firstshowing.net — This is not a review of "The Dark Knight." However, considering the film isn't even in theaters yet, it might come as a surprise to hear so much profound praise, but I can't help from sharing my feelings on this absolute masterpiece. In fact, I've decided to move beyond calling it a masterpiece to calling it potentially a cinematic revolution
Jul 3, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJul 4, 2008
What if...just what if... the movie comes out on the 18th and it suck. What if the movie industry is just hyping this movie up because of a tragic death of a depress actor. What if the movie comes out and it suck but people still thinks it is awesome because thinking otherwise would disrupt the herd. Kinda of like how most people say they listen to Nirvana because they think Curt was a genius, but really he was just depress and was loaded on drugs and booze. Don't get me wrong, I loved Batman Return, and the Batman Franchise, but has anybody thought about this? I agree about the comment on The Matrix. The Matrix was ground breaking. I just don't think another Batman movie will be a cinematic revolution. Just think about it guys. Really, another Batman movie, a cinematic revolution? Gullible.
sonar1Jul 4, 2008
anyone have a link to the first 5 minutes?
sark666Jul 4, 2008
Everybody gushes about IMAX, when I suspect the majority of you have never seen anything filmed in imax. And no, matrix or attack of the clones do not count. They were never shot in imax, they were upsampled to imax resolutions. As a matter of fact, to have a film called an imax film it, crazily enough, had to be shot in imax. Well now they have relaxed the standards and a film that's not even shot in imax can say it has 'the imax experience'.See, the big thing about imax isn't the screen, it's the film it's shot on. The exposure is huge compared to regular film and you get much more detail. Now in defence of this film quoting wiki here:"The director used an IMAX camera to film six major action sequences, including the Joker's first appearance in the film.' I believe this is a first, finally people going to see traditional cinematic film converted to imax will actually see a portion of it in imax.So probably about 15-20 minutes of these is truly imax, which is impressive in the sense that nothing they have tooted as 'imax' has actually been imax.A couple of things against imax though for traditional films is film has a aspect ratio of 16:9 or wider whereas imax res is closer to 4:3. The result? You'll see a massive cropping of the film just like the days before getting movies in letterbox. Also, imax can only be 2 hours max, last I checked they hadn't got around this. For ex, attack of the clones in imax literally had twenty minutes cut from it.Ok, enough rambling, it just bugs me when people gush about 'the imax experience' when the majority truly haven't experienced it. If you ever get the chance to see something truly shot in imax, go see it, the detail is astonishing. And i just read wiki a little more, it seems the max running time of imax is now 2hrs 20 min, so less films will get the chop. And here's a last little quote on the transistion to upsampling of traditional films."Reviewers have generally praised the results of the DMR blowup process, which have superior visual and auditory impact to the same films projected in 35 mm. Many large format film industry professionals point out, however, that DMR blowups are not comparable to films created directly in the 70 mm 15 perf IMAX format. They note that the decline of Cinerama coincided roughly with the supersession of the original process with a simplified, reduced cost, technically inferior version, and view DMR with alarm. IMAX originally reserved the phrase "the IMAX experience" for true 70 mm productions, but now allows its use on DMR productions as well. However, IMAX DMR versions of commercial Hollywood films are generally popular with audiences, with many people choosing to pay more than standard admission to see the IMAX version."
stillasleep00Jul 4, 2008
July 18th is my mom's birthday....Sorry, mom. Something came up.
wacomwacoffJul 4, 2008
Norman: who should I believe: the opinions of myself, my friends, and professional movie reviewers all across America who all loved this film... or a single sleepy 5 year old?
bowiexJul 4, 2008
Norman: wacom listed two additional reasons (beyond its critical reception) for why Wall·E is objectively a good film -"WALL-E is getting some of the best reviews of the year, is a box office hit, and nearly universal love from viewers." So, the general public as a whole has responded very positively, and thus, objectively speaking, you're wrong in your assertion that most films out are better than Wall·E.I would suggest, however much you are entitled to be disappointed by the movie, that you not judge a film by the reactions of a 5-year-old. Futhermore, the fact that you took him to see a movie that is arguably much more adult-oriented than most feature-length animations likewise suggests that you personally have a very tepid appreciation for nuance, something -- mind the pun -- littered throughout Wall·E.
vigiloJul 5, 2008
Its just an action movie, a summer blockbuster action movie that's all. I love this year how the economy is tanking so people aren't spending as much. All of a sudden every big video game release is getting 10's and every big movie release is the best film eva. Trust me it will be a good movie but that is it. It won't change the world or movies. Movies in general will continue to be crappy all year until the summer and then we start all over with another so called "revolutionary" film. We are being sold on a film that's all folks.
zer0nixJul 5, 2008
ah. whoops, i actually forgot about that... thanks for clarifying.
mikeexplosivoJul 21, 2008
One thing that bothers me is that when I was watching the local news last night, they covered people who saw it. Surprisingly most of the adults bitched and moaned about how it's not for kids. NO s**t, have you looked at the Joker? Do you really want your eight year old son to go see that? -While adults without children had nothing bad to say.Oddly enough there were several parents saying that they wish they rethought going to see it with their kids, not denying it being a great movie. McDonald's.. I also noticed, has been promoting a PG-13 movie to young children with the happy meal toys. Use normal judgment to decide on this stuff people. All in all I think the idea of a "comic book batman" (Batman Forever) is old boring, and we've all seen it for years. Batman should have been a darker story and twisted since day one.Advice for parents, look into movies before you see them. It isn't very hard to find reviews or comments on movies on the internet. www.google.com is a magical website where you can find anything you want, but shh, it's a secret.