Tuxedo Dragon wrote:
amaninspired wrote:
These are the traps that were, largely, avoided by Batman Begins and Casino Royale, but they were traps that were fallen into to an extent by Quantum of Solace and spectacularly by The Dark Knight. Will film historians be debating the brilliance of these films in 40 years, or will they still be talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey?
There is nothing wrong with action, but there has to be meaning there, or what's the point? The Dark Knight in particular rushed its action from one plot hole to another in a valiant effort to cover its inadequacies...it still failed. Whilst the reviews were generally rave, I agreed with Mark Kermode [film critic for BBC radio and TV in the UK]...it was nothing special. A disappointing sequel to Batman Begins, which had more substance, better cinematography and a much more coherent plot and characters.
|
You lost me here. Dark Knight has been heavily praised by critics. And almost made Begins an afterthought. Not to mention that it grossed tons of money. Any attempt to call it a dissapointment seems far fetched.
Dark Knight had a great story and was far from just an action flick.. It was a multi layered crime drama. And will be considered one of the best movies of this decade, at the very least. Its arguably the best comic book movie ever. And diffinitly the best Batman movie. |
As you might have guessed, we're not going to agree on this point! Any such comment is a matter of opinion, but I couldn't get around the gaping plot holes in
The Dark Knight. I wasn't alone; Mark Kermode being one critic who agreed with my take on the film.
Having said that, Kermode was very complimentary about the new
Trek film. My problem is that certain blockbusters, and I think that history will place both
The Dark Knight and
Star Trek in this category, are of their time. They will not age gracefully.
Whilst
Batman Begins and
Casino Royale transcended their own era by adopting and adapting the slightly more considered style of the classic action or thriller blockbuster for the modern age, I can't say that
Star Trek does the same. It doesn't even adapt early
Star Trek for the modern age.
I will watch the film again at some stage and my views may soften, but no-one can suggest that this was a real character film and
Trek, at both its best and worst, has always been more about characters and relationships than action.
Everything was too convenient. Spock being riled by Kirk within seconds of his return to the Enterprise. Spock ejecting Kirk from the Enterprise in the first place, which was a completely illogical thing for anyone to do! They lost an escape pod and presumably had to drop out of warp to eject it.
I did like the
Star Trek IV reference where old Spock explains to Scotty that he hasn't invented the transporter technology yet, but it was all too convenient. The characters simply slotted into the story, without the story fitting how one might imagine the characters (either in their original or re-imagined versions) would behave.
Independence Day had generally positive reviews and made wads of cash. Thirteen years later, it's generally acknowledged as being disposable entertainment that was of its time and, with hindsight, a pretty mediocre film. I fear that this is the fate awaiting
Star Trek 2009.