|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.167.204.7
I know many critics made the comparison, but after seeing the Dark Knight Rises repeatedly on blu-ray last week, and having seen Skyfall in the IMAX theater last month, I just have to comment on the many similarities.
1. Both are the third installment, and sort of a conclusion, in their respective character arcs.
2. Both start out as defeated, scruffy (uncharacteristic facial hair), decrepit, unpopular, emotional wrecks.
3. Bond faces a foe that offers no international intrigue or multinational threat--which were key calling cards of all Bond foes. Javier played a very basic psychopath who was just a good spy gone bad. The villain in TDKR had a more bond-like quality, involving a nuclear threat. Both relied on a psychothriller element.
4. Both arcs brought the hero back where they were as a child so that it was more of an inner struggle than about phsycially defeating the bad guys or outwitting them.
5. The constant reminders about both heroes being orphaned, losing their parents and coming to terms with their loss.
6. Both arcs were very similar in tying up the father/mother figures in their lives who had come to replace their parents. In the case of TDKR, the Michael Caine butler figure and in the case of Bond, it was Judy Dench as M.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Follow Ups:
moonlighting prick. I'll take Batman 3 over Skyfall.
dull, scattered, over wrought. Really shitty IMO - not nearly as good or interesting as the first two.
Skyfall can't be THAT bad!
I hope (having not seen it yet)...
"One this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
.
Albert Finney all but crying out, "What am I doing in this fucking ridiculous piece of shit!?"
This film should be taken as seriously as Star Wars XXXIII.
It was just as tight as TDK. Skyfall wasn't bad, but it wasn't what most people think of in a 007 plot. It would have worked better as Clint Eastwood movie.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Well... an "action" movie that takes so long to set-up the storyline in such a ponderous fashion strikes me as messy. Add in the overuse of Bain's story told with far too many boring flashbacks, the main character laid up for most of the movie, other not-too-swift use of flashbacks and an overwhelming dirge-like heaviness of self-importance, etc., and you have
a loooooooooooong movie that could have/should have been trimmed down to something that was paced better.
I could go on, but unlike Nolan I know when to call it quits.
We were VERY disappointed. Am looking forward to Skyfall...
"One this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
Well... an "action" movie that takes so long to set-up the storyline in such a ponderous fashion strikes me as messy.
The action got going right away with Bain kidnapping the nuclear scientist, killing everyone onboard the plane and crashing it in one of the best choreographed scenes of the trilogy. The film did have to stand on its own, so there was some necessary reference to Dent and the reasons behind Wayne being so reclusive and Batman being absent. But I think these loose ends were handled very neatly, not a mess by any means. Taking the fall for Dent and losing one's girlfriend as Bruce Wayne did are certainly ponderous issues, and it was part of the character arc. But the action didn't suffer for it.
Add in the overuse of Bain's story told with far too many boring flashbacks, the main character laid up for most of the movie, other not-too-swift use of flashbacks and an overwhelming dirge-like heaviness of self-importance, etc., and you have
a loooooooooooong movie that could have/should have been trimmed down to something that was paced better.
I thought the pacing and editing were fine, given the challenges of the film. Bain's story wasn't really Bain's story. That was only shown near the end, when it became clear who was really fulfilling ra's al ghul's legacy, e.g., the child that escaped the pit (it wasn't Bain). And the flashbacks were relatively brief and added some intrigue to what was happening in Gotham City, especially since it turned out the child you saw in those flashbacks wasn't really who you thought it was. The entire film was edited rather tightly and you would be hard pressed to cut anything that wasn't essential to the story or the surprise at the end.
I could go on, but unlike Nolan I know when to call it quits.
By all means, go on. I like to discuss Nolan's films. They're thoughtfully made, and he spares no expense in production.
We were VERY disappointed. Am looking forward to Skyfall...
Well expectations can have a big impact. With so many superhero sequels suffering from studio interference, I wasn't expecting much of TDKR and was pleasently surprised. Compare it to the third Spiderman, for example. But after reading the reviews of Skyfall I went in expecting more and was a bit let down.
Both are fine movies, but DTKR was more epic, Bond-like and fulfilling in wrapping up the trilogy. Skyfall, in contrast, felt like the weakest of a trilogy that only served to set up a real resurgence in 007 (hopefully)--but I guess we'll have to wait for the next installment.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
A friend and I recently saw both films, and without comparisons, we were discussing who else could be playing the current Bond character, other than Craig.
By coincidence, we came up with this: A guy who's star has been rising fast is Tom Hardy who played Bane in the Dark Knight.
Hardy has a brooding malevolent presence that would be perfect in that role. if you have any doubt, see him as Forrest Bondurant in Lawless. You'll see what I mean. He was probably too low in the star priorities list at the time for consideration as Bond, but he would have taken that series to a new level.
But Craig has sufficient range too. I think what's lacking is cohesiveness in the direction. Like Nolan elevated the batman concept in his trilogy, I think Bond could have been more consistently handled through the first three films in the hands of a single director who was dedicated to the idea. Instead, we got three slightly different approaches--each resulting in a great film, I think--but without raising 007 to a successive art form in the way it could have been handled. Even relatively superficial production features like the font style of the titles announcing locations varied from film to film, and even from location to location in Quantum of Solace. Contrast that to the three Batman films by Nolan that were stylistically identical, to the point where all three had the title come up in the same font after the final frame of action. The reason Bale was so consistently good was Nolan's attention to detail. Craig could have benefitted from an equally dedicated director handling Casino Royale, QoS and Skyfall as a single arc.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: