Last Film You Saw

[Bigga]

Watched The Batman last night. Excellent and I'd be really interested in what @Bigga thinks of it as the forum Batman expert.

This is a very serious movie with an excellent score, great cinematography (it is very dark) with some nice use of darkness and colour. It's a little obvious in places and very sincere. It does have a tiny amount of subtle humour based mainly on repitition but definitely don't go expecting to smile. The use of repetition is something I've not seen mentioned in other reviews but is something I want to think more on. The opening scene is repeated but with a different character and the same door is revisited several times by the same character in different circumstances.

This is not the super hi-tech Nolan Batman or the brute Affleck Batman. Gotham feels closer to Nolan's version although Batman with his detective skills is closer to Affleck. However The Batman definitely has his own spin different to those. It's the pale spent to much time in the dark and is a little weird Batman. Pattinson is excellent and the performances are all pretty good.

The Riddler comes close to pastiche but there are only so many ways you can play that kind of role. Some of the questions raised between him and Batman I think was better explored in the Dark Knight and i think needed a couple of extra scenes to really sell it. The Riddler is sufficiently creepy though.

The ending you could imagine coming from the Nolan universe and how we get to it does feel rushed particularly compared to how slow the rest of the movie is and the moment where the theme of the movie is resolved does feel a little clumsy like the Martha moment in Bats v Supes but i thought it was an interesting arc that we don't see a Batman origin but we almost have a Bruce Wayne Billionaire Philanthropist origin story.

In summary this was a film i was very meh about when i first heard the casting and saw the trailer. However after seeing Pattinson in Tenet i did get more interested and the film surpassed my expectation.

Good evening, sir.

This is quite an impressive review that makes sense, only if you see the film, so well done on that front.

I found this version slightly different from the one I would have presented with the character exhibiting his illness differently, but one recognised by fellow sufferers, overall.

As such, I had a similar argument with another film fan on a different forum, that Nolan misframed 'The Batman' not understanding the character and why he was the way he was, even with the source material being the one Reeves chose to work from, mostly.

I think it's interesting the direction Reeves is choosing to go with this franchise as it's now a linear direction with the type of foes 'The Batman' will have to contend with (and we can explore that in DM or the movie discussion thread if you want to?), but that's given away towards the end of the flick.

The most annoying thing, for me, is nothing to do with the film, but the many speculations of what's going to happen after this film, with some quarters pitching for the incompatible entry of super friends!

They, CLEARLY, don't understand what they watched and I've been online and burned some of those commentators!

I think Reeves has been really brave but, as characters go, 'Selina Kyle/ 'Catwoman' was much more interesting upfront to me than the iteration of 'Year Two The Batman'. It doesn't mean he's not interesting, just 'familiar' and, again, some people will recognise that.

This is will be the first film I've, actively, chosen to see again and will be doing so on Weds so I can absorb it better. There's not a bad performance on screen, by the way. Quite a rare feat, in itself!

So, for anyone that disagreed with me about how 'The Batman' is a character I recommend you watch this as it's 90% there and may even get to 100% in the second film before moving more towards what they recognise.

 

[mrbelfry]

Good evening, sir.

This is quite an impressive review that makes sense, only if you see the film, so well done on that front.

I found this version slightly different from the one I would have presented with the character exhibiting his illness differently, but one recognised by fellow sufferers, overall.

As such, I had a similar argument with another film fan on a different forum, that Nolan misframed 'The Batman' not understanding the character and why he was the way he was, even with the source material being the one Reeves chose to work from, mostly.

I think it's interesting the direction Reeves is choosing to go with this franchise as it's now a linear direction with the type of foes 'The Batman' will have to contend with (and we can explore that in DM or the movie discussion thread if you want to?), but that's given away towards the end of the flick.

The most annoying thing, for me, is nothing to do with the film, but the many speculations of what's going to happen after this film, with some quarters pitching for the incompatible entry of super friends!

They, CLEARLY, don't understand what they watched and I've been online and burned some of those commentators!

I think Reeves has been really brave but, as characters go, 'Selina Kyle/ 'Catwoman' was much more interesting upfront to me than the iteration of 'Year Two The Batman'. It doesn't mean he's not interesting, just 'familiar' and, again, some people will recognise that.

This is will be the first film I've, actively, chosen to see again and will be doing so on Weds so I can absorb it better. There's not a bad performance on screen, by the way. Quite a rare feat, in itself!

So, for anyone that disagreed with me about how 'The Batman' is a character I recommend you watch this as it's 90% there and may even get to 100% in the second film before moving more towards what they recognise.

Thanks Bigga. Glad that a Batman Ultra could enjoy this just as much as a Batman Casual like me.

 

[Bill Walker]

The Flowers Of War
2011
Christian Bale.
Ni Ni.

Rewatched this, I saw it about 8 years ago.
It's a superb war film, very well made by the director, those battles seem so real.
I don't know whether or not you've heard about the Rape of Nanking, but everyone should know about it. Having captured the Chinese city, Japanese forces committed a near genocide against the population and devastated the city. The film focuses on a Nanking church where an American (Christian Bale) takes up residence and then must protect the inhabitants from the occupying forces. The inhabitants are the schoolgirls, and also a group of prostitutes. Eventually, everyone faces a moral dilemma.

8/10

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The Batman

Spoiler: My thoughts

I like the dark cinematography, fittingly gives it a mature graphic novel vibe. I also like the back to the basics gadgetry and the lesser emphasis on the technology that we saw in the Nolan trilogy.

It’s an interesting performance by R-Patz, the broody, angsty "teenage" batman, Bruce Wayne isn't at all fleshed out, but I suppose they are trying to tell us that they are intertwined. Batman is the medium for the traumatised and damaged Wayne to express himself.

I like the focus on the detective aspect of the story.

Zoe Kravitz is excellent as catwoman, more interesting than the Batman character, for me.

Paul Dano's pup-mask-wearing riddler I thought was a cross between John Doe from Se7en, the role he played before, the religious nut Paul Sunday in There will be Blood. Good stuff, I liked the hysteria when he was unmasked and in his cell.

Hats off to Colin Farrell, didn't even know he was in the film until the credits rolled.

But after all of that, I'd say my assessment is that it is less than the sum of it's parts, too much style over substance.
It is also too long and could have done with chopping off 30 mins from the run-time, quite a lot happens but there are hanging gaps that don't justify themselves by helping to create suspense.

Would seem they are going for a set-up for another trilogy, with the need to cram everything that happens in to set it up for the next film but without going full origin story. Interesting they have cut the Joker to a single scene in the prison cells. I have read that they planned to have him feature more prominently.

A good film, some very good parts of it, but not a great film.

 

[youngbob]

Went to watch Lady Bird on the big screen last night for the first time in four years, since I saw it twice during its original run in 2018. My local in Stockport was showing it to celebrate International Women's Day. It's the fifth time I've seen it overall. And I think last night's viewing might have cemented its spot as my favourite film, not just of recent years but of any I've seen. It's a film I'd watch every day were it possible.

You can get it on Amazon for £3.99.




It's a beautiful, magical, personal, warm, hilarious, heart-breaking thing. It's a little, understated film about little, understated lives in a little, understated part of the world and it approaches all of these little things with such a big heart and such a big personality and such a big dose of affection for absolutely everybody who appears in front of the camera. From major characters who are on screen all the time to characters who literally appear for one line of dialogue and are then never seen again, everybody gets their moment and is given every chance to shine. There's a character whose only appearance in the film is to sit on a wall, say "I heard that, before he became a priest, he was married and had a son named Etienne, who died at 17 of a drug overdose, which maybe was a suicide. But my mom says same difference, if you're that careless with your life", and then disappear from the film entirely. I think about her as much as the protagonists whenever my mind goes back to this film.

I think it's a story about love and pride, annoyance and shame (and guilty pleasures)... for your friends, your family, your hometown and your class status, your own name and your upbringing, yourself, or even the Dave Matthews Band's big hit 'Crash Into Me'. It's a story about how those four emotions are often more closely associated with each other than you'd think; it's a story about learning that there are other people in the world besides yourself and that they have whole lives and deeply upsetting personal experiences too; it's a story about a mother and daughter who are so similar (and mimic each other's faults so exactly) that they can't see the wood for the trees whenever they're around each other; it's a story about how whirlwind soap opera dramas can occur even in the sleepiest of places.

Every time I start this movie I always remember it being funny, but somehow it always ends up being 100x funnier than I'd remembered. The cut from Lady Bird falling out of the car onto her pink cast with "Fuck you Mom" written in marker pen; "Six inches for the Holy Spirit"; "If you had boobs I wouldn't touch them either"; "I haven't lied in two years"; "It is the titular role!"; "You're not gonna get in a car with a guy that honks, are ya?"... List all of the laugh-out-loud moments in this movie and you'd be here for hours. All the callbacks that make you chuckle, all the endlessly quotable blurts of unfiltered insults spat out by Lady Bird at various people she interacts with, all the moments where you don't know whether to let the tears flow or laugh through them.

And then you reach the end, the movie suddenly cutting to black on the shot of Christine inhaling and heading out into a New York morning, missing home, missing her family. Lady Bird's first line is "Do you think I look like I’m from Sacramento?", a worry that people will immediately judge her for coming from some backwater where nothing happens and nobody ever goes. By the end, I'd say she's proud of that fact.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

This is will be the first film I've, actively, chosen to see again and will be doing so on Weds so I can absorb it better.

!

Is that actually true? I have difficulty believing that.
Are you discounting films that you first saw in the cinema, and then re-watched on telly? Because that would rule out a lot of films, surely?
And do you never buy the DVD of a film that you really liked?

Even then, there are quite a few films that I've back to the cinema to see — films that knocked me for six — sometimes three or even four times. Maybe I'm just weird like that.
The most extreme example was Badlands, which over a three-year period during the 70s I went I think five times to see (and now own the DVD, of course).
I saw Lawrence of Arabia as a child in the early 60s, then didn't see it again until it was restored and brought out again in, I think, the 90s. Bowled me over as much the second time as the first. Especially in its restored state.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Re. Lady Bird. Quite enjoyed it, not as much of a fan as you, though, @youngbob
But it's a funny thing about Saoirse Ronan. I can't make out whether that girl is good looking or not. In some roles she looks well fit. In others — and I'm particularly thinking of this one — you wouldn't look twice.

 

[youngbob]

Re. Lady Bird. Quite enjoyed it, not as much of a fan as you, though, @youngbob
But it's a funny thing about Saoirse Ronan. I can't make out whether that girl is good looking or not. In some roles she looks well fit. In others — and I'm particularly thinking of this one — you wouldn't look twice.

Think that's the point of her character in this really. She just looks ordinary, like anyone you'd see out and about.

Although I disagree during some scenes tbh!

 

[Thorin Oakenshield]

Watched The Batman last night. Excellent and I'd be really interested in what @Bigga thinks of it as the forum Batman expert.

This is a very serious movie with an excellent score, great cinematography (it is very dark) with some nice use of darkness and colour. It's a little obvious in places and very sincere. It does have a tiny amount of subtle humour based mainly on repitition but definitely don't go expecting to smile. The use of repetition is something I've not seen mentioned in other reviews but is something I want to think more on. The opening scene is repeated but with a different character and the same door is revisited several times by the same character in different circumstances.

This is not the super hi-tech Nolan Batman or the brute Affleck Batman. Gotham feels closer to Nolan's version although Batman with his detective skills is closer to Affleck. However The Batman definitely has his own spin different to those. It's the pale spent to much time in the dark and is a little weird Batman. Pattinson is excellent and the performances are all pretty good.

The Riddler comes close to pastiche but there are only so many ways you can play that kind of role. Some of the questions raised between him and Batman I think was better explored in the Dark Knight and i think needed a couple of extra scenes to really sell it. The Riddler is sufficiently creepy though.

The ending you could imagine coming from the Nolan universe and how we get to it does feel rushed particularly compared to how slow the rest of the movie is and the moment where the theme of the movie is resolved does feel a little clumsy like the Martha moment in Bats v Supes but i thought it was an interesting arc that we don't see a Batman origin but we almost have a Bruce Wayne Billionaire Philanthropist origin story.

In summary this was a film i was very meh about when i first heard the casting and saw the trailer. However after seeing Pattinson in Tenet i did get more interested and the film surpassed my expectation.

I wouldn't go mad saying @Bigga was the batman expert here. In my opinion Bigga fails to grasp the Batmans greatest quality: his compassion. In his opinion Batman is a crazy person with a death wish...

To me Batman represents the good man who will stand up to crime and bullies..you want a modern example? Look at the Ukrainian athletes who choose to fight for their countries and cities, they could be anywhere else in the world right now with their money but they choose to fight for the territory.

@Bigga is more closer to the Joker. Because he has experienced some bad things in life and it has changed him he feels we must all be the same way, but he fundamentally fails to understand compassion.

 

[mrbelfry]

I wouldn't go mad saying @Bigga was the batman expert here. In my opinion Bigga fails to grasp the Batmans greatest quality: his compassion. In his opinion Batman is a crazy person with a death wish...

To me Batman represents the good man who will stand up to crime and bullies..you want a modern example? Look at the Ukrainian athletes who choose to fight for their countries and cities, they could be anywhere else in the world right now with their money but they choose to fight for the territory.

@Bigga is more closer to the Joker. Because he has experienced some bad things in life and it has changed him he feels we must all be the same way, but he fundamentally fails to understand compassion.

Don't want to put words into Bigga's mouth but Batman isn't always sticking up for good when he's punching bad guys too hard in the mouth. What's the batman film where he's branding the bad guys (bats v supes maybe)? Even in this last one he's not really protecting the people of Gotham he's more trying to get vengence for his own trauma. But as he can't put a face on it he just punches all the bad guys in the face.

He definitely has a code of conduct (no guns etc) but the blurring of that line has been explored in some of the movies and although i have not read the graphic novels i know it is explored in those. At the end of this movie we perhaps see The Batman moving towards compassion but if he was motivated by compassion he'd be spending his billions less on bat mobiles and more on employment opportunities for ex-offenders like Timpsons. If the Joker was busy fixing shoes and cutting keys he'd have less time to cut faces.

Just my inexpert take on the character.

For reference it Bigga was a Batman character I think he'd be Flint Marko in a weird Marvel DCU cross over event although he would be accused of being Killmomger