The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, just saw Homecoming a second time. Writing this on my phone so there might be some spelling errors.

Overall my opinion still stands. One of Marvel's best films and arguably the best Spider-Man film.

The first act was a bit better now, but still a little dull. I think the generic tone might be a bit intentional. As Peter is finding his identity, so is the movie. It's also no coincidence it opens with the Avengers theme and ends with Spidey's own theme (which might honestly be my favorite of all them all - yes, surprisingly even more than Elfman's).

This is also one of the best Marvel projects at balancing out the humor with the drama and giving the piece a unique tone. Besides the early scenes with Ned and a few early Spidey moments, the humor is fantastic. The only later line I felt took me out was the "Ew, gross" one on the bus (when he notices those gums as Shocker's trying to kill him).

Along with Iron Man (film, not character), this is the best character piece coming from Feige. In many ways it's a spiritual successor to Iron Man, but also Agents of SHIELD done right. I mean, the idea of Agents of SHIELD was always to expand on the blue-collar life of the MCU and show how the everyman reacts to the world changing. This did it better without feeling superfluous.

Lastly, it's also got a socially relevant message. Homecoming is, at the core, a story of a teen trying to find his place in a world he feels powerless to affect, much like most Millennials today. By the end he's in similar shoes to all the young folks who start out wanting to work their way up in a company, but realizing that company just isn't for them. So after his "internship" he sets off to do his own thing. I don't necessarily think he knows where Spider-Man fits into by the end; just where he doesn't and which direction to next go in. I also suspect he'll have second thoughts about his decision in the sequel, but will ultimately pull through them.

Besides some stuff in the first act, my only other complaint are the lack of Uncle Ben references. There's just too many parallels between Toomes and Ben to not directly deal with them. This is the one non-origin story Ben should've had a greater presence in. Thw parallels between Peter and Toomes, and also Tony and Toomes, are fantastic and my favorite thing about the movie. Toomes' character depth is up there with SM2's Doc Ock and bringing the "Marvel can't do great villains besides Loki" criticism to an end. Either it's a sign Marvel's fixing that problem going forward, or we'll have to edit that line a little .

Solid film. 4.5/5.
 
Came back from Dunkirk:

Though this is a summer blockbuster with a PG-13 certificate, though this is a movie with a budget north of 100 million, though this is a movie starring a popular heartthrob, though this is a story that has been mythologized at the center of every British boy and girl's national identity, this is not a PG-13 summer blockbuster starring a heartthrob with a massive budget based on a national myth. This is an experimental movie made on a tentpole budget. Situated in a month where Hollywood's most safe and trite compete. Dunkirk zips in like a Spitfire firing a barrage of non-linear time hopping and time lines, breathtaking formalism and aesthetic ingenuity and a defiant lack of narrative conventions.

Though this is about the miraculous evacuation of the British at Dunkirk, bathed in sandy grays, cloudy blues and sea greens, it might as well have taken place at any war in modern military history. Nolan is concerned about elaborating his country's most triumphant hour, but he is also concerned about human triumph in the face of insurmountable odds. This is where his fragmented chorus becomes a singular sermon. From land, sea or air, by bones, flesh or blood, the absolute disdain for capitulation at the unpredictable, brutal and unhinged hand of doom.

This is a movie about the human spirit's capacity for survival. In all of its manifestations. The good, the bad. The empathetic and the selfish. The sacrifices we would endure to help our fellow man and the dishonesty we would pursue to help ourselves. In this movie, people sail miles out to sea to help rescue their cornered brothers and Commanders remain in the Lion's den to rescue those who haven't been. All the while some of these brothers in arms are more concerned about saving themselves. Some are willingly travelling to death's door to save their boys, others will try anything to save their lives from death's grasp.

It's a movie about ordinary men committing extraordinary acts of heroism. Where some of the bravest grace notes come not from the trapped soldiers but the average citizens, buoyed by concern and dignity for their fellow man. This means going out of your way to lend a hand (or stick and ropes) to save men floating on desperation, as well as the capacity for absolute empathy. To look beyond potential manslaughter in the madness of war and let go. Because sometimes, people deserve more than the truth. People deserve to have their faith rewarded.

I am curious to see how this will play beyond the large format 70mm. Imax isn't just a huge canvas Nolan uses to paint his version of war. It becomes an elemental force. Representing humanity itself. Though it's less a metaphysical representation and more a mechanical one. With every act of cowardice or bravery, you can trace the history of our behavioral evolution as a species. Propelled by that singular desire for survival, both individual and collective. We must live. Why? We really don't know, or care really. None of these soldiers are more than ciphers. Their daily lives are a mystery to us. We don't know what they are fighting so hard to survive for, beyond themselves. We just know, or understand, that they do. We live and we die, but before that, we survive. That's what Dunkirk embodies in its fiery soul.


Go see this ******* movie.
 
Last edited:
Nice Dunkirk review, Tacit. Can't wait to see it this weekend at some point.
 
10 o'clock showing for me tonight. PUMPED! Still shocked that this movie is only a little over an hour and a half.
 
Enjoy Shauner. Look forward to hearing your review. :up:

As for Affleck, what if Matt Reeves' script is amazing and the film is just as good or better - wouldn't that reinvigorate Affleck's passion to play the character? I mean, Ben was given a raw deal with having to star in not one but two Bat-films that were directed by Zack Snyder. And all of this came on the heels of Nolan's TDK Trilogy.

I'll say it now, if The Batman is a success I'd be shocked if Affleck didn't want to at least do two more films with Reeves.
 
Honestly I'm still a little surprised that Affleck even signed on to play Batman in the first place considering his directing career. Now with his life being the way it is I wouldn't be surprised if he bounced.

Oh and Dunkirk is absolutely incredible. Good freakin' lord.
 
Affleck's got some similarities with Andrew Garfield, it seems. Both passionate for years to play their character, both in the right place at the wrong time, and both seeming hesistant to do a third film for personal reasons (in Garfield's case entirely different reasons, though).
 
Affleck's got some similarities with Andrew Garfield, it seems. Both passionate for years to play their character, both in the right place at the wrong time, and both seeming hesistant to do a third film for personal reasons (in Garfield's case entirely different reasons, though).

Good observation, Shika.

At least Ben has a chance to redeem himself if Matt Reeves holds up his part of the bargain.
 
Get Andy Serkis to motion capture as Affleck as Batman. Will probably churn out a better performance than Affleck himself.
 
Toomes' character depth is up there with SM2's Doc Ock

The Vulture was a step in the right direction for the MCU but I wouldn't go that far.
 
I would. There's just too many parallels between him and Peter, him and Uncle Ben, and him and Tony Stark. He's an evil Peter, an evil Uncle Ben, and a poor man's Tony Stark (literally) all at the same time. Then there's thematic stuff like him having a strong sense pf responsibility (like Peter and Ben), his job literally being that of a vulture and how that fits with Peter's decision to keep an eye on the little guy by "sticking close to the ground". Lastly, him and Zemo offered the best critiques of the Avengers of all the villains in the MCU (not surprising since they're both everyman archetypes).

That's one of the strengths going for Homecoming. It's very layered without spoonfeeding a lot of the character stuff in dialogue. I thought it treated its audience very intelligently.
 
Last edited:
Dunkirk is a bold step forward for Nolan. His most experimental and minimalist film to date. All sound, music, and imagery. Threadbare and intense as hell.
 
Justice League trailer. Has Affleck finally disappeared in the role? Ben looks unrecognizable. What's going on?
 
He looks like he got punched hard before the shoot and now it's swollen. What dedication to the role.
 
I can't stop thinking about Dunkirk.

What I love about it, having been stewing on it for 24 hours, I really think Nolan's approach to telling the story was in fact the best, most purely cinematic possible way to tell that story. And there is absolutely nobody else who could've pulled it off the way he did. So in other words, it was a perfect marriage of material and director that just so happens to also be the definitive cinematic account of a very critical moment in history.

That's the kind of stuff that has legacy written all over it.
 
After seeing Dunkirk in true 1.43 ratio IMAX this weekend with natural photography, that Justice League trailer looks like total crap. I am tired of the rubbish CGI that Hollywood keeps trying to shove down our throats.

The Apes franchise is the only one I've seen lately with amazing, believable CGI. I am excited for Matt Reeves' version of Batman, but I am pretty much done with superhero movies at this point. Tired formula, tired visual style, tired computer effects. You see something like Dunkirk and you realize what a waste of time these franchise movies are for the most part.
 
Yeah. The JL looked like crap on the big screen. There was no reaction either.
 
I can't stop thinking about Dunkirk.

What I love about it, having been stewing on it for 24 hours, I really think Nolan's approach to telling the story was in fact the best, most purely cinematic possible way to tell that story. And there is absolutely nobody else who could've pulled it off the way he did. So in other words, it was a perfect marriage of material and director that just so happens to also be the definitive cinematic account of a very critical moment in history.

That's the kind of stuff that has legacy written all over it.

Nolan is a master of story structure. It's why I've never understood the criticism that he makes plot-centric films instead of character-centric ones when be builds the structure of the stories themselves around character, including Dunkirk. It's not just a gimmick there to impress and challenge the audience. It's there to help put you into the perspective of the character, into their headspace.

As for JL, yeah. It looks like a typical Snyder video game. I'm not expecting anything out of it.
 
Is plot-driven used as a criticism against Nolan? I figured that was just the observation.
 
It is used as a criticism, usually by the people that think his movies are ice cold.

Figured that usually comes from those that think his dialogue is too pretentious or exposition-heavy.
 
It is used as a criticism, usually by the people that think his movies are ice cold.

I've never agreed with that either. I've always found there to be an emotional element to his movies, as far back as Memento.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"