The Dark Knight Megathread (USE THIS! Love, the mods)

[JacksonArcher]

This was the end of the article about this weeks box office on chud.com, with thought to next weeks box office;

"As the internet tells us the greatest film in the history of the world opens on Friday, and from all early word it makes Orson Welles look like Tristam Shandy, Howard Hawks look like Shirley Temple, Gregg Toland like Bunny Yeager, and Robert Bresson like Uwe Boll. This fucker is known to cure leukemia, and autism. Perhaps even Aspbergers? That I can not say. Anyway the suction of that film opening should cause the polar ice caps to re-freeze, and it should open to $400 Million easily, and then do $450 the next weekend. It's just that good."

Eh. Is that suppose to be funny? CHUD has been very critical and negative of The Dark Knight for a while. Devin Faraci's review was very loathing. He even hated Batman Begins, but meanwhile praised Fantastic Four. I don't get it. If anyone is biased, it's them.

 

[T'Baio]

First of all, this is the only actual review they've posted, and it's glowing;

http://chud.com/articles/articles/15382/1/REVIEW-THE-DARK-KNIGHT-NICK039S-TAKE/Page1.html

Secondly, generally I've seen them mainly bash the internet hyperbole of the film, not the film itself.

Thirdly...Dude...it's a joke. What's to be biased about? Biased with a joke? Relax.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Umm, I've been following Devin and CHUD for a while now, and if you read the forums, Devin basically bashes the film. He is also infamously and notoriously critical of Batman Begins. That "glowing review" was not made by Devin.

I have a main problem with Devin, who seems very biased when it comes to Nolan's Bat-films. That's my point.

 

[T'Baio]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1830102&postcount=50

 

[JacksonArcher]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1830102&postcount=50

I have no problem with him disliking the film(s). That's his business. But he seems very overly critical with no point -- he just likes to uphold his "artistic integrity" by criticizing Nolan's films unconditionally. That's my main friggin' problem, man.

 

[Messianni]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1830102&postcount=50

Snap.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Oh yes, I've been "pwned".

 

[Messianni]

Well, he does make a point. Just because someone isn't giving a glowing review of The Dark Knight doesn't indicate any sort of "bias". It's just their personal opinion.

They liked FF more? So what. Doesn't like anything Nolan does? So what? That's their opinion. Reviewers give opinions and that is his. Just because their opinion differs from yours doesn't mean there is any bias of any kind.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Well, he does make a point. Just because someone isn't giving a glowing review of The Dark Knight doesn't indicate any sort of "bias". It's just their personal opinion.

They liked FF more? So what. Doesn't like anything Nolan does? So what? That's their opinion. Reviewers give opinions and that is his. Just because their opinion differs from yours doesn't mean there is any bias of any kind.

Like I said, I have no problem with him disliking Nolan's movies or The Dark Knight. He doesn't just give a negative review. He goes on his forums and basically outright bashes the film. He didn't even post an official review, he immediately went to his forum to start nitpicking the entire film.

And it's been like this since Batman Begins. I can understand him simply saying he doesn't like those efforts, but to continually nitpick and criticize them in my opinion shows bias, especially when you then in return praise a film like Fantastic Four. If he showed that type of critique to any other film or films, I wouldn't be as judgmental, but he doesn't. He only shows this type of love to Nolan's films and especially his Batman movies, which is my main point of contention.

 

[Trekker4747]

I just watch Batman:Begins on DVD, first time I've watched it since the theater, and it was a good watch the second time around, had forgotten how great of a movie and take on the character it was.

I'm still not "feeling" Bale's Batman Voice when he forces it but it was a good movie none-the-less. And, well, Katie Holmes is really cute but Maggie Gylen....whatever is a far better choice.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I will agree with you there. This is the one time where I actually approved of a re-casting verses frowning down on it.

 

[Trekker4747]

I will agree with you there. This is the one time where I actually approved of a re-casting verses frowning down on it.

Yeah. Not only is she better looking, a woman who's a better match for Bale, and less vapid of an actress, she's also better looking!

 

[JacksonArcher]

I will agree with you there. This is the one time where I actually approved of a re-casting verses frowning down on it.

Yeah. Not only is she better looking, a woman who's a better match for Bale, and less vapid of an actress, she's also better looking!

She's also much more talented than Holmes, and has the advantage of looking kind of like her. But like you said, more attractive.

 

[Agent Richard07]

 

[Agent Richard07]

[Maggie Gyllenhaal] has the advantage of looking kind of like her. But like you said, more attractive.

Seriously though, yeah I can see a resemblance that I haven't noticed before this movie...

 

[JacksonArcher]

I showed this to my friend and he shrieked. Thanks.

 

[Trekker4747]

[Maggie Gyllenhaal] has the advantage of looking kind of like her. But like you said, more attractive.

Seriously though, yeah I can see a resemblance that I haven't noticed before this movie...

Maggie just looks so cute and wonderous in that pictuee. Katie just looks... vapid.

:goes to watch Stranger Than Fiction:

 

[JacksonArcher]

[Maggie Gyllenhaal] has the advantage of looking kind of like her. But like you said, more attractive.

Seriously though, yeah I can see a resemblance that I haven't noticed before this movie...

Maggie just looks so cute and wonderous in that pictuee. Katie just looks... vapid.

:goes to watch Stranger Than Fiction:

I agree. When comparing the two, Maggie does seem a lot more better-suited than Katie.

 

[Trekker4747]

Seriously though, yeah I can see a resemblance that I haven't noticed before this movie...

Maggie just looks so cute and wonderous in that pictuee. Katie just looks... vapid.

:goes to watch Stranger Than Fiction:

I agree. When comparing the two, Maggie does seem a lot more better-suited than Katie.

Look at their eyes. Maggie looks deep, thoughtful and gleefully wonderous.

Katie looks like she's trying to decide which box of candy she wants out of the concession stand.

 

[nx1701g]

^ For some reason every time I look at Maggie I can't help but think of that Family Guy cutaway that makes fun of her.