The Dark Knight Caine: "Heath frightened the life out of me"

How about Gladiator? There's a big summer popcorn flick that took home both Best Picture and Best Actor as well a few technical awards.

That's another good example of a genre of film that is usually ignored by the Academy. AMERICAN GRAFITTI, JAWS, FATAL ATTRACTION, TOOTSIE, GHOST, THE FUGITIVE, PULP FICTION...a film doesn't have to be THE ENGLISH PATIENT or GHANDI to get a nomination.
 
What are we going to compare Batman Begins to next? Raging Bull? Why not...
 
It was still a summer action film...

Gladiator was an historical epic drama with action.
well...it wasn't very historial. it was a period piece, but it was historically inaccurate and didn't depict actual events. so it's no more a historical movie than 300 is.
 
I wouldn't call Gladiator a popcorn flick. It was a serious epic period drama to me.

To me it was a summer blockbuster action flick that managed to incorporate excellent film making qualities beyond the blood and guts.

I consider a popcorn flick any movie with the primary objective of making an ass load of money by entertaining men 14-50 with violence and special effects. Gladiator falls into that category. If awards and critical praise for its dramatic elements were the studio's primary motivation then it would have been released that winter.
 
What are we going to compare Batman Begins to next? Raging Bull? Why not...

They sure as hell didn't call Batman Begins as the "Citizen Kane of superhero movies" for nothing, you know. :oldrazz:
 
It was still a summer action film...

Gladiator was an historical epic drama with action.

well it didnt quite come out in the summer over here,and it wasnt exactly action based-more character and story driven.

In fact,all the people i know that whent in expecting popcorn action were sorely dissapointed.I think if you asked Nolan he would say he set out to make a great film regardless if the studio wanted to make a buttload of cash off of it
 
What are we going to compare Batman Begins to next? Raging Bull? Why not...

No we won't compare it to that because Raging Bull didn't win the Oscar!

Seriously I could really care less if BB or TDK won or received Oscar nominations, sure it would be a nice bit of recognition for 'our' type of film, but it's not gonna make me love or hate it any more or less. I'd rather have a film that entertains the heck outta me and gets totally ignored by critics and the Academy than a film that bores me to tears but has critics foaming at the mouth.
 
well...it wasn't very historial. it was a period piece, but it was historically inaccurate and didn't depict actual events. so it's no more a historical movie than 300 is.


Well now that you look at it this way, 300 is more of an historical piece. 300 does depict actual events, just completely exaggerated from one man's point of view.
 
Well now that you look at it this way, 300 is more of an historical piece. 300 does depict actual events, just completely exaggerated from one man's point of view.
exactly. this is true. so while i understand what you mean by saying gladiator isn't like begins, i think it actually is more like begins than you think. the only reason begins isn't up there, as we covered before, is because it's a comic book movie. remember what we said before, if batman hadn't already existed, it would be considered one of the best movies of all time. it would have got some nominations. whether golden globe or academy.
 
exactly. this is true. so while i understand what you mean by saying gladiator isn't like begins, i think it actually is more like begins than you think. the only reason begins isn't up there, as we covered before, is because it's a comic book movie. remember what we said before, if batman hadn't already existed, it would be considered one of the best movies of all time. it would have got some nominations. whether golden globe or academy.

As much as I loved BEGINS I wouldn't in any way call it one of the best movies of all time by a long stretch, nor would it be considered that if it was an original creation......it's one of my favourite films but I could probably rattle off at least 50 movies that I think are BETTER films before I would even start to consider putting BB on the list.
 
see, i disagree. i think the depth of the character of batman gives it a lot of credibility. the inventive characters alone would give it tons of praise, if they hadn't already been created. but i could also name 50 movies off the top of my head that are better. but that's because there are 10s of thousands of movies. but begins is among the best. in the top 1000. probably the top 500.
 
see, i disagree. i think the depth of the character of batman gives it a lot of credibility. the inventive characters alone would give it tons of praise, if they hadn't already been created. but i could also name 50 movies off the top of my head that are better. but that's because there are 10s of thousands of movies. but begins is among the best. in the top 1000. probably the top 500.

I still think BEGINS was let down badly by it's third act, which paled in comparison to how well thought out and constructed the first two acts were....
 
i'll concede there. the final showdown left a lot to be desired.
 
I know, I didn't mention the above as flaws necessarily, just to tell Luchastyle that Socko probably didn't mean that he considered 300 accurate.
 
I think he was being sarcastic. 300 is by no means historically accurate, no more than Gladiator, and no less. They both had many inaccuracies.
no he wasn't. i think he meant that gladiator wasn't even based on real events. whereas 300 is based on real events but not accurate. but in the sense of accuracy, at least 300 was based on something that actually happened (and you've probably read some spartan history, being from greece, you know the spartans themselves are known to exaggerate so 300 is like the way the spartans themselves would have told the story).

but gladiator was just rocky with lions.
 
heh. yeah, it's a documentary. acclaimed historian frank miller even wrote a book about it.
 
no he wasn't. i think he meant that gladiator wasn't even based on real events. whereas 300 is based on real events but not accurate. but in the sense of accuracy, at least 300 was based on something that actually happened (and you've probably read some spartan history, being from greece, you know the spartans themselves are known to exaggerate so 300 is like the way the spartans themselves would have told the story).

but gladiator was just rocky with lions.

Oh, lol, I thought he meant that, too, but you didn't understand correctly. In that case, I take back my original comments!
Yes, 300 is definately exaggerated, like Alexander the Great, the Trojan War etc. Overall, I think that every country adds a bit of spice to their historical events' depiction.

PS: My mother comes from the village in the area where Ephialtes was born. Beware!
 
not america. instead they just leave out anything that's bad and pretend it didn't happen =D
 
so clownie, you still plan on dubbing your dent scarring comic?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"