Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Adamant]

It's been a while since the search function worked on here, but since it's working now, I found this ancient post from over a decade ago. It captures some of the aspects that I find so resonant, and I stand by every word.



The Dark Knight Rises is also Nolan at his best. He grew as a filmmaker tremendously between 2005 and 2012, plus he'd gained two films' worth of experience in Batmanland by the time of The Dark Knight Rises, so literally everything is better in that film. The opening airplane sequence is phenomenal and trumps the bank robbery opener from The Dark Knight, the fight scenes are MUCH better than the fight scenes from the previous films, the gravitas to Batman is so much cooler and heavier when he returns in The Dark Knight Rises than when he shows up in The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises has no competition in the entire genre of superhero films, not even from its Batman predecessors. It stands alone, and other than Inception, it's not just the best thing that Nolan's ever done, it's the best thing that I've seen thus far in the 21st Century.

Damn. That's the most glowingly positive review for TDKR I've ever seen. I've always hated it and if it wasn't for Tenet I would consider it his worst film. I remember how freaking insanely hyped I was for BB and TDK and I didn't feel let down one bit by either, but TDKR, I remember coming out of the theater literally pissed because I hated it so much. Just found it hokey and way less entertaining that the previous 2. Shit felt like Terminator 3 coming after T1 and T2. Just horrible.

As for Joker, it was Batman's code why he wouldn't just kill him. And that's what Joker wanted him to do. So it was basically Batman battling with himself to not do it, despite Joker taunting him and toying with him to do it.

I'm interested to hear why you put Inception at #1? Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly. I love Inception.

 

[HenryFlower]

I'm interested to hear why you put Inception at #1? Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly. I love Inception.

o..oh god. what have you done

 

[ufcfan4]

The first season was great, the second one stunk. I get why they stopped after two.



I couldn't even watch the Dahmer one. If you're in serial killer mode, though, I'd recommend The Patient on Hulu with Steve Carrell and Domhnall Gleeson if you haven't seen it.



That's a genuinely terrible movie. Val Kilmer and Michael Biehn turn in solid performances, but it's over-the-top cheese in the worst way. Kurt Russell screaming "No!" during that gunfight is literally unwatchable. People who love it, whatever, but anyone who thinks it's actually a well-made film, they're nuts. Gunfight at the OK Corral with Burt Lancaster as Wyatt Earp and Kirk Douglas as Doc Holliday is the definitive film version of that story. I'd recommend that one.

It's been a while since the search function worked on here, but since it's working now, I found this ancient post from over a decade ago. It captures some of the aspects that I find so resonant, and I stand by every word.



The Dark Knight Rises is also Nolan at his best. He grew as a filmmaker tremendously between 2005 and 2012, plus he'd gained two films' worth of experience in Batmanland by the time of The Dark Knight Rises, so literally everything is better in that film. The opening airplane sequence is phenomenal and trumps the bank robbery opener from The Dark Knight, the fight scenes are MUCH better than the fight scenes from the previous films, the gravitas to Batman is so much cooler and heavier when he returns in The Dark Knight Rises than when he shows up in The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises has no competition in the entire genre of superhero films, not even from its Batman predecessors. It stands alone, and other than Inception, it's not just the best thing that Nolan's ever done, it's the best thing that I've seen thus far in the 21st Century.

You know what, I don’t think TDKR is better than The Dark Knight (or Inception or the Prestige) but I ALWAYS felt it was given far too much flack and enjoyed it far more than many others on the forum.

I think you make some great points about the human element. I do think there are some hokey parts in that film, but, overall, I think there is a ton of resonance and that the movie is really well made.

One thing that has really grown on me over the years is the whole Robin element. I really liked JGL’s performance in that movie from day one. I thought he was one of the best aspects. But I, like many, cringed a bit with the whole “‘my real name- Robin” thing. But now I just have a lot of appreciation for the fact that Blake was Nolan’s iteration of the Robin character. It really fits well with the whole type of universe that Nolan created and it makes sense. My only dispute there is that it might have been better if they had called JGL’s
character Rich or something like that only at the end to reveal he’s Richard Grayson.

Hardy is great in the film in my opinion. But I never felt that he was diminished once Cotillard was revealed as the big bad. I liked Marion in that movie too. And subtle references to her true identity were good- referencing the balance and telling Bruce to “do what is necessary” a la her father/League of Shadows.

 

[Bullitt68]

Damn. That's the most glowingly positive review for TDKR I've ever seen.

As you can imagine, I got that a lot on here from like 2012-2015. It had (and still has) tons of haters - which is understandable considering how iconic The Dark Knight was, you just knew that no matter what Nolan did for the third film, it'd have its haters and people would talk about how it was no The Dark Knight - and even after my first viewing in the theater, I couldn't feel anything but let down considering how much hype there was for it and how much anticipation I'd built up in four years of waiting. But once I got over all of that hype/expectation BS and just watched the film, which I did three more times in the theater, I came to love it more and more with each viewing, and I had my own little crusade on here to extol its virtues.

(This happened again with Interstellar, and again with Dunkirk. I expect so much from Nolan that my first viewing of every new film of his is always "meh, I wanted more." He's turned us into greedy and spoiled little brat viewers by pumping out so much consistent awesomeness. So now I just accept that the first viewing will be meh and then it'll be up to the subsequent rewatches to solidy my opinion.)

I've always hated it and if it wasn't for Tenet I would consider it his worst film. I remember how freaking insanely hyped I was for BB and TDK and I didn't feel let down one bit by either, but TDKR, I remember coming out of the theater literally pissed because I hated it so much. Just found it hokey and way less entertaining that the previous 2. Shit felt like Terminator 3 coming after T1 and T2. Just horrible.

Haha, I saw Terminator 3 in the theater with a bunch of friends for a birthday party. It's a fun enough movie, but certainly not on the same level as its predecessors.

For me, I wasn't that hyped for Batman Begins. I didn't even bother seeing it in theaters. And when I finally did watch it after the fact, I thought that it stunk, and I still do think that it's a B- at best. (You want to talk about "hokey," I hate that ridiculous ninja in the mountains training shit with Liam Neeson speaking fortune cookie dialogue for an hour. That movie is silly trash until he actually becomes Batman, and even then Scarecrow is the dumbest villain, Nolan hadn't decided if he was going to keep Gotham Burtonesque or if he was going to lean into his Michael Mann/Heat influence. It's a mess of a movie.) The Dark Knight really came out of left field for me. I was shocked that it was even half as good as it was. Then with The Dark Knight Rises, he'd clearly reached the peak of his powers.

Strangely, people tend to have problems with trilogy-capping films, but I love The Dark Knight Rises, I love Die Hard with a Vengeance, I love Scream 3, I love The Bourne Ultimatum, and to connect to your taste I love Halloween: H20, which is technically the trilogy-capping film to Halloween and Halloween II and which (like The Dark Knight Rises and The Bourne Ultimatum) I actually consider to be the best of the three. The way that these films come full circle and connect back to the origin story adds so much power and emotional weight to the characters and the stories, the passage of time amplifies everything in the films. Literally every single rewatch, without fail, I get chills when Batman comes back. It's 8 years in story time, but it was 4 years in real time, and so I felt those years of no Batman, and seeing him come back, I was nearly in tears in the theater just by virtue of being overwhelmed by awesomeness. Nolan managed to make that final film so insanely epic. Only Logan comes close to that feeling for me in the superhero movie world. I don't know what else to say. The Dark Knight Rises fucking rules

As for Joker, it was Batman's code why he wouldn't just kill him. And that's what Joker wanted him to do. So it was basically Batman battling with himself to not do it, despite Joker taunting him and toying with him to do it.

I get it, I just don't like it. That's not compelling to me. I don't feel the stakes. The movie could've - and should've - been over so much sooner. There wouldn't have been any conflict if he would've just fucking killed that silly clown. Now, admittedly, everyone's reactions to films like these with preexisting characters are going to be colored by their sense of the character. For me, growing up with the Michael Keaton Batman films, I prefer that Batman: The one that'd kill you with ice in his veins, the one who strapped dynamite to a guy's chest and smiled at him before he exploded into pieces. Bale's Batman was always too pussy and vanilla for me. Add to that the fact that I grew up on Seagal and Schwarzenegger and Stallone, in whose films their heroes didn't just rack up giant body counts but almost always killed the bad guy one on one in the end, Bale's Batman just aggravated me. And The Dark Knight put that center stage. Whereas in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane wasn't just five steps ahead of Batman at every turn, he was a terrifying physical threat to boot. The Joker hatched this scheme, put this plan in motion, boxed Batman into this corner and then that corner...but it could've been solved very easily had Batman just killed him. It's like when Vince McMahon convinced Stone Cold to fight him with one arm tied behind his back. It's stupid because we all know - as we saw when Stone Cold got Vince in the steel cage for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre - that Stone Cold would beat the fuck out of him. With Bane, even if Batman wanted to kill him, he couldn't. He couldn't outthink him and he couldn't outfight him. He was truly helpless. That's conflict.

You know what, I don’t think TDKR is better than The Dark Knight (or Inception or the Prestige) but I ALWAYS felt it was given far too much flack and enjoyed it far more than many others on the forum.

I think you make some great points about the human element. I do think there are some hokey parts in that film, but, overall, I think there is a ton of resonance and that the movie is really well made.

One thing that has really grown on me over the years is the whole Robin element. I really liked JGL’s performance in that movie from day one. I thought he was one of the best aspects. But I, like many, cringed a bit with the whole “‘my real name- Robin” thing. But now I just have a lot of appreciation for the fact that Blake was Nolan’s iteration of the Robin character. It really fits well with the whole type of universe that Nolan created and it makes sense. My only dispute there is that it might have been better if they had called JGL’s
character Rich or something like that only at the end to reveal he’s Richard Grayson.

Hardy is great in the film in my opinion. But I never felt that he was diminished once Cotillard was revealed as the big bad. I liked Marion in that movie too. And subtle references to her true identity were good- referencing the balance and telling Bruce to “do what is necessary” a la her father/League of Shadows.

When I searched that old post of mine, I saw you in the thread supporting my crusade. But you're closer to me than Adamant yet you both used the word "hokey." What was hokey about The Dark Knight Rises? What from that film even approaches the hokeyness of ninjas in mountains taking down civilizations or a demented doctor running around town with a brown sack over his head? Are you speaking to the film being contrived and silly, in which case I'm going to fight you hard, or are you referring to its sentimentality and its melodramatic tone, in which case I won't fight you on the characterization though I'd argue that that's part of what makes it so powerful and effective.

And I agree, I love the JGL arc. Though I liked Nolan's choice to make him being Robin a surprise. Rich would've been too obvious. People would've been rolling their eyes for three hours. But at the end you get that nice little, "Oh, I get it now..."

I'm interested to hear why you put Inception at #1? Now that I can agree with wholeheartedly. I love Inception.

I've literally delivered a two hour lecture on this film in a philosophy context, I've taught it in film classes, it's endlessly rich and fascinating. Aside from the bravura filmmaking - it's quite possibly the best edited film ever, and it unquestionably has the best cross-cutting in film history, making D.W. Griffith look like an unimaginative hack, while it also boasts IMO Hans Zimmer's best score and IMO the second best original score of the 21st Century (behind only Mihály Víg's hauntingly beautiful score for Béla Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies) - it hits that paradox that Michael Mann nailed with Heat, that Stanley Kubrick nailed with Eyes Wide Shut, that Ingmar Bergman nailed with Wild Strawberries: It's as simple as it is profound. It's just a story of a guy grieving his wife and trying to overcome that trauma so that he can function as a father. But how Nolan spins that web, how he reaches those incredible depths of human emotion---the ultimate trick in the film isn't the spinning top, it's how at the end of the day it's DiCaprio who's been incepted. Whether intentional or not - and that theory is a fun rabbit hole that brings Michael Caine's role into question - Ariadne helps Cobb accept the idea that he has to let Mal go, and the whole thrilling mind crime caper adventure is essentially a therapy session as Cobb works out his guilt complex and comes back to reality. It's a masterpiece, plain and simple.

 

[Adamant]

@Bullitt68
I will shotgun blast a bunch of stuff from memory but here's just some of the reasons I hated it:

A random note written by Gordon is what sends the city into chaos? Anybody could have written that note. It could be complete fiction. Why does everyone just believe it immediately and without question? Especially coming from a dude who's very clearly a villain (Bane)? No reasonable person is going to accept that or go along with it like it's a good thing.

Why do the police fight the convicts Braveheart-style? That is tactically absurd! They could have just shot them. Pretty much anything else would have made more sense than trying to William Wallace the situation. Letting them get within arms reach is insane! Maybe to "look cool" but I just found it to be preposterous!

Why does basically 100% of GCPD (it's not GPD) go down into the sewers? It's so overwhelmingly stupid I can't stand it. You're gonna send 100% of your entire defense force down into the sewer at the same time?? Bruh. BRUH!!!!

I found Bane to be especially hokey with how he talks and sounds, and how off he is from the comics. The scene: "What are you....you're pure evil.....I'm necessary evil" was just corny as hell with horrendous dialogue, and was terribly acted by Mendelsohn. It looks like Bane is gonna break his neck but then the dude starts hysterically screaming like Bane's shoving a knife up his butt. Ugh. It makes no sense other than "trying" to be horrifying, which it wasn't.

I found Catwoman to be super annoying. I just didn't like her character at all. I didn't find her to be interesting, compelling, or likeable.

The whole nuke storyline was super underwhelming. I felt no stakes at all and the whole thing just felt lame. Again, the citizens of Gotham are going to happily "rule" Gotham even though everything is in complete chaos and there's a nuke that could go off at any moment?

Robin just knows that Bruce is Batman. Because that look in his eye was enough to tell? Ugh.

The stock exchange bit was horrendous. Obvious terrorist attack and they're going to just accept the Bruce Wayne transaction like it's no big deal? Even though it literally transpired DURING the terrorist attack?!?! UUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Punches broken back = fixes broken back. Then Bruce attempts to climb out and falls multiple times with the rope around his waste, falling like 30-50 feet each time before the rope pulls taut, which you'd think would either rebreak his back, tear his guts up, or kill him. But nah, he's fine.

Batman does the burning bat symbol to show Gotham he's back. Like why? The element of surprise is your friend. It's just stupid showboating. (I guess you could say it's to taunt Bane, but I still think it's dumb)

It's "impossible" for anyone to get on or off the island, but when Bruce returns, he does it effortlessly, yet they don't explain it. (I know he's Batman and I can almost overlook it for that reason, but still, I'd like to see HOW he's able to do it when it's supposedly impossible)

I predicted the ending literally the moment Alfred first tells Bruce about his dream (of Bruce retiring and them seeing each other in some far off cafe and nodding to each other without saying a word). Then when it happens.....ugh. Hated it. (And no one notices Bruce Wayne sitting there, even though he's one of the most famous people on earth, and is supposed to be dead?! It would be like nobody noticing Elon Musk.......wut??? It's not like they were somewhere in some bush town in Africa. They were in Europe for crying out loud!!!

Batman is going to give his batcave to "Robin" and it's sort of implied that Robin will take over. Again, wut????????? Robin has zero training. What the hell is he gonna do? Good way to get the kid killed on his first night out.

Talia Al Ghul's death scene....oof. Talia Al Ghul in general was lame. Terribly acted. Terrible badguy. The whole 'hover the finger over the detonator while holding the knife in Batman' bit was just cringe.

Catwoman killing Bane.....again, lame.

Bane needing a weird mask that scientifically doesn't make sense, even in a comic book movie. And it doesn't follow the comics at all. And it's also Bane's weak spot? Ugh. Too easy and predictable.

I could go on and on. Overall I just found the movie to be way, way less exciting than the previous two movies, and way more stupid. I distinctly remember groaning about every 30 seconds throughout the entire movie as I watched it in the theater, and my face hurting from facepalming so much (hyperbole, but that's basically how disappointed I was). It was just groan after groan after groan, one giant groan-fest. And that's what I mean about it being hokey. So much of it was silly and stupid and just not entertaining. (Like the opening plane heist..... I didn't enjoy it at all. I thought it was contrived, convoluted, and stupid. That's not to say the stunt itself was bad. I appreciate that it was done practically. But man, it just wasn't interesting at all in its context. And the whole blood transfer thing.....ugh)

It may possibily be the most hyped I've ever been walking into a movie. And among the most let down I've ever been walking out. I remember when it came to theaters they were doing a "Trilogy feature" where you see Batman Begins at 630p. Then The Dark Knight at 9p. Then TDKR at Midnight. I was so freaking excited I thought I wouldn't be able to handle sitting through BB/TDK. I thought I was gonna be kind of bored because of how many times I had already seen BB/TDK. But I remember within like 10 seconds of BB starting I was epically hyped and super into it. Same for TDK. It was GREAT! Then TDKR finally started and..... pretty quickly I felt that something was wrong. And then after about 30 minutes I remember asking myself "Jeez, is this ever gonna get good?" .....and it never did.

As for what I would do differently.... Page 1 rewrite with a COMPLETELY different story.


Funny enough the ninjas in the mountains of BB never bothered me. Yes, in real life that's kind of silly. Unless they're basing it on kung fu monks in the mountain temples of China. But any way you cut it I thought it was pretty cool and fit the world. They have to have a hideout somewhere that's near impossible for most people to get to. That location was acceptable IMO. And it makes Bruce have to really work for it and prove himself. Just getting there is a feat in and of itself.

Scarecrow didn't bother me. I actually liked him. He's always been the skinny weakling that's not really a physical threat. It's the gas that makes him a threat. Because everyone loses their minds on it and then he easily beats them. I felt the movie carried that over rather nicely. (In fact, I liked Scarecrow so much that I was bummed with how little he was in TDK). His mask was fine. After all, he needs to protect himself from the gas. Making it resemble a scarecrow is just his way of fucking with people.

Honestly, BB is my favorite of the three. I like Gotham in it the best too. I don't like how in TDK it basically became just a normal city. BB's Gotham actually makes it feel more surreal and I prefer that.



I find your words on Inception fascinating. For conversation, how do you compare Inception with Tarantino's best movies? (In whatever way you can compare them). You mentioned before that Tarantino may be the best screenwriter out there and does better writing than Nolan. But how does Nolan's best film compare to QT's top 3 films? Seems like an interesting matchup.

 

[moreorless87]

I get it, I just don't like it. That's not compelling to me. I don't feel the stakes. The movie could've - and should've - been over so much sooner. There wouldn't have been any conflict if he would've just fucking killed that silly clown. Now, admittedly, everyone's reactions to films like these with preexisting characters are going to be colored by their sense of the character. For me, growing up with the Michael Keaton Batman films, I prefer that Batman: The one that'd kill you with ice in his veins, the one who strapped dynamite to a guy's chest and smiled at him before he exploded into pieces. Bale's Batman was always too pussy and vanilla for me. Add to that the fact that I grew up on Seagal and Schwarzenegger and Stallone, in whose films their heroes didn't just rack up giant body counts but almost always killed the bad guy one on one in the end, Bale's Batman just aggravated me. And The Dark Knight put that center stage. Whereas in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane wasn't just five steps ahead of Batman at every turn, he was a terrifying physical threat to boot. The Joker hatched this scheme, put this plan in motion, boxed Batman into this corner and then that corner...but it could've been solved very easily had Batman just killed him. It's like when Vince McMahon convinced Stone Cold to fight him with one arm tied behind his back. It's stupid because we all know - as we saw when Stone Cold got Vince in the steel cage for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre - that Stone Cold would beat the fuck out of him. With Bane, even if Batman wanted to kill him, he couldn't. He couldn't outthink him and he couldn't outfight him. He was truly helpless. That's conflict.

I do think you could make the case that the Nolan/Bale Batman films have a bit of trouble in terms of what kind of character they want Bruce to be and what kind of story their telling.

The Keaton Batman films as you say are ultimately stories of heroism, his Bruce is a bit of an oddball but theres no real conflict in terms of him doing the right thing, its a question of whether he will be able to. If theres complexity of character its more in the Joker and Penguin, always villains but with some shift as to what kind of villains they are. As you say I think thats a style which was popular in the era, Arnies films rarely focus on moral complexity of his character, maybe sometimes he's a bit of an unwilling hero but mostly the complexity tends to come in what he's fighting against.

TDKR does definitely feel like the film were Bale's Bruce is mostly straight up heroic, the challenge is one of self belief and competence whilst the film tends to focus more on the moral complexity of the situation. The previous two I think flirt more with the idea of moral complexity around Bruce but you could argue don't ever really commit to it, your never in much doubt that he's righteous after Begins opening section.

Personally I felt the Battinson film did a better job of selling a more morally complex Bruce Wayne, much of the plot ends up as an investigated mystery but I think the way the character is played and indeed the general tone of the film leaves his moral position rather more up in the air until the Riddlers reveal were he comes down against his viewpoint.

 

[Bullitt68]

Honestly, BB is my favorite of the three.

I'm not discounting the time and effort that you put into this post detailing your issues with The Dark Knight Rises - I have my responses below - but I've found that in literally every conversation that I've ever had with someone who hates The Dark Knight Rises, they love Batman Begins and consider it the best of the trilogy. It's the same way that people who prefer horror movies prefer Alien to Aliens, whereas people who prefer action movies prefer Aliens to Alien. Yet, how interesting that for how far apart fans tend to be on the first and the third films, just about everyone gives it up for The Dark Knight. The middle film is the perfect middle ground for Batman fans

A random note written by Gordon is what sends the city into chaos? Anybody could have written that note. It could be complete fiction. Why does everyone just believe it immediately and without question? Especially coming from a dude who's very clearly a villain (Bane)? No reasonable person is going to accept that or go along with it like it's a good thing.

Since Nolan is doing a clever riff on revolutionaries with Bane, and how people from Robespierre to Hitler and Stalin always seem and proclaim to be doing what they're doing for the "good" of "the people," it's the point that he's clearly a villain yet is putting on the airs of savior. Added to which, the clever bit is that they make sure that Gordon can't get in front of a camera, which makes an admission of his silence.

Also, for the hell of it: Since The Dark Knight Rises hews closest to Batman Returns, nothing in the former is as stupid as Penguin framing Batman for the beauty queen's death.

Why do the police fight the convicts Braveheart-style? That is tactically absurd! They could have just shot them. Pretty much anything else would have made more sense than trying to William Wallace the situation. Letting them get within arms reach is insane! Maybe to "look cool" but I just found it to be preposterous!

Since Nolan redid the battle between the white shirts and the brown shirts in Enter the Dragon, my all-time favorite movie, I love that ending. But the obvious answer within the movie world is that they couldn't have just shot them because not everyone had guns and they didn't have much ammunition for the guns that they had. Bane made sure of that. If I were you, I'd complain about Batman coming in with his Batpod and just taking out the tanks instead of just annihilating Bane and his whole crew right then and there and obviating the need for any fighting at all. That, for me, is the biggest hole in that otherwise phenomenal finale.

Why does basically 100% of GCPD (it's not GPD) go down into the sewers? It's so overwhelmingly stupid I can't stand it. You're gonna send 100% of your entire defense force down into the sewer at the same time?? Bruh. BRUH!!!!

This is a standard complaint, but the best explanation is to recall that the reason for Gordon's exasperation is that they'd already been sending down large squads of cops and they'd yet to find anyone. And yet, up top, Bane was getting bolder and bolder and causing more and more chaos. So he figured fuck it, they're down there in this giant sewer system but successfully hiding every time we send down patrols: Let's just send down one giant patrol and, as Modine said when chasing Batman, it'd be like a rat in a trap. This, in fact, is one of the many great doubling moments where Batman and Bane are shown to be two peas in a pod: They're always underestimated and they always prove to be able to outsmart their adversaries.

Also, for the hell of it again: Is there a single effective cop in either of Burton's films? I mean, the Joker murders a notorious criminal on the courthouse steps in broad daylight and then hijacks a giant city-wide parade yet there's no police presence whatsoever.

I found Bane to be especially hokey with how he talks and sounds, and how off he is from the comics. The scene: "What are you....you're pure evil.....I'm necessary evil" was just corny as hell with horrendous dialogue, and was terribly acted by Mendelsohn. It looks like Bane is gonna break his neck but then the dude starts hysterically screaming like Bane's shoving a knife up his butt. Ugh. It makes no sense other than "trying" to be horrifying, which it wasn't.

Couldn't disagree with you more. First, I vividly remember being startled when Bane appeared in that scene ("Speak of the devil and he shall appear"). Second, the moment when he gently places his hand on his shoulder and asks, softly, kindly, "Do you feel in charge?" is one of the highlights of the film. Third, I couldn't care less about the comics, so I had no problems with fidelity or lack thereof; I just loved that they didn't make a sewer-dwelling criminal a shredded eight-pack-boasting underwear model but actually had Hardy bulk up to look like a powerlifter. Fourth, I loved Mendelsohn's acting because he was slimy and obnoxious exactly the way that he needed to be. Fifth, the weak and anguished off-screen howl sells the mixture of fear and pain that comes with being preyed upon by Bane, plus it allows us to see what makes Gorman get the fuck out of dodge. Sixth, the dialogue works perfectly because aside from Hardy's excellent performance, you see Bane's pathological commitment to the cause in the way that, rather than just walk up and ice Mendelsohn, he takes the time to explain to him why he is justified in his actions, including using him and then killing him now that he's outlived his usefulness. That scene is a home run in every single category. To say nothing of the rest of his fantastic performance, from the way that he has impeccable manners (thanking the stock guy for holding his helmet is one of the best little bits in the film) to the way that he pushes himself up using Bruce's chest when he's injured in the prison just to be a dick and cause further pain to the beautiful and sad expression on his face as Talia talks about how he was her protector. I would've given him a fucking Best Supporting Actor nomination if I had my way.

I found Catwoman to be super annoying. I just didn't like her character at all. I didn't find her to be interesting, compelling, or likeable.

That's my favorite Catwoman. Michelle Pfeiffer was great, but she was a little too unhinged at times. But Hathaway's Catwoman is literally the soul of the film inasmuch as we watch the revolution through her eyes. She's talking tons of commie shit to Bruce's capitalist fat cat ass to start, but when she actually sees what her longed-for utopia looks like, she's horrified and she changes her tune. That's a brilliant arc to give her, which at once preserves the antagonistic relationship between Batman and Catwoman that was so great in Batman Returns but gives it a more grounded feel in the way that Batman doesn't change her mind, but nor does she devolve into insanity or get consumed by resentment: All she has to do is see with her own eyes and that enables her to see the truth.

Also, for the hell of it: Speaking of grounded, I much prefer the reality of a down-on-her-luck girl who turns to crime to survive and then gets stuck in a downward trajectory while paradoxically trying to climb out of the whole she dug for herself trying to survive to the uber-neurotic secretary who is resurrected as a cat with nine lives by inexplicably supernatural cats capable of bringing dead people back to life by licking them

Lastly, I've always thought that Hathway was very hot and she never looked better than that film.

 

[Bullitt68]

The whole nuke storyline was super underwhelming. I felt no stakes at all and the whole thing just felt lame. Again, the citizens of Gotham are going to happily "rule" Gotham even though everything is in complete chaos and there's a nuke that could go off at any moment?

Again, since Nolan is riffing on revolutions, this is the point. You could find people in the Soviet Union during Stalin's rule, as the gulag was filling up and the bodies were piling up, who would tell you that they were enjoying being on the breadline and were cool with life under communism. Humans are adaptable to a fault: Whatever the situation, we tend to get used to it, and if we think it's safer to just sit with our heads between our legs, that's what we'll do. When shit like that happens, it's the wild nutcases who take up the "righteous" cause. This is the problem with eliminating "hierarchies" of "exploitation" and "oppression": Flattening shit out just gives would-be dictators the opportunity to create a new hierarchy and situate themselves at the top of it. The nuke is an explicit symbol that calls to mind stuff like the Soviet attempt to collectivize agricultural production: You can talk about how you're doing shit for the people, but when it kills the people, you don't have a leg to stand on. In short, it's supposed to be transparent and phony.

Robin just knows that Bruce is Batman. Because that look in his eye was enough to tell? Ugh.

Someone has to be Batman. And someone has to have been able to guess it. That dweeb in The Dark Knight figured it out, too. At least it's not the reverse situation like Superman with Bale fooling people by putting on glasses

The stock exchange bit was horrendous. Obvious terrorist attack and they're going to just accept the Bruce Wayne transaction like it's no big deal? Even though it literally transpired DURING the terrorist attack?!?! UUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

That's actually arguably the cleverest part of the film and not in the least bit a plot hole. First, what Bane did was engineer backdated financial moves so that if they were looked into, they'd look like shit Bruce did weeks or even months before Bane did his heist business. Second, as Bruce and Fox discuss, even if they pursue a fraud case, and even if they can undo what Bane did, it would take time, a combination of them pursuing a fraud case on their end and the government investigating what happened on their end. But the genius bit is that Bane didn't need what he did to actually hold up to scrutiny. He didn't give a shit about any legal cases down the line. He just needed it to work then and there, in that particular moment, so that Bruce would be ruined for the time being and would lose his seat on the board. That was actually a genius bit of criminaling.

Punches broken back = fixes broken back.

The punches didn't instantly fix him, they just knocked shit back into place to facilitate eventual healing. Like resetting a bone. It's not a magic fix, but it's the first step in the healing process. Don't get me wrong, it's outlandish, but they're in a cave and it's the best medical treatment they've got. Plus, it's a fucking Batman movie. People can't explode bricks with a half-assed side kick, either, but Bale can. Assume whatever fancy BS allowed him to do that also allowed him to heal by getting punched and strung up

Then Bruce attempts to climb out and falls multiple times with the rope around his waste, falling like 30-50 feet each time before the rope pulls taut, which you'd think would either rebreak his back, tear his guts up, or kill him. But nah, he's fine.

I don't bungee jump or do any of that, so I don't know what happens with a rope around your waist when you fall. But he does take time after each attempt. It's not like he's going up and down a waterslide over and over. He takes breaks, he recovers, he gathers his mental and physical strength, then he tries again.

Batman does the burning bat symbol to show Gotham he's back. Like why? The element of surprise is your friend. It's just stupid showboating. (I guess you could say it's to taunt Bane, but I still think it's dumb)

Two things. First, for another movie reference, and another Bruce Lee connection, it's a moment straight out of Brandon Lee's The Crow, so I'm cool with it. Second, in terms of how it's functioning within the story, he's not taunting Bane, he's calling out to Gotham. It's actually quite a powerful moment. Originally, the Bat Signal was for Gotham to call out for Batman. Now, however, his custom Bat Signal is him calling out for Gotham. Added to which, Bane's whole thing is wanting to destroy the hearts and the souls of Gotham's citizens, he wants every ounce of hope to be extinguished, and only then destroy them and their city. But by putting up that signal, Batman gives Gotham back the hope that Bane had taken away from them. That's fucking poetry, man.

It's "impossible" for anyone to get on or off the island, but when Bruce returns, he does it effortlessly, yet they don't explain it. (I know he's Batman and I can almost overlook it for that reason, but still, I'd like to see HOW he's able to do it when it's supposedly impossible)

Yeah, that's the thing that gets the "He's Batman" response.

I predicted the ending literally the moment Alfred first tells Bruce about his dream (of Bruce retiring and them seeing each other in some far off cafe and nodding to each other without saying a word). Then when it happens.....ugh. Hated it. (And no one notices Bruce Wayne sitting there, even though he's one of the most famous people on earth, and is supposed to be dead?! It would be like nobody noticing Elon Musk.......wut??? It's not like they were somewhere in some bush town in Africa. They were in Europe for crying out loud!!!

Similar to the "He's Batman" response, this gets the "This is why he's Batman" response. For one thing, do you object the same way to how Alfred tells Bruce about limits in The Dark Knight only for shit with the Joker to go down exactly how he said it would? For another thing, time has not only gone by since the Gotham explosion business, but it'd been 8 years since anybody's seen Bruce, plus when he finally went out in public he zapped everyone's cameras. Nobody was seeing or talking about this guy for a decade. Why would anyone be expecting to see him in some random cafe on the other side of the world? So much of perception is tied to expectation. Shit, I just watched a random YouTube video today of a mother taking a full minute to realize she was sitting on a plane next to her son and his girlfriend who surprised her on the family holiday trip. It happens. And it works thematically and emotionally. Stop bitching and enjoy that beautiful full circle moment where Bruce gives poor Alfred his happy ending after making him cry so much for those three hours and let the man enjoy his cocktail

Batman is going to give his batcave to "Robin" and it's sort of implied that Robin will take over. Again, wut????????? Robin has zero training. What the hell is he gonna do? Good way to get the kid killed on his first night out.

He had enough training to be a cop. And thankfully we didn't need to see Robin fight ninjas on a snowy mountain in retarded comic book land

Talia Al Ghul's death scene....oof. Talia Al Ghul in general was lame. Terribly acted. Terrible badguy. The whole 'hover the finger over the detonator while holding the knife in Batman' bit was just cringe.

The reveal was incredible - almost the entire theater I saw it in audibly gasped at that scene, such a fun moment in that packed IMAX - and I love her monologue when she's got the knife in him. (I also love the way that with her free hand she delicately fixes Bane's mask, it's one of the tenderest and most brilliant bits in the film.) The death scene was stupid, I can't deny that, but it's a tiny blip for me.

Catwoman killing Bane.....again, lame.

I'm good with that. For one thing, it gave her a great entrance. For another thing, it signaled her having overcome her fears and truly changing sides, and with how much she feared Bane in the beginning of the film (and equally feared going straight and being honorable), it provides her character arc nice closure. For a third thing, pragmatically, with a knife wound, Batman was hardly in shape to go a third round with Bane. I thought that it worked perfectly. Not to mention, with the BS about Batman's "code," I would think that you'd appreciate Nolan's solution for getting rid of Bane without Batman having to kill him and break his code.

Bane needing a weird mask that scientifically doesn't make sense, even in a comic book movie. And it doesn't follow the comics at all. And it's also Bane's weak spot? Ugh. Too easy and predictable.

Oh, come on, man. Literally anything would be better than the Venom shit, with Bane having tubes pumping liquid steroids directly into his brain and making him World's Strongest Man-level freaky. I appreciated Nolan's scientific grounding of the mask. And Hardy played it so well, literally being reduced to a helpless child and in crippling pain. The little hurt kid noises that he was making sold it so well.

 

[Bullitt68]

I find your words on Inception fascinating. For conversation, how do you compare Inception with Tarantino's best movies? (In whatever way you can compare them). You mentioned before that Tarantino may be the best screenwriter out there and does better writing than Nolan. But how does Nolan's best film compare to QT's top 3 films? Seems like an interesting matchup.

Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill films (which I like to treat just as one single story entity, Kill Bill, the way that Tarantino intended) are Tarantino's best IMO. For their best, I'd rank them Pulp Fiction, Inception, Kill Bill, The Dark Knight Rises. Pulp Fiction is one of the very best films ever made and one of the top five best screenplays ever written. It has very little competition in the entire history of cinema. Inception, though, isn't that far out in front of Kill Bill. I do think that Volume 1 is a bit thinner, plus I hate the anime sequence, but the opening is just awesomely audacious as only Tarantino can do it, the Vivica A. Fox scene with her kid coming home from school is amazing, the power of the Budd arc in Volume 2 is one of my favorite storylines in all of cinema, and the extraordinary confrontation at the end...Kill Bill is nothing to sneeze at and is right there on Inception's heels. And then The Dark Knight Rises isn't that far behind Kill Bill, because I don't think that it's anything to sneeze at, either.

I do think you could make the case that the Nolan/Bale Batman films have a bit of trouble in terms of what kind of character they want Bruce to be and what kind of story their telling.

The Keaton Batman films as you say are ultimately stories of heroism, his Bruce is a bit of an oddball but theres no real conflict in terms of him doing the right thing, its a question of whether he will be able to.

I'd add to this that the conflict is if/how he can live as Bruce Wayne as well as Batman. This is the biggest weakness of Nolan's entire trilogy. The entire running time of Batman Begins is a clumsy and ultimately failed attempt to work this thematic out, and then it crops up again in The Dark Knight where it's better only because Rachel dies and it becomes about loss and trauma (Nolan specialties). What Burton was able to do in that outstanding wordless opening of Batman Returns, with Bruce sitting alone in the dark quite as if he's not even alive until that Bat Signal illuminates the room and reanimates him, he was able to do more and do it more powerfully in 30 seconds of wordless imagery than Nolan was able to do in three hours across two movies. Nolan has to shove into Rachel's mouth the theme he was trying so hard to get across, that "Bruce Wayne" is the real mask and that the real person he's become is Batman, but in Batman Returns we see that he barely even exists unless he's in that cape and cowl. And so his attempted relationships with Vicky Vale and Selina Kyle are attempts to crawl out of the Bat Cave, to try to live (something approaching) a normal life. Significantly, however, he's the one who doubts that it's possible, whereas in Nolan's films he creates a weirdly juvenile Bruce who thinks that there's no conceivable problem to him hanging out with a girlfriend by day and being Batman by night. It was just poorly handled in Nolan's films and that left Bruce Wayne a goofy hole in Nolan's films...until, thankfully, The Dark Knight Rises, when Nolan had a traumatized protagonist haunted by the past and living with regret to play with, and he found himself at home in Memento/Insomnia/The Prestige/Inception territory and could finally create an interesting character out of Bruce Wayne.

Personally I felt the Battinson film did a better job of

Literally nothing that you could put to finish this sentence would be true, because there's nothing that that piece of shit abomination of a Batman movie did better than any other Batman movie ever made (unless you want to go the paradox route and say that it did a better job of sucking). That movie is dogshit operating at the lowest common denominator of character and theme. For everything I just said about how poorly Nolan dealt with the character of Bruce Wayne, nothing is as offensively terrible as Pattinson's emo tween bitch Bruce whining that Alfred isn't his real dad. That Twighlightificated Batman shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as the rest of the films. Even Affleck's DCU films put that flaming turd to shame.

 

[Bullitt68]

Ooph, haven't done a megapost since the new servers kicked in. That was a huge pain with the character limit. And why do the emojis and memes sometimes post as small and sometimes post as gigantic?

 

[moreorless87]

Literally nothing that you could put to finish this sentence would be true, because there's nothing that that piece of shit abomination of a Batman movie did better than any other Batman movie ever made (unless you want to go the paradox route and say that it did a better job of sucking). That movie is dogshit operating at the lowest common denominator of character and theme. For everything I just said about how poorly Nolan dealt with the character of Bruce Wayne, nothing is as offensively terrible as Pattinson's emo tween bitch Bruce whining that Alfred isn't his real dad. That Twighlightificated Batman shouldn't be discussed in the same breath as the rest of the films. Even Affleck's DCU films put that flaming turd to shame.

To me that seems like a preference to a certain version of the character moreso than how well the film achieves it, you see a lot of the same elements in previous Batman films but less developed. They do seem to pretty innate to the character on some level, the story of a rich kind who's parents get killed and he desides to fight evil dressed as a giant bat seems pretty "emo" to me and you do get that covered at the start of Batman Begins as well.

To be honest I was expecting to dislike it as well despite Pattinson having grown to be a strong actor post Twilight IMHO. There is definitely potential for such a character to become too "whiney" but I think the film actually avoided that very well, Pattinsons Batman is not exactly given to lots of overt shows of emotion, it comes out at a few points but mostly he's as emotionally repressed(actually moreso than Bale's character) as you'd expect the character to be and believable as a hardass. The main difference to me seems to be its more uncertain were his "quest" is going to lead him morally and indeed what kind of example he's actually setting.

Personally I thought its biggest strenght though was how well it used its setting, I feel thats part of the reason why Batman seems to badly suited to DCU films(and maybe why the DC generally is less suited to team up films) that the character is much more closely linked to his setting than most MCU characters are. The Burton films I think you could argue thats really what there most interested in, how the atmosphere of Gothham plays into the character. That more fantastical Gothham though does separate the character from reality but I think The Batman does a better job than the Nolan films of bridging the gap. Its Gothham I think manages to be believeble enough to connect more to the real world whilst still having enough character to it to play a big part in the drama.

They do differ in politics as well I spose being arguably films on the opposite side of the current partisan divide(really right wing vs centralist liberial), both actually quite pro establishment even if they reveal its flawed nature, TDKR casting would revolutionaries as a conservative idea of left wingers, people who spout false claims of equality whilst really being interested anti humanist mass slaughter whilst The Batman casts them as potential far right spree killers.

 

[Bullitt68]

To me that seems like a preference to a certain version of the character moreso than how well the film achieves it

Sure, I'll cop to preferring any version of the character that doesn't whine like a 13-year-old boy in a Disney channel drama

you see a lot of the same elements in previous Batman films but less developed. They do seem to pretty innate to the character on some level, the story of a rich kind who's parents get killed and he desides to fight evil dressed as a giant bat seems pretty "emo" to me and you do get that covered at the start of Batman Begins as well.

He doesn't whine, though. That's why the character is so compelling: Because he broods. He internalizes. He has an inner rage. He wants to fight the universe. He literally wants to right all the wrongs because a wrong was done to him. He feeds on his rage and turns it into good. He takes on the suffering of a city because he knows how to suffer, and he makes Gotham a brighter place from his place of darkness. You can't break someone who's already broken. You can't break the will of someone whose will has been forged in anguish. None of that equates to a whiny little dweeb. Even in Batman Forever, where Kilmer's Bruce Wayne is on the verge of a nervous breakdown as flashbacks start to intrude on his waking hours and nearly debilitate him, forcing him to seek out a therapist, he carries that burden out into Gotham every night, and he tries to counsel the newly traumatized orphan Robin in what darkness a life of revenge promises. And Clooney is the most underrated Bruce Wayne, the aging version who becomes a father figure to his young sidekicks and who, in a circle of life kind of way, must begin to care for his lifelong caregiver Alfred as he gets sick in his old age.

The entire Batman universe is shot through with pain and suffering, but never whining. Batman has always been a wounded warrior, never a crybaby.

To be honest I was expecting to dislike it as well despite Pattinson having grown to be a strong actor post Twilight IMHO.

That's what sucked so much for me: I wasn't expecting to dislike it. I didn't expect it to hold a candle to Nolan's films, or even to the Burton or Schumacher films, but I at least expected it to be on the same level as, if not above, the Affleck DCU films. I was unpleasantly surprised at how atrociously bad it was in every single way.

There is definitely potential for such a character to become too "whiney" but I think the film actually avoided that very well, Pattinsons Batman is not exactly given to lots of overt shows of emotion, it comes out at a few points but mostly he's as emotionally repressed(actually moreso than Bale's character) as you'd expect the character to be and believable as a hardass.

Not for one second was he believable as a hard ass. I bought Clooney beating people up more than him. And what you're calling repressed and not given to overt shows of emotion I call a dull, nothing performance in a silly, nothing character. He's a far cry from Keaton's stoicism at the murder site of his parents in Batman or the sympathetic orphan hoping the newly emerged Penguin Boy finds his parents in Batman Returns.

 

[moreorless87]

He doesn't whine, though. That's why the character is so compelling: Because he broods. He internalizes. He has an inner rage. He wants to fight the universe. He literally wants to right all the wrongs because a wrong was done to him. He feeds on his rage and turns it into good. He takes on the suffering of a city because he knows how to suffer, and he makes Gotham a brighter place from his place of darkness. You can't break someone who's already broken. You can't break the will of someone whose will has been forged in anguish. None of that equates to a whiny little dweeb. Even in Batman Forever, where Kilmer's Bruce Wayne is on the verge of a nervous breakdown as flashbacks start to intrude on his waking hours and nearly debilitate him, forcing him to seek out a therapist, he carries that burden out into Gotham every night, and he tries to counsel the newly traumatized orphan Robin in what darkness a life of revenge promises. And Clooney is the most underrated Bruce Wayne, the aging version who becomes a father figure to his young sidekicks and who, in a circle of life kind of way, must begin to care for his lifelong caregiver Alfred as he gets sick in his old age.

The entire Batman universe is shot through with pain and suffering, but never whining. Batman has always been a wounded warrior, never a crybaby.

You see thats what I think this film actually does more effectively than any previous Batman. The Keaton Batman I don't think focused nearly as much on the sense of personal loss, his character is more an isolated oddball and we only learn of his origin a good way into the film at a point were non comic reading audiences might well not have been aware of it. The Bale Batman by comparison we see his journey becoming Batman(which I'd argue is significantly more "whiney") but honestly after that point I don't think the film really plays up the idea of his being driven by personal loss much, he's not really a brooding Batman but rather one looking to follow his fathers legacy.

The Pattinson Batman though I think does play up the "brooding" aspect much more strongly, focuses much more on the idea that he's driven by an internalised sense of loss and anger. It deliberately doesnt show the death of his parents or his becoming Batman with the more open drama that would involve but instead jumps in a bit latter when he's internalised and focused on his "mission". You see Alfred trying to get him to open up as he typically does in most versions but the character refusing to do so for the vast majority of the film until Alfred is injuried and then the reveal about his father.

Ultimately I would say its a film were the tension does not involve as much the resolution of personal drama, it involves more of a moral test for the character, having to deal with the reveal of his fathers background and then with the example that his actions have set to the Riddler and his followers.

I do wonder how much of this comes down to the image people have of Pattinson the actor, personally I'v never watched any of the Twilight films but I get the impression there rather sappy? since then though I think he's played some very effective roles as very repressed characters, most obviously High Life.

 

[volodya]

Is anything besides batman ever discussed in 'serious movie discussion'?

Christ...

 

[BAM]

Is anything besides batman ever discussed in 'serious movie discussion'?

Christ...

the funny thing is if you read the dated uppity OP from yesteryear, this thread was trying to fight against the awesome pull that was Nolan's Batman, but they all succumbed nonetheless.

 

[Bullitt68]

Is anything besides batman ever discussed in 'serious movie discussion'?

Christ...

the funny thing is if you read the dated uppity OP from yesteryear, this thread was trying to fight against the awesome pull that was Nolan's Batman, but they all succumbed nonetheless.

Et tu, BAM? I guess neither of you gentlemen actually read HuntersCreed's OP, which by no means "tr[ied] to fight against" particular films but rather particular - namely, unserious - approaches to movies. As you can read for yourselves, noting the underlined and italicized text:

This thread isn't for [...] people who's only real opinions are that The Goonies, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, Donnie Darko, Boondock Saints, Pan's Labyrinth, The Dark Knight, etc. are the greatest films of all time and that's all they can talk about. Though the aforementioned films are great, and discussing them is welcome.

I've been in here since HuntersCreed created this thread and those of us who are still around here are still staying true to the mission statement, which wasn't about delineating "serious movies" for discussion, but rather, about discussing movies seriously. All movies. Even Batman movies. But please, by all means, if you have films that you want to talk about, then talk about them. Don't complain from the sidelines. Get in the game and start a new conversation. We're all here to talk about movies. You want to talk about silent movies? Classical Hollywood? The French New Wave? Bergman or Tarkovsky? Breillat or Martel? Japanese horror films? A24 films? The floor is yours.

 

[BAM]

Et tu, BAM? I guess neither of you gentlemen actually read HuntersCreed's OP, which by no means "tr[ied] to fight against" particular films but rather particular - namely, unserious - approaches to movies. As you can read for yourselves, noting the underlined and italicized text:



I've been in here since HuntersCreed created this thread and those of us who are still around here are still staying true to the mission statement, which wasn't about delineating "serious movies" for discussion, but rather, about discussing movies seriously. All movies. Even Batman movies. But please, by all means, if you have films that you want to talk about, then talk about them. Don't complain from the sidelines. Get in the game and start a new conversation. We're all here to talk about movies. You want to talk about silent movies? Classical Hollywood? The French New Wave? Bergman or Tarkovsky? Breillat or Martel? Japanese horror films? A24 films? The floor is yours.

that OP is pretentious and condescending, always has been.

"-people that Christian Bale, Christian Bale, Christian Bale, blah, blah, blah, Christian Bale."

 

[Bullitt68]

that OP is pretentious and condescending, always has been.

Well, it brought together a very large group of film fans and spawned a thread that's been going for more than 15 years now. Haters gonna hate, I guess, but it did the job.



I mentioned Black Swan earlier to superfan @HUNTERMANIA, which I'll be discussing with a class on Monday. You were the one who got me to watch that movie for the first time for one of my long ago movie challenges. You also got me to watch Looper for the first time for that movie challenge. Both of those movies have grown on me immensely over the years and after multiple viewings. I actually screened Looper for a class last year, too, and the discussion was fantastic.

 

[BAM]

Well, it brought together a very large group of film fans and spawned a thread that's been going for more than 15 years now. Haters gonna hate, I guess, but it did the job.



I mentioned Black Swan earlier to superfan @HUNTERMANIA, which I'll be discussing with a class on Monday. You were the one who got me to watch that movie for the first time for one of my long ago movie challenges. You also got me to watch Looper for the first time for that movie challenge. Both of those movies have grown on me immensely over the years and after multiple viewings. I actually screened Looper for a class last year, too, and the discussion was fantastic.

I don't attribute the success of the thread to the OP, still a great thread nonetheless, never said it wasn't.

rather, just pointing out the irony given volodya's complaint. You lot can talk about Nolan all you want, doesn't bother me.

 

[Bullitt68]

I don't attribute the success of the thread to the OP, still a great thread nonetheless, never said it wasn't.

rather, just pointing out the irony given volodya's complaint. You lot can talk about Nolan all you want, doesn't bother me.

I understood your point. You just misunderstood HuntersCreed's point, and the point of this thread. There's nothing ironic about us talking about Nolan. We've been doing it since 2008. And we do it seriously