I guess that makes sense, but its still a valid criticism in a movie. One that goes out of it's way to be artsy for the sake of being artsy, without actually saying or doing anything substantial.

I just think it shows an unwillingness to understand what the director was going for with a particular shot. It's easy to look at an "artsy" scene and think "Wow, this is so stupid and pretentious and doesn't add anything to the movie," but how hard are you actually trying to find meaning in the scene?

Unless you're of the opinion that you shouldn't have to think too hard about movies, and I'd fundamentally disagree with that. You would probably despise Lars von Trier.

Quote from: TurquíaHiriente on September 17, 2016, 11:45:20 AM

TDK was good, but not a great Batman film.

what makes a good batman film

Being more true to the character. Nolan's Batman was a martial arts novice, a largely incompetent businessman, had no detective skills to be found, and was constantly outwitted by villains.

They're solid movies  though; don't get me wrong. Batfleck is a better Batman, for example.

Quote from: Verbatim on September 17, 2016, 11:51:05 AM

Quote from: TurquíaHiriente on September 17, 2016, 11:45:20 AM

TDK was good, but not a great Batman film.

what makes a good batman film

Being more true to the character. Nolan's Batman was a martial arts novice, a largely incompetent businessman, had no detective skills to be found, and was constantly outwitted by villains.

They're solid movies  though; don't get me wrong. Batfleck is a better Batman, for example.

I do wonder how much of Nolan batman's influence on popular perception of the character has influenced how well recieved BvS was, if at all. I know that my parents didn't really care for Batfleck, massively preferring Nolan/ Bale's version, where I thought Batfleck was one of the highlights of that movie.

The Dark Knight because of the memes, but otherwise Interstellar.

This is pretty much my answer. I kind of wish he hadn't tried to go into dimensional physics at the end though because it doesn't really work. It took a couple reads of the "Science of" book for me to really get a proper grasp on that stuff and it really does just hinge on lying back and accepting it rather than trying to poke holes in the logic.

Shame, too, because I loved the film up until that point. The FX were on point both CG and practical, the soundtrack was phenomenal, the performances weren't half-bad, the accurate renditions of space travel, relativity and astrophysics were really good for me, but trying to make him survive the black hole really destroyed the amazing foundation everything had built. Having him die would have put a lot more impact on the ending of the film and leave people more satisified than the hoops jumped through to make him survive.

Idunno, I don't like bullshit magitechhandwavium science in films that have already gone out of their way to be scientifically accurate. I'll accept the stuff on Earth and the wormhole (Though why saturn?) but the ghost thing was really pushing it.

Quote from: BaconShelf on September 17, 2016, 02:28:44 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 17, 2016, 02:12:17 PM

The Dark Knight because of the memes, but otherwise Interstellar.

This is pretty much my answer. I kind of wish he hadn't tried to go into dimensional physics at the end though because it doesn't really work. It took a couple reads of the "Science of" book for me to really get a proper grasp on that stuff and it really does just hinge on lying back and accepting it rather than trying to poke holes in the logic.

Shame, too, because I loved the film up until that point. The FX were on point both CG and practical, the soundtrack was phenomenal, the performances weren't half-bad, the accurate renditions of space travel, relativity and astrophysics were really good for me, but trying to make him survive the black hole really destroyed the amazing foundation everything had built. Having him die would have put a lot more impact on the ending of the film and leave people more satisified than the hoops jumped through to make him survive.

Idunno, I don't like bullshit magitechhandwavium science in films that have already gone out of their way to be scientifically accurate. I'll accept the stuff on Earth and the wormhole (Though why saturn?) but the ghost thing was really pushing it.

I mean, it is science fiction. And to be fair to the movie we don't really know what happens inside a black hole.

Prevailing theory is that as you accelerate towards the singularity, you hit relativistic velocities (assuming you don't die from heat, radiation, gravity etc) and your perception of time slows relative to the universe so that you effectively get to watch all of time pass you by. But of course you'd die before you even hit the accretion disc.

That aside, it's more the lack of consistency. If you go all out of your way to do the maths and insist on an accurate depiction of a black hole, it feels kind of cheap to then have the story resolved by what amounts to a cheap deus ex machina. The entire premise felt really hamfisted and forced in at the last minute for a happy/ bittersweet ending rather than an integral part of the story from the beginning.

Memento from a stylistic sense; it's basically the perfect film for a media class to study.

I'm a massive fan of Inception and Dark Knight though. Far better films as far as mainstream media is concerned.

Interstellar was fantastic until that dumbfuck ending.

Probably Memento, though I haven't seen it.

Appearance of intelligence > Intelligence

Quote from: Verbatim on September 17, 2016, 10:16:14 AM

Probably Memento, though I haven't seen it.

Appearance of intelligence > Intelligence

The premise, the genre, and the fact that multiple people with similar taste in movies to me have told me that I'd love Memento, and the fact that it's widely considered to be a great film, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it's his best movie. I could be absolutely wrong.