Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

To be honest, the trailer is even better than the move: here it is.

^ Didn't he spoil too much of what happened in the movie there? (even though he kept some red herring there too)

Had my monthly viewing of char's counter attack today. I still love char's counter attack but repeat viewings make Quess more herp a derp (if that makes any sense). Also after discovering the hi nu gundam it makes me wish that CCA was a OVA for the sole reason for a mid season upgrade. Also watched that new star trek movie it was a good movie and I enjoyed it.

You watch CCA every month?!?

symbv wrote:You watch CCA every month?!?

Yes but I alternate between the dub and the sub to keep it slightly diffrent, also no kidding I can sing beyond the time off by heart I've watched it so much. I even watched it frame by frame once for fanboy reasons

I saw Spirited Away and The PIXAR Story right after the start of New Year's Day. Miyazaki has possibly perfectly paced that film. Both my friend and I were very much in a state of emotional release and relaxation after that movie. And we were both fascinated by the story of Pixar's birth. Who knew John Lasseter was fired from Disney back in the late 80's? And Steve Jobs' involvement with Pixar only explained why Apple Mac computers were the best computers I've ever used for the creative video entertainment industry. (Not gonna claim it the best computer in the whole wide world, but it bests suits my needs in the industry I work in.)

gatotsu911 wrote:Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person under age 35 who honestly believes The Dark Knight to be overhyped crap.

I was never sure how to judge "hype" vs "overhype" The film was exactly I expected it to be, and I wasn't expecting the "Best. Movie EVER!", as apparently so many of my generation thought it was. (Seriously guys...) It was just a really good movie, probably even the best movie from the summer of 2008, but that doesn't make it the best movie ever. (And, let's face it, there wasn't that much competition in the year 2008.) The only reason why I bring this up is because I met a bunch of new film students who were all listing Shrek as the first movie they saw in theaters and The Dark Knight/Inception as the best movie of all time. (Guess that's just the sign of the times, huh?) Nobody had ever seen a film predating 2003, and all were hopefully later enlighten by their Language of Film classes and exposure to more important films.

Final Messenger, you might want to spoiler the part about the climax in case anyone hasn't seen it yet.

The legions of self-proclaimed film buffs who declare The Dark Knight like, the greatest film ever, man certainly don't give me any more charitable an opinion if it, but even taken strictly on its own merits I really did not like it at all. The plot is an incoherent, convoluted mess, the pacing is downright schizophrenic, the visuals are simply ugly, the action scenes are nauseating, the dialogue is dour and witless, and the whole thing reeks of gratuitous self-seriousness. I should emphasize that I didn't go in expecting to dislike the film. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact - I had previously found Batman Begins to be reasonably enjoyable, and given all the enthusiasm surrounding the movie I was fully prepared to love it. It just isn't that good, and I just don't like Christopher Nolan as a director. His movies to me represent the epitome of "strained seriousness", insincerity, and soulless pseudo-intellectualism in cinema.

gatotsu911 wrote:[Christopher Nolan's] movies to me represent the epitome of "strained seriousness", insincerity, and soulless pseudo-intellectualism in cinema.

Even though I would say that overall I liked The Dark Knight and, to a lesser extent, Inception, I couldn't agree with this statement more.

gatotsu911 wrote:The legions of self-proclaimed film buffs who declare The Dark Knight like, the greatest film ever, man certainly don't give me any more charitable an opinion if it, but even taken strictly on its own merits I really did not like it at all. The plot is an incoherent, convoluted mess, the pacing is downright schizophrenic, the visuals are simply ugly, the action scenes are nauseating, the dialogue is dour and witless, and the whole thing reeks of gratuitous self-seriousness. I should emphasize that I didn't go in expecting to dislike the film. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact - I had previously found Batman Begins to be reasonably enjoyable, and given all the enthusiasm surrounding the movie I was fully prepared to love it. It just isn't that good, and I just don't like Christopher Nolan as a director. His movies to me represent the epitome of "strained seriousness", insincerity, and soulless pseudo-intellectualism in cinema.

Then, if you dislike him (if not hate) so much, who's your favorite movie director?

I'm glad you asked! I am a positvely drooling fanboy for the Coen brothers, watching War Horse and The Adventures of Tintin recently reminded me of how much I adore Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick had a sense for images, sound and movement that was decades ahead of his time and pretty much unrivaled to this day. David Fincher and Peter Jackson are high on my approval list as well. So, I guess that's my top 5. I haven't seen as much international film (outside of anime) as I'd like, but hey, it's never too late to get on that.

I doubt I'll ever be as passionate about any arthouse director as I am about these guys, since in my opinion the highest form of art is that which marries "high" and "low" culture in such a way that it is accessible to everyone, yet rewarding to those who dig deeper - "easy to learn, hard to master", I suppose. Complexity and profundity shouldn't be consequences of a filmmaker setting out to be complex and profound, as Nolan does; they should emerge, if necessary, as natural byproducts of the substance of the story and the honest curiosities of the artist. The single biggest difference between pretension and profundity is sincerity. And even if the kind of myopic, naval-gazing or even solipsistic film that characterizes much arthouse fare is unmistakably sincere, as I believe is the case with, say, Terrance Malick, I will likely never have as much love for them as for those artists who seek to make their vision as accessible as possible without compromising it. I guess I love the stylings of arthouse film married to the sensibilities of mainstream cinema, is what I'm saying. But it has to be sincere.

gatotsu911 wrote:At least I know I'm not the only one who resents being called a hipster just because I happen to dislike something that is popular.

Don't give it much attention. The flavor of the month hate accusation is the mark of an immature and unimaginative mind.

That said, while I certainly enjoyed The Dark Knight, I never buy into hype machines of any kind, because at best, they create unreasonable expectations and at worst, zealous unchallengeable hive-minds. It's not a great movie by any means, but it is a bit more interesting that the usual fare that passes for summer blockbusters, despite its stone-faced hero-mongering being a bit of a put-on.

Within terms of cinematography, I've actually heard most people liked the more steady camera shots in The Dark Knight's action scenes over the shakey close-ups of the action scenes of Batman Begins. Within terms of psuedo-intellectualism, I can't remember a time I ever searched for any form of intellect in a summer film in the first place, so I guess it just came off to me as simply small elements of interesting details not present in most action films, rather than the film trying to fake smartness. (Though they DO spend a long time discussing these details.) As for the pacing, it DID feel like two movies clustered in 2 1/2 hours. Joker and Dent's stories would have worked better as their own movies. But I still enjoyed the movie nonetheless. It's just not in my top favorite 20 or even 50 films.

For me Nolan movies are good, but ultimately lack heart. They seem so... constructed. Nevertheless, in the Dark Knight, Heath Ledger managed to give this sterile movie some taste, so I could really enjoy it. In terms of favorite movies, the Dark Knight will not be mentioned by me. But it is one of the better Superhero-movies and action movies nevertheless...

WHOOPS, ontopic: I've watched the Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya, and I enjoyed it very much. I like, that they used Gymnopedie to convey a certain mood, and it did not fail. The whole movie has a great vibe, doesn't feel too long or rushed. Very nice.

Psuedo-intellectualism? I don't think I even detected or tried looking for any intellect in Nolan's movie - Basically I agree with what FreakyFilmFan4ever said on this. As for sincerity, I am sure he sincerely wanted to make an entertaining film, and I think ultimately that's what counts -- as I enjoy Inception and Dark Knight (even though I never like superhero stuff that much).

I enjoy Nolan's films as popcorn flicks, nothing less. I wouldn't consider any of them bad, just over-hyped. The Dark Knight was too long, too clustered, and overall not the godsend to movies it's hyped to be, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy Heath Ledger's amazing amounts of ham.

Actually if I remember correctly, none of the reviews in major newspapers called "Dark Knight" as any thing like greatest movie of all time or a godsend to movies, I wonder where did that reputation come from....

At least I went into watch the movie without hearing any of those hypes.

I think that reputation came from younger viewers growing up in this era where most summer movies were based on comic books, and that's all they really cared about seeing. (Spiderman back in 2002 really kind of pushed these movies to be made more often.) So when Nolan actually puts some effort in a Batman movie, kids freaked enough to care who directed it. ("This movie is SO much better than Daredevil! Who made this?") When they discovered Nolan through Batman, they watched his other works, like Inception, and became of the opinion that he was the best filmmaker ever. So his movies became the "godsend of film".

^ Thanks FreakyFilmFan4ever. So at least we can credit Nolan for drawing the youngsters who don't usually care about serious movie making to care more about the many elements in movies besides characters or special effect looking cool. Guess we should at least give it to this guy, who successfully married "serious film-making" to "blockbuster youngster appeal".

I have no issue with Nolan, it's just that although they may not be the best, for me they're thought-provoking.

The only movie director that I despise completely is Uwe Boll (whatever, he sounds like a goat, and eats like one on the grass).