu film, and (I would imagine) the origin story of any superhero.

This might have been more interesting if it had been explored more. Instead, I think we get a grand total of one largely boring scene in "Batman Begins" to this effect, and that's all. That potential theme is quickly dropped.

This kind of background is only interesting if we're talking about a realistic character encountering real obstacles. Instead, we're talking about a billionaire who dresses up as a bat and fights deadly criminals while refusing to use guns or kill/maim them.

It's a complete fantasy. In fact, the stuff you mentioned earlier about fear and overcoming it is a classic male power fantasy, too. While it might be fun, it is hardly intellectual.

I like Fritz Lang ("Scarlet Street" is a masterpiece), but find silent movies boring and worthless, his included. I think the majority of the Mabuse series was silent, although a few of the later ones had sound.

I dislike the majority of "documentaries" because they're not really documentaries at all. Instead, they're 1.5 hours of film which teach me less about the subject (and do so with more bias and half-truths) than ten minutes spent on Wikipedia.

Interesting. If I don't really connect with a movie, but appreciate its other qualities, it's still a very good, worthy film in my eyes. Maybe even "great". Usually, I am able to find a number of flaws/weaknesses in movies, even ones that I really enjoy.

 

I dunno what exactly that is, but it looks a lot like a faithful Starship Troopers adaptation wrapped up in Halo boot camp. I would watch the shit out of a Halo movie, so this is kind of exciting.

Also, this: