2081 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Going somewhat off-topic, I believe Loomis thought HOSTEL was excellent.

[HildebrandRarity]

My issue is not with Harvey's exposed half face. It's more related to the fact that the ferries-at-midnight 'moral' resolution is so cliched...and written quite lazily, especially for a movie wanting to be so "adult". Only a teenager would be satisfied with such "drama"! Perhaps they should have replaced that scene with something else to flesh out the moral 'angle' because the way it is is groan-worthy and makes you roll your eyes. Same with respect to the Two Face-Gordon final confrontation. Sappy and cliched.

Things were ticking along nicely until the final 25 minutes. I could forgive the muddled and less-than-optimally lit Bat-chase sequence. If action merely serves the story then it's not a deal breaker...the narrative should save and rule the day.

But this movie aspires to be much more and so it was surprising to have to watch the last 25 minutes. The extraordinarily good effort of the first 2 hours is diluted by the above two 'resolutions' in the final 25 mins. Hence an 8.5 out of 10.

[Harmsway]

It's more related to the fact that the ferries-at-midnight 'moral' resolution is so cliched...and written quite lazily, especially for a movie wanting to be so "adult".

What would you have happen differently?

Same with respect to the Two Face-Gordon final confrontation. Sappy and cliched.

Care to elaborate? I didn't see much sappy about that scene.

[HildebrandRarity]

Same with respect to the Two Face-Gordon final confrontation. Sappy and cliched.

Care to elaborate? I didn't see much sappy about that scene.

You really want me to spoil it for those in England?

[Harmsway]

You know, there are such things as spoiler tags.

[Righty007]

You know, there are such things as spoiler tags.

IMO, we don't need to use spoiler tags. The title says this thread contains spoilers.

[Jim]

You know, there are such things as spoiler tags.

Yes, but spoiler tags are for Bond spoilers, surely, this being a Bond site rather than a Dork Knight site. Anything else is surely fair game.

Darth Vader's his father?

[Harmsway]

Well HildebrandRarity was afraid to reveal DARK KNIGHT spoiler out of courtesy. I was simply pointing out that spoiler tags are an available option for him to disclose his spoilerish thoughts.

[HildebrandRarity]

Same with respect to the Two Face-Gordon final confrontation. Sappy and cliched.

Care to elaborate? I didn't see much sappy about that scene.

You really want me to spoil it for those in England?

OK...So, as Righty says, the thread title says spoilers...so here goes.

But before I go, it seems, my dear Harmsway, that you have already made up your mind and are not interested in any constructive criticism. Once again, what follows is my opinion:

Why does Two Face want to kill Gordon's son? How is Dent's ultimate and tragic predicament any fault of Gordon's? The Joker, Batman and the mobsters had more to do with Dent losing Rachel and everything else that he held dear...not Gordon.

The answer obviously lies in the fact that Gordon is the only one in the movie who has offspring, specifically a helpless little cute blonde boy.

But that's a crap answer. And only a mindless viewer with a weakness for sappy melodrama would not question such writing and accept it as good drama.

"Please don't kill my boy...Don't...Don't kill my boy...Please". Awsome wrinting, eh?

It's the type of writing that would have me on the first plane to London and have me demanding for an audience which I obviously would not get from Mike and Babs.

Lazy, cliched, sub-par writing for a movie which up to the last 25 minutes was quite intelligent.

...and I won't even bother going into what I thought was less-than-adequate writing with respect to The Joker putting the citizens and criminals of Gotham to a good/evil test where one ferry has the opportunity to blow up the other before midnight in order to survive...or else he, The Joker, will blow them both up!

[Mister E]

Why does Two Face want to kill Gordon's son? How is Dent's ultimate and tragic predicament any fault of Gordon's? The Joker, Batman and the mobsters had more to do with Dent losing Rachel and everything else that he held dear...not Gordon.

Gordon was part of the system that Dent felt didn't do enough to stop the mobsters or the Joker. Dent wanted a personal confrontation so he kidnapped his family and left fate to decide weather who lived or who died.

"Please don't kill my boy...Don't...Don't kill my boy...Please". Awsome wrinting, eh?

Honesty, what else were you expecting him to say ? That isn't exactly memorable dialogue but nothing else would fit.

[Mister Asterix]

Why does Two Face want to kill Gordon's son? How is Dent's ultimate and tragic predicament any fault of Gordon's? The Joker, Batman and the mobsters had more to do with Dent losing Rachel and everything else that he held dear...not Gordon.

Gordon was the one who failed to save Rachel. Is that the best reason? No, but Harvey had cracked by that point. The easy way to cover this would to have had Two Face flip for it.

[Righty007]

Same with respect to the Two Face-Gordon final confrontation. Sappy and cliched.

Care to elaborate? I didn't see much sappy about that scene.

You really want me to spoil it for those in England?

OK...So, as Righty says, the thread title says spoilers...so here goes.

But before I go, it seems, my dear Harmsway, that you have already made up your mind and are not interested in any constructive criticism. Once again, what follows is my opinion:

Why does Two Face want to kill Gordon's son? How is Dent's ultimate and tragic predicament any fault of Gordon's? The Joker, Batman and the mobsters had more to do with Dent losing Rachel and everything else that he held dear...not Gordon.

The answer obviously lies in the fact that Gordon is the only one in the movie who has offspring, specifically a helpless little cute blonde boy.

But that's a crap answer. And only a mindless viewer with a weakness for sappy melodrama would not question such writing and accept it as good drama.

"Please don't kill my boy...Don't...Don't kill my boy...Please". Awsome wrinting, eh?

It's the type of writing that would have me on the first plane to London and have me demanding for an audience which I obviously would not get from Mike and Babs.

Lazy, cliched, dumb writing for a movie which up to the last 25 minutes was quite intelligent.

Dent believes Gordon and Batman are responsible for Rachel's death (Batman went to save Rachel but the rooms were switched so Dent ended up getting saved instead). Dent wants to get back at Gordon by killing his wife. Dent flips the coin and Barbara Sr. got to keep her life. He then went on to James Jr. What's doesn't make sense?

[DamnCoffee]

Well HildebrandRarity was afraid to reveal DARK KNIGHT spoiler out of courtesy. I was simply pointing out that spoiler tags are an available option for him to disclose his spoilerish thoughts.

I really do think that everyone should use spoiler tags, atleast untill the movie is released worldwide. Like you said it's common courtesy. Some people, Including myself, have visited this thread just to see how well the movie is recieved and are faced with many spoilers which could ruin ones enjoyment of the movie. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I really do wish that members would stick to spoiler tags, atleast untill the movie has gone global.

[Harmsway]

But before I go, it seems, my dear Harmsway, that you have already made up your mind and are not interested in any constructive criticism.

I've only made up my mind in the sense that it worked for me on my first two viewings. I'm open to new things brought to my attention.

Why does Two Face want to kill Gordon's son? How is Dent's ultimate and tragic predicament any fault of Gordon's?

All explained in dialogue. Two-Face sees Gordon's trust of corrupt officials that Dent wanted to prosecute as what allowed Rachel's death to occur. If Gordon hadn't trusted these cops, Rachel would never have died. Gordon allowed the one thing Dent had been trying to stomp out, and it came back to haunt them.

The Joker, Batman and the mobsters had more to do with Dent losing Rachel and everything else that he held dear...not Gordon.

And in short order, Dent has confrontations with the Joker, the mobsters, and the corrupt cops (I don't get how Batman's one of the major parties responsible, however). He then goes after Gordon.

"Please don't kill my boy...Don't...Don't kill my boy...Please". Awsome wrinting, eh?

No, but it's believable writing. I would be saying the same thing in the same situation.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think it's weak writing that a 14 to 22 year old would buy into...but it's cheap writing.

Dent logically should have killed the Joker in the hospital but that would have not been acceptable by the majority of movie goers.

Batman, from Dent's perspective, has (or should have) responsibility because he is the only character actually capable of saving Rachel...but fails.

The only reason why Dent goes after a helpless little cute blonde boy is to maximize the impact for the lowest common denominator audience...but it does not make it intelligent writing, does it?

But you wouldn't understand my standards, so i'll just drop it. I caveated it by saying it was my "opinion".

[Harmsway]

I think it's weak writing that a 14 to 22 year old would buy into...but it's cheap writing.

Care to explain why it's weak writing and address my points? I want to get inside your head, HR, but I find it hard to when you're not addressing the arguments others have brought up.

Dent logically should have killed the Joker in the hospital but that would have not been acceptable by the majority of movie goers.

He's bound to the judgment of the coin. That's a cornerstone of the character. Did that element fail to convince you?

[Mister Asterix]

"Please don't kill my boy...Don't...Don't kill my boy...Please". Awsome wrinting, eh?

No, but it's believable writing. I would be saying the same thing in the same situation.

Gordon:

Forsooth, doeseth thine not only possess half a face, but also half a heart? Would thee strip this humble knave of the only male his seed hath produced? I beg of thee, let swift mineth son from this place for perhaps he shan’t take the same misguided steps of his father. I beg of thee.

Yup, that’s better.

[HildebrandRarity]

He re-flips when it's convenient and doesnt re-flip when it jeopardises the movie for the masses.

And you'll never get inside my head.

[Harmsway]

He re-flips when it's convenient

He doesn't re-flip once in the whole film. This isn't BATMAN FOREVER.

[HildebrandRarity]

Dent believes Gordon and Batman are responsible for Rachel's death (Batman went to save Rachel but the rooms were switched so Dent ended up getting saved instead). Dent wants to get back at Gordon by killing his wife. Dent flips the coin and Barbara Sr. got to keep her life. He then went on to James Jr. What's doesn't make sense?

I know what happened but I dont buy the idea that Gordon is responsible when even Dent knows that The Joker, the mob and (perhaps) Batman ('cause he's the only one with the capability to save her) are responsibile.

He goes only after a cute, helpless little blonde boy because the writers thought it would be good "drama" for the weak-minded kids and adults watching.

They obviously connected with some of us here.

He re-flips when it's convenient

He doesn't re-flip once in the whole film. This isn't BATMAN FOREVER.

He re-flips for convenience to achieve his desired effect in the mob car. Were we watching the same movie?

[Mister Asterix]

Dent believes Gordon and Batman are responsible for Rachel's death (Batman went to save Rachel but the rooms were switched so Dent ended up getting saved instead). Dent wants to get back at Gordon by killing his wife. Dent flips the coin and Barbara Sr. got to keep her life. He then went on to James Jr. What's doesn't make sense?

I know what happened but I dont buy the idea that Gordon is responsible when even Dent knows that The Joker, the mob and (perhaps) Batman ('cause he's the only one with the capability to save her) are responsibile.

He goes only after a cute, helpless little blonde boy because the writers thought it would be good "drama" for the weak-minded kids and adults watching.

They obviously connected with some of us here.

Am I remembering wrong, or did Two Face chose the kid because he was the one that he percieved Gordon loving the most? If that was the case then it would be Gordon who was weak minded.

He re-flips for convenience to achieve his desired effect in the mob car. Were we watching the same movie?

The second flip was for the driver. And you seem to be wanting an insane man like Two Face to act rationally.

[HildebrandRarity]

He re-flips for convenience to achieve his desired effect in the mob car. Were we watching the same movie?

The second flip was for the driver. And you seem to be wanting an insane man like Two Face to act rationally.

I know it was for the driver...but he re-flips to achieved the desired effect of killing the mob boss. Is that not what I said..."he re-flips to achieve the desired effect"?

[Harmsway]

I know it was for the driver...but he re-flips to achieved the desired effect of killing the mob boss.

Yes. But it doesn't break the rule of one flip, one person. He doesn't have a similar loophole open to him later in the film.

[Blofeld's Cat]

You know, there are such things as spoiler tags.

Yes, but spoiler tags are for Bond spoilers, surely, this being a Bond site rather than a Dork Knight site. Anything else is surely fair game.

Darth Vader's his father?

Vader is Batman's father!!!???

They DO dress in similar outfits, don't they.

[Jim]

You know, there are such things as spoiler tags.

Yes, but spoiler tags are for Bond spoilers, surely, this being a Bond site rather than a Dork Knight site. Anything else is surely fair game.

Darth Vader's his father?

Vader is Batman's father!!!???

They DO dress in similar outfits, don't they.

Sssshhh - you'll expose the whole thing.

[Loomis]

Going somewhat off-topic, I believe Loomis thought HOSTEL was excellent.

I think the first one is excellent. It's clever, blackly funny and as gripping as they come, with a rollercoaster ride of a climax. It's not for the squeamish (then again, it's nowhere near as mindblowingly graphic as it's made out to be), but the true horror lies offscreen, in the sickening suspicion that, if the small business depicted in the film really existed, it would thrive thanks to plenty of outwardly "normal" customers.

The most audacious and effective move by the HOSTEL films is the central conceit that it's a slasher franchise in which Freddy Kreuger/Michael Myers/Jason Voorhees figure is actually.... any one of us, an ordinary member of the public, albeit one with a generous holiday budget and a frighteningly overdeveloped attitude of "When in Rome....".

HOSTEL: PART II, however, is a messy, smug retread that adds nothing to the original and indeed takes things away from it. Here's an example: the torture factory, a grisly little cottage industry in the first flick, is revealed as very big business indeed, and somehow this makes it seem less scary. Why? Well, chiefly because the baddies are no longer local small-timers - they've been blown up to Bond villain status, with all the attendant high camp. Thanks presumably to a larger budget and a different production designer, the factory is now a much more impressive and hi-tech establishment. In the first film, it seems understaffed; now, it's positively overmanned. This aspect of HOSTEL II, like so many others, suffers from the dead hand of excess. At least Eli Roth has, I believe, said that there will be no further entries in the franchise.

Back to Batman: given that Liam Neeson's character in BEGINS was a several-hundred (thousand?)-years-old immortal, and given all that weird nonsense involving Scarecrow and magic potions or whatever it was, I think I can put up with a guy in THE DARK KNIGHT whose facial injuries may not be precisely realistic.

[The Dove]

Um excuse me Loomis, but how did you figure that Ducat/ Ras Al Ghul was several thousand years old ? Just because in that scene at Wayne manor he refers to the League of Shadows being around during the buring of London, and the plague rats ect, doesn't mean he was there at the time... The League of Shadows is a cult that went back centuries, in no way does that mean that Liam Neeson's character was immortal...

[Loomis]

Then I have always misunderstood BATMAN BEGINS. I have seen the film five or six times and was always left with the impression that Neeson was a HIGHLANDER-style immortal. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[Jim]

Is Robin in this?

[Judo chop]

Back to Batman: given that Liam Neeson's character in BEGINS was a several-hundred (thousand?)-years-old immortal, and given all that weird nonsense involving Scarecrow and magic potions or whatever it was, I think I can put up with a guy in THE DARK KNIGHT whose facial injuries may not be precisely realistic.

Argh, Loomis. An underhanded play. Would you put up with such a guy in SCHINDLER’S LIST? Context is important and you haven’t seen TDK yet.

I always assumed Raz was just the next in line to lead the vigilante ninja group. Sort of like the Dread Pirate Roberts. No? Is he really meant to be immortal? Or is his gang only a few decades old and he just made up that nonsense about Rome?