Hmmmm...
I think I understand the level of passion that gave rise to the original post. For me, "Jurassic Park" evokes similar levels of awe. From the moment that that iconic text appears on the screen and the first bars of John Williams' stunning score begin, I'm hooked. The film has such scale and majesty -- has Hawaii ever looked better (well, OK, it does look good at the end of "Blue Hawaii", as Elvis and his bride sail down a verdant river to the strains of "Hawaiian Wedding Song")? And the craftmanship of JP is off the scale. I also get a kick each and every time I see and hear Jeff Goldblum speaking in that inimitable way of his. To me, "Jurassic Park" is what movie-making is all about. But I wouldn't remotely call it "one of the best movies ever made". There are
at least 100 greater films in the history of the medium (and being honest, probably closer to 1,000).
I could say the same for some of my other favourites, including "Superman", "The Terminator" and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "A Bronx Tale", "The Lion King", "Toy Story" and "A.I.".
These are all strong films in their own right, with excellent values all round, but I wouldn't put them on any "Greatest Films" lists (the possible exceptions might be "Superman", "The Terminator" and "Toy Story", but even then, there are other seminal animated works like "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs", "Fantasia", "Pinnochio" and "The Jungle Book" which should go higher, in the case of "Toy Story", and other live-action films, in the case of "Superman" and "The Terminator").
TempleFugit said:
My friends make fun of me because I'm a movie buff. They name any movie, and I can tell you the director, the actors, quotes, etc. I memorized alot of Fight Club. I'm obsessed with Pulp Fiction, The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, American Psycho, Se7en, Cast Away, Memento, Heat, Crash.
You name it. I've seen it.
That sounds like a rather bold claim. For starters: All those films you listed have been made in the last two decades. What about films pre-dating the 1990's?
TempleFugit said:
No movie matches the quality and brilliance of Batman Begins.
It's a bold statement, and some of you might laugh... but allow me to explain.
I completely disagree and assert that ALL of those films you listed above are superior to "Batman Begins", as well as at least 100 others. Ignoring the hideously biased and extremely myopic joke of a list on IMDb, I recommend the following site, which has links to numerous lists of LANDMARK motion picture productions:
http://www.filmsite.org/films.html
TempleFugit said:
The funny thing you have to realize is, if Batman Begins was on HBO one day, and "the average movie-goer" flipped to the channel just as little Bruce was falling down the well, he/she would have NO CLUE that this was a Batman movie, and that's what I love about it. If you don't know who Bruce Wayne is, then you'll have no clue what this movie IS until an hour into it, when Batman himself suddenly shows up. It's so damn brilliant.
I'm not sure that that's true. There are no scientific ways to empirically measure such a thing. That said, to the
degree to which it
might be true, I'd have to say that that is half of "Batman Begins"' problem -- it lacks style, character, flavour, invention.
TempleFugit said:
Nolan's an amazing director, basically.
I respectfully disagree. Nolan has done one great film, "Memento", a fairly average one, "Insomnia", and a pretty dismal one, "Batman Begins", in my opinion. I tend to see him as a one-trick pony.
TempleFugit said:
It's the little things about this movie that make it my all-time favorite:
- The Birthday party sequence (Liam Neeson's speech, with Bale's interactions).
- Cillian Murphy's acting. "He's here. The Batmaaaan."
- Virtually anything that Michael Caine did. The emotions from this man during the scene after the funeral are superb.
- Gary Oldman's simple approach.
- Tom Wilkinson's acting during the restaurant scene.
Since I have great affection for Michael Caine's screen presence and acting ability (LOVE him in "Alfie", "Get Carter", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" and "The Muppet Christmas Carol"), I can agree with your assessment of his performance in "Batman Begins", but I don't agree with anything else. Caine was truly superb in this picture and brought a real human dimension to the story. I loved his role as Bruce's surrogate father figure and mentor. It was the only aspect of "Batman Begins" that truly moved and captivated me.
TempleFugit said:
- When we first see Liam Neeson in the jail cell, and the music builds as he explains to Bale: "But, if you make yourself MORE than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if THEY can't stop you... you become something else entirely." ---- Pay attention to this scene in particular... the way the chords in the music progress and go higher as they cut to Liam's face as he says "And if THEY can't stop you".... and then when they cut back to his face as he says "A legend, Mr. Wayne"... watch how the frame is closer to his face than before. That's GOOD directing, dammit!!
With all due respect, I'm not sure what marks this moment out as "good directing". If anything, this is solid editing -- nothing more, nothing less. A slow pan into an actor's face to add weight / tension is a pretty standard cinematic device, and I don't see anything distinguished about the way that BB employed it here.
TempleFugit said:
- When Bale goes down into the cave, and the bats fly around him, and that music just builds... and builds... and EXPLODES, followed by a quick cut to Cillian Murphy's line "No more favors".
This is certainly one of the more striking / iconic moments in the film, but I don't see anything particularly clever about the cut. If BB had more moments like that of the bats swarming around Bruce (even though bats display the reverse behaviour towards humans in real life; I actually have some outside my house), then it might have carved out a name for itself, but I honestly don't think that it did. It just isn't a particularly engaging or memorable film, in my opinion.
TempleFugit said:
Nolan's eye for the camera is just so impressive. He has a real instinct, much like a painter knows how to move the brush on the canvas. This is a real "art film", in my opinion. It has "art" to it. It FEELS like looking at a painting and being moved by it, but you don't know why. The scene where Batman is standing on top of the building, motionless like a gargoyle overlooking the city as the camera pans around him and suddenly stops... that MOVES me.
There are a few nice compositions in this film, no doubt, but I think Nolan's efforts were severely undermined by the terrible editing. The film is a hacked-up mess, especially in its action sequences. For what it's worth, I thought that the most effective cinematography was contained in the film's opening act, where Nolan and his DOP, Wally Pfister, got a real opportunity to open the frame up and present some sweeping imagery, both outside the training compound and in. The muddier, rusted look used for the main body of the film (i.e. Gotham City), while nice in parts, wasn't particularly inspiring. If you load up some clips on YouTube, which can be BRUTAL to films with less-than-amazing cinematography, "Batman Begins" looks extremely dull and insipid. There's nothing eye-catching or intriguing about most of the photography. Compared to Burton's twisted production design and clever use of light and shadow, mist / fog and monochrome and colour, "Begins" is extremely plain and unimaginative.
If you really want to experience films framed by masterminds that REALLY feel like paintings, then look into the work of brilliant directors like Fritz Lang, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, François Truffaut, Victor Fleming, Jen-Luc Godard, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, David Lean, John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, Francis Ford Coppola, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Wise, Andrei Tarkovsky, Leni Riefenstahl, Robert Altman, Roman Polanski, Ken Russell, Sam Peckinpah, Don Siegel, Sergio Leone, Milos Forman, Ridley Scott, David Lynch, Clint Eastwood, The Coen Brothers, Terry Gilliam, Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas et al.
TempleFugit said:
Now, there ARE things that I DON'T like about "Begins".... such as the quick-editing action, of course. The way I see it... a painter isn't good at painting EVERYTHING. If you specialize in caricatures, you can't expect to be a master at landscapes. In my opinion, I would've been okay with NO ACTION in this film, but obviously Nolan knew that he had to do it... since it IS a Batman film, and people are expecting an action movie instead of a intellectual Godfather-ish movie.
Do you realise how you sound here? Batman is a comic book character and a crime fighter -- he's meant to get into visually arresting / dynamic situations. Saying you would have been "okay" with no action in the film is like saying you wouldn't have minded two hours of talking in "Star Wars". These films are meant to have an exuberant carny thrill to them. Remove that element and you're left with less than nothing. Nolan was wrong for this film, in my opinion, and the butchering of the action sequences is testament to that. Then again, given how much of a studio-based package that BB feels (from the big-name cast, to the "real" Batmobile, to the brainless one-liners), I'm not sure if anyone would have been "right" for it.