The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 3

[The Joker]

Affleck also said that:

- BvS is a good movie, unlike Daredevil, and if he thought otherwise, he would've been picketing in the streets,
- Terrio's BvS script is utterly brilliant and never required any rewrites and corrections,
- Eisenberg's Lex is the most interesting character in BvS, is psychologically accurate and not a silly one-dimensional villain and is as good as Ledger's Joker.

At this point I don't trust anything Affleck says.

Lesson here; take what Affleck says with a huge grain of salt.

 

[shauner111]

You know what? Maybe he is right.

We don't know the full extent of what Snyder butchered in the editing phase.

As far as Luthor is concerned, that's pretty much impossible.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I've got the feeling that Affleck has no feel for comic books at all. Just because you are a good director or a good writer does not mean you get comic books. Otherwise Ang Lee would've made a masterpiece.

I've got this bad feeling that Affleck is just latching onto a known comic book guy because he must. Not because of any story telling reasons.

That would be very bad.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

He said that about Lex!!?

"When the latest trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was released, many took to Twitter to bash Eisenberg's flamboyant portrayal of the villain. But Affleck, who plays Batman in the film, spoke with French magazine Studio Cine Live about why Eisenberg actually improves most of the scenes in which he exists.

"Between the character that was written by Chris Terrio and Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal, it's the meeting of two great minds, on the same wavelength," Affleck explained. "Luthor is, for me, the most interesting character in the film. He's radically different from what we've seen so far. He's grounded in reality, and he's extraordinary. This type of film is only as good as its villain. That's why 'The Dark Knight' was so brilliant, because of Heath Ledger's Joker. Jesse improves the film with each scene he's in. He's not your usual one-dimensional villain, there's a whole psychology behind him."

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/130...-to-heath-ledger-in-the-dark-knight-video.htm

 

[Tacit Ronin]

At least this film improved Ben's BS skills.

 

[Slade W]

For the most part, I don't take what actors, writers, directors or other people involved movies, TV shows, books or comics say about their product at face-value as they usually exaggerate and make things sound much better than they are.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I wish Ben was working with Snyder instead of Johns. The talented Snyder. Not the man child.

Imagine Court of Owls in cinematic form.

 

[Slade W]

Yeah, that would be pretty great. I enjoyed his other stories too, such as DOTF, Zero Year, Black Mirror and Endgame, even if the endings were not the best (although I did enjoy the ending of Endgame). I really like how he writes the characters, especially Batman and the Joker.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I love his Batman. He may be driven but he is not an obsessive lunatic psycho. I also love that his Batman has a sense of humor and seems like a rounded individual. Those are my favorite kinds of Batman.

 

[Slade W]

What do you make of his Joker?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I'll have to reread Death of the Family again to make up my mind on his Joker.

 

[Slade W]

I, personally, am a fan of his Joker. I thought the reason that he had his face cut off was silly though, even if I liked the look in in that particular story (I wouldn't have wanted it to have been a look he had for a long time though). I thought his possible origin in Zero Year was good too.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Anyone here thinking of reading the new Captain America run to state your full thoughts on how the story is executed?

 

[shauner111]

"When the latest trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was released, many took to Twitter to bash Eisenberg's flamboyant portrayal of the villain. But Affleck, who plays Batman in the film, spoke with French magazine Studio Cine Live about why Eisenberg actually improves most of the scenes in which he exists.

"Between the character that was written by Chris Terrio and Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal, it's the meeting of two great minds, on the same wavelength," Affleck explained. "Luthor is, for me, the most interesting character in the film. He's radically different from what we've seen so far. He's grounded in reality, and he's extraordinary. This type of film is only as good as its villain. That's why 'The Dark Knight' was so brilliant, because of Heath Ledger's Joker. Jesse improves the film with each scene he's in. He's not your usual one-dimensional villain, there's a whole psychology behind him."

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/130...-to-heath-ledger-in-the-dark-knight-video.htm

So he thinks that the Dark Knight was brilliant all because of Ledger's Joker, and EisenLuthor was grounded in reality? It was one of the most cartoony characters and performances I've seen in the genre. The polar opposite of realistic.

My excitement for "The Batman" just went down a couple of notches. Officially.

 

[JackWhite]

lol, just when you thought you had a glimmer of hope because of Ben's involvement.

I'm beyond baffled at the high praise he is giving Eisenberg.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

oh boy, that is a cause for concern

hopefully it was just Ben being nice

 

[shauner111]

Sounds too specific to just be him being nice.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I don't want to lose faith in Ben!

He's the only reason I still have any faith at all!

 

[DACrowe]

On an unrelated note I would just like to add to this thread that I saw X-Men: Apocalypse the other day... it's not bad. It's not great either, but I thought it was pretty entertaining. I think some of the criticisms are hyperbole (BMD) and others are fair (those that say it has a "been there, done that" aura and that the editing/pace is a mess). Still, I thought the actors were all good with Fassbender being great (to be fair Psylocke and Angel were nonentities) and that the big scenes worked, namely the prologue, Quicksilver's big scene, and the Jean Grey stuff near the end.

I am a little apprehensive it is getting so much hate both critically and in terms of audience indifference. It is no Batman v Superman. In fact, while it pales drastically compared to Captain America: Civil War, it is about on par with Marvel's weakest efforts (Iron Man 2, Thor 2). The vitriol on this one seems really strange.

With that said if the X-Men do come back in a film, it is time for Singer (and definitely Kinberg) to step away. Singer is running on fumes, and Kinberg was never great to begin with and doesn't have Matthew Vaughn or Jane Goldman holding his hand this time. The franchise needs some new blood behind the camera, because the new young mutants are all great in front of it this time.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Get Tim Miller. Just like how the Russos graduated from Cap to Avengers. Give Miller a chance at handling X-men.

 

[Brother Jack]

With that said if the X-Men do come back in a film, it is time for Singer (and definitely Kinberg) to step away. Singer is running on fumes, and Kinberg was never great to begin with and doesn't have Matthew Vaughn or Jane Goldman holding his hand this time. The franchise needs some new blood behind the camera, because the new young mutants are all great in front of it this time.

Agreed. I've enjoyed all of Singer's X-films but Apocalypse might be his weakest. Someone new should step in as director to shepherd the new class as it were, all of whom I'd very much like to see get further developed. The chance to finally do Cyclops justice is incentive enough. But I think the next film has already been confirmed. The official word is that it will take place in the 90's.

 

[Shikamaru]

Saw X-Men Apocalypse last night. As always I'll wait for a second viewing to write a full review, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the reviews make it out to be. I would rank it above all the mediocre Marvel films (IM2, Thor 1/2, TFA, etc.).

It's just as enjoyable as the other good X-Men films, but it has some tonal and pacing issues. Singer is clearly trying to go in a more Marvel direction by balancing comedy with darkness and realism with fantasy, but he never manages to find that sweet spot the same way the best Marvel films did (or even the same way First Class did). I agree with DACrowe that the franchise needs new blood behind the camera.

On a more positive note, the young cast was fantastic. Cyclops in particular was amazing. That was the biggest question mark for me going in and they totally won me over on him. Without giving anything away, they're going with him exactly in the direction the fans wanted him to go in. As are all the other X-Men - Jean is Jean, Nightcrawler is Nightcrawler, Storm is Storm.

 

[DACrowe]

Saw X-Men Apocalypse last night. As always I'll wait for a second viewing to write a full review, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the reviews make it out to be. I would rank it above all the mediocre Marvel films (IM2, Thor 1/2, TFA, etc.).

It's just as enjoyable as the other good X-Men films, but it has some tonal and pacing issues. Singer is clearly trying to go in a more Marvel direction by balancing comedy with darkness and realism with fantasy, but he never manages to find that sweet spot the same way the best Marvel films did (or even the same way First Class did). I agree with DACrowe that the franchise needs new blood behind the camera.

On a more positive note, the young cast was fantastic. Cyclops in particular was amazing. That was the biggest question mark for me going in and they totally won me over on him. Without giving anything away, they're going with him exactly in the direction the fans wanted him to go in. As are all the other X-Men - Jean is Jean, Nightcrawler is Nightcrawler, Storm is Storm.

Yes and agreed. I much prefer it over Thor 2 and Iron Man 2. I would even add Avengers: Age of Ultorn to that list, though i know it has its passionate defenders.

I also agree that the new cast is great. That is why even though it is underperforming, I hope they do not reboot it like so many are suggesting. This new cast is the latest reboot, and they're great. I agree Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner are the standouts, but I am curious what Alexandra Shipp can do (she was kind of wasted in Apocalypse).

Keep going, but get some new creative forces for the next era.

 

[shauner111]

Jeremy Irons is the only guy who is being honest. He says the movie deserved the bashing from critics because it was overstuffed and muddled. He also sounds like he's only doing the sequels for the paycheck, but in this case i don't mind because he's so good at what he does. Very professional actor.

Then we have Jesse Eisenberg, who confirmed that he makes an appearance in Justice League. He goes on to describe his performance/character as being realistic, not your typical one-dimensional villain, blah blah blah. The usual crap. I wish this guy would watch his performance and then text Johnny Depp to do the same with his movies. If you don't watch your performance, you're bound to repeat the same stuff over and over again. It's basically an actor choosing to live a life of ignorance and just treating the work as "work". I understand not wanting to watch yourself more than once, but if you're passionate you should be excited to watch a film you made. Especially if you believe in the director and script. How could you not be curious unless you're just some pretentious a-hole? Sorry but just like Sam Jackson, i think it's a b.s mentality to have as an actor.

 

[BatLobster]

Man that's awkward. I appreciate Irons' honesty, but wow. I can't believe this is where we are now with the franchise already, where we have the actor playing Alfred openly admitting that the movie he was just in deserved bad reviews and that he's basically doing the series for a paycheck at this point. Contrast that with Michael Caine who seemed to have such genuine enthusiasm for the Batman movies he was making.

It's nothing against Irons, it's just sad that we've already arrived at this point so soon where you have principal cast members who aren't willing to stand by the movie they just made. I have no doubt that Affleck will at some point address the controversy more directly too, and he'll probably concede some of the criticism in as diplomatic a way possible, if only for political reasons.