|
Halb
17,845 posts
52 months
|
Civpilot said: True, but have you seen him in 'Faster'? He is seriously intimidating in that movie and plays it superbly, size wize there arn't that many bigger who can act.
I also actually think he's a far batter actor than people give him credit for, I mean he's played everything from a Gay hollywood bodyguard (very funny turn too) through to a revenge killer along with numerous kiddies film characters. He needs to up his acting chops now. Stay away from kids films for a bit and go for decent roles.
|
|
|
KB_S1
5,937 posts
98 months
|
Took the GF to see this last night as she hadn't had time yet.
Stood up to 2nd viewing well.
Some of the niggly bits mentioned on here are actually covered in the film but, perhaps so much happening they were missed.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,819 posts
105 months
|
Patrick Bateman said: There's a lot to acting in the eyes, if you can't pick up on that just cause he's wearing a mask then you need to pay more attention.
You really think it would be no worse off having someone like The Rock playing him for example? Not a chance. Quite agree, except the Batman franchise disprooves your argument of Hardy. Michael Keaton played Batman entirely through his eyes. They steal the film and tell you *everything* about the pyschopath in the suit. I never noticed Banes' eyes once. They were absent from the role.
|
|
|
KB_S1
5,937 posts
98 months
|
DJRC said: I never noticed Banes' eyes once. They were absent from the role. I paid particular attention to this last night. I would disagree. There are a couple of very subtle but telling moments. Christian Bale throughout the series made good use of the mask/eyes/facial movement.
|
|
|
Killer2005
15,382 posts
97 months
|
Finally saw it today
I loved it. To be honest I thought the first half hour or so was a little slow, and couldn't quite get used to Banes voice, but once I settled in, it was amazing
I'd agree that Bane wasnt quite as good as a bad guy as the Joker but still bloody good
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
TomN94
2,377 posts
27 months
|
Went to see it for the second time yesterday, and it definitely was as awesome as the first. Same as TDK, its brilliant. An epic finale to the series.
|
|
|
oj121
1,463 posts
41 months
|
Killer2005 said: Finally saw it today
I loved it. To be honest I thought the first half hour or so was a little slow, and couldn't quite get used to Banes voice, but once I settled in, it was amazing
I'd agree that Bane wasnt quite as good as a bad guy as the Joker but still bloody good But to be fair HL was at his absolute best as the Joker and was given complete license to be 'mental'. Bane is a very 'rigid' character in he is what he is. Joker is just completely insane and I feel the role has more scope to be amazing if the acting talent is right.
|
|
|
Patrick Bateman
3,306 posts
43 months
|
DJRC said: Quite agree, except the Batman franchise disprooves your argument of Hardy.
Michael Keaton played Batman entirely through his eyes. They steal the film and tell you *everything* about the pyschopath in the suit.
I never noticed Banes' eyes once. They were absent from the role. We'll have to disagree on that then.
|
|
|
sanf
357 posts
41 months
|
Max_Torque said: fuzzyyo said: Banes voice reminded me of Krang from the cartoon version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I have to say i didn't find Bane in the least bit scary or frightening. Unlike the Joker in the previous film, who you really didn't know what he'd might do, Bane was a bit 1 dimensional to truely make the film work for me. Watched this last night, and am really gutted, it felt like a real let down after the first two films. Not dark enough or rainy enough, way to long, Gotham seems to have gone from a fictional metropolis to a run of mill american city - I thought the whole point of Gotham was, it is annonymous!! The villians weren't villianous - and I found Bain not scary at all as he sounded like Sean Connery, I half expected him to say "Yesh Miss Monney Penny"!! It is not a bad film, but after all the hype and some rave reviews I genuinely felt quite let down. Perhaps it's just that the first two films are so good. Hope the new Bond film is better :-)
|
|
|
FamilyDub
2,965 posts
34 months
|
sanf said: Gotham seems to have gone from a fictional metropolis to a run of mill american city - I thought the whole point of Gotham was, it is anonymous! 'Gotham' is meant to be a generic term for a vast city in the Atlantic north-east of the US (NYC, probably). I felt it was totally obvious TDKR was filmed in multiple locations (NYC & Pittsburgh in particular). My issue is that the multiple locations were obvious. The film flipped between NYC & Piitsburgh randomly and at times, rather brazenly. It looked a bit odd seeing Heinz Field one minute, then Batman on top of a bridge with the 'Freedom Tower' in the backdrop, then back onto a bridge in Pittsburgh, then Wall Street, etc... I know it's fiction, I know it's only a movie, but I felt this went against Nolan's tone of 'realism' in the movies and was another reason why, personally, I thought TDK was far better executed than TDKR.
|
|
|
torres del paine
1,355 posts
90 months
|
Underwhelmed again by a big film, and don't get the Nolan hype either. (I couldn't wait for Inception to end - lumpen, discursive, poorly put together IMO). DKR was the same; it looked ropey with poor cinematography and the characterization was weak. As said, Bain was entirely forgettable and inaudible at times. It actually felt rushed, cobbled together... am I expecting too much?
|
|
|
Xaero
2,763 posts
84 months
|
I went to see it yesterday for the second time, although this time it was at the IMAX. Note to self: never accept a seat in row A at BFI IMAX in the future, its not worth the neck pain.
Anyway, I enjoyed it a bit more this time as I noticed a few details that confused me before. Banes death was more of a letdown knowing 'that was it' though. I think it's hard to keep track of details across almost 3 hours so its not surprising people miss a few things. I still didn't see where the fingerprints were used though, even know some people say it was in the stock exchange bit. Just seemed an unnecessary part of the story line.
It's worth a second look anyway knowing the storyline. I also think after the second watch I appreciated Bane a bit more and noticed Celina Kyle less in the storyline.
|
|
|
Halb
17,845 posts
52 months
|
Xaero said: I went to see it yesterday for the second time, although this time it was at the IMAX. Note to self: never accept a seat in row A at BFI IMAX in the future, its not worth the neck pain.
Anyway, I enjoyed it a bit more this time as I noticed a few details that confused me before. Banes death was more of a letdown knowing 'that was it' though. I think it's hard to keep track of details across almost 3 hours so its not surprising people miss a few things. I still didn't see where the fingerprints were used though, even know some people say it was in the stock exchange bit. Just seemed an unnecessary part of the story line.
It's worth a second look anyway knowing the storyline. I also think after the second watch I appreciated Bane a bit more and noticed Celina Kyle less in the storyline. I also think it's easily worth a second look at the pics, not sure if I'll have the time to go though.  FamilyDub said: 'Gotham' is meant to be a generic term for a vast city in the Atlantic north-east of the US (NYC, probably). In the film? Or films? Why do you think that?
|
|
|
Rotary Madness
2,066 posts
55 months
|
Was no one else annoyed that the police armed with batons and pistols lasted more then 5 seconds against the bad guys all armed with full auto assault rifles? They should have been shredded in seconds.
|
|
|
sanf
357 posts
41 months
|
Rotary Madness said: Was no one else annoyed that the police armed with batons and pistols lasted more then 5 seconds against the bad guys all armed with full auto assault rifles? They should have been shredded in seconds. Well at least 2 of them fell over during the initial fight - maybe the baddies were just a rubbish shot... 
|
|
|
FamilyDub
2,965 posts
34 months
|
Halb said: FamilyDub said: 'Gotham' is meant to be a generic term for a vast city in the Atlantic north-east of the US (NYC, probably). In the film? Or films? Why do you think that? No I mean in real life: 'Gotham' has been a nickname of NYC since before Batman was thought of.  The second link below cities published newspaper articles as sources as far back as 1880's using 'Gotham' (i.e. 7th Oct 1884, Daily Miner (Butte, Montana)) to describe NYC. ETA:- NYC wikiCity nicknames (NYC, 1/3 down page)Geekery of the highest order, I know... 
|
|
|
KB_S1
5,937 posts
98 months
|
I think it was referred to as Gotham long before that.
From what I understand it was Dutch goat trading that gave it the name.
Pretty sure there was a Gotham Gazette in the 1800s.
|
|
|
motorizer
484 posts
40 months
|
Rotary Madness said: Was no one else annoyed that the police armed with batons and pistols lasted more then 5 seconds against the bad guys all armed with full auto assault rifles? They should have been shredded in seconds. I did wonder... 1, where were all their own guns? 2, why did they all charge in a big group making a huge target thet it was impossible to miss? 3, how on earth did the bad guys miss?
|
|
|
Halb
17,845 posts
52 months
|
|
|
jonlk
120 posts
39 months
|
Is anyone is aware of anywhere still showing this near York?
Thank you
|
|
