HeartlineTwist

To be fair, keep in mind that these movies came out when some of these people were 10-13 at the time. Maybe I don't understand the way the list is supposed to go, but maybe some of these people aren't retroactively deciding these movies were good, but rather that at the time, as a kid, they enjoyed them.

I also can't help but think of The Pagemaster.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but has anyone considered that Mr. Reese is hinting at the Riddler without that character actually meant to become the Riddler? That could change things.

I know it's kind of lame, but the final scene of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is awesome. I've seen that movie multiple times, and it gives me chills every single time as Barbossa comes down the steps. It's just shot so well. As for another one, I love the scene in Hook when Peter goes after Jack's game-winning homerun ball and the entire transformation into Peter Pan. The sequence is LOOOONG, and the music absolutely makes it.

I love the movie. Own it on DVD and have the soundtrack boxed set that has the Musical Recording, the Movie Recording, a Karaoke CD, and the entire movie with Audience Participation. I also got something called "The Rocky Horror Punk Rock Show" the other day, which is supposed to be punk rock bands covering the songs. Here's the deal about the remake: The executive producer is coming back. They are using the original script. They are supposedly adding new songs. And now the kicker...MTV Films is handling it...

I don't know why, but I'd really just rather not have Scarecrow back.

Already down...urgh.

I think people say Batman needs Joker in the sense that Joker is an antithesis and a mirror at the same time of everything that Batman is and stands for. He's the archnemesis that no other villain can really ever compare to.

At the moment, all the tragically hip nerds are running around screaming "this film is fucking awesome, and your opinion doesn't count if you think otherwise". Go on Rotten Tomatoes and look at the bad reviews for Dark Knight, the reviewers are receiving over 300+ comments of hatred from absolute fuckwits who have no idea of what a review is. I'd much rather have a difference in opinion than a world full of, well, Empire Magazine employees. Differences of opinion and all that, sure, but the problem is that some of the more cutting reviews against TDK on rottentomatoes are just plain BAD reviews. I'm all for difference of opinion, but if it comes across like that difference of opinion is the product of the writer just wanting to go against the grain just for the sake of doing it, it's dumb. And that's even talking about the well-thought, well-put reviews that actually justify what they're talking about. I feel part of the problem comes from the same 10/10 and 1/10 reviews on IMDB. A lot of people come out with absolutely GUSHING praise about a movie. Sometimes this number is so vast and so overwhelming with their response, people who enjoyed the movie and people who didn't enjoy the movie seem to shift their stance to directly combat those people. That's fine. Sometimes the criticisms are well founded. Other times, however, it gets to the point of nitpicking which just makes both sides look bad because one side is talking about trivial shit while the other side looks like a bunch of fanboys for trying to defend it. This battle is played out on like....every IMDB message board I've seen. Ever. An important note that Zero spent a lot of time trying to drive home, though: Top 250 doesn't necessarily mean BEST 250. I know that that is semantics, but the difference is based on the inequity between ratings and comparisons of movies, especially because there aren't any real guidelines that guide reviewers between what a 7 star and 10 star is. Some reviewers rate in comparison to other movies, some rate in comparison to movies at large, and some rate in comparison to other films like it. Zero made a good point about this. The people that rate TDK as a superhero movie are probably right in rating it a 10/10, if not just a tad overzealous. It definitely should have a 9 or 10 in relation to OTHER superhero movies. Movies at large...eh...I'll have to wait to decide that one. In summation, I'm not expecting or even desiring that everyone bows down and worships TDK as the pinnacle of movies, but if you're going to criticize it or any other movie, please try to... 1) ...do so without coming off like you're just trying to be a separatist prick who wants to go against the grain just because or in a quest for attention. A negative review CAN be done well without it seeming like the reviewer is just trying to be different. 2) ...justify your criticisms in some way. Once again, you're entitled to your opinion, but at least back them up with some reasoning. This can help to cut down on the retaliation from fanboys, etc. 3) ...be smart about what you're saying. This kind of ties back into the first one, but, for example, don't make a comment about TDK being "too dark" when that's a pretty faithful representation of the source material and a continuation of the last movie's tone. This goes back to the reviewer's credibility. Comments of this nature can make the reviewer seem ignorant, especially if they don't do what I advised in my number 2. EDIT: I completely expect transitions to occur with this list and others like it. It wouldn't be speaking too highly of Hollywood if all of our "best" movies were those made long ago. Sure, they stand the test of time, but every movie has to start taking that test somewhere. We won't know if TDK or anything else that's recent will stand the test of time, but if it does, I don't think it's some vast tragedy or failure on the part of the list or those that thinks its placement is deserved. If TDK can go 20 to 30 years and maintain that score, I'd say it deserves it. I'm sure I can find people who don't think The Godfather and Shawshank Redemption belong as high on that list as they are (note: and I'm talking about people who aren't just trying to be different). I guess that's a personal pet peeve is when people try to say that such and such will only be a fad and then go on to say things like "...and will never be a classic like the Star Wars saga or Indiana Jones, etc." A notable example would be the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Sure, the 2nd and 3rd ones weren't that great, especially in comparison to the first, but I think they're good enough to not just be a mere fad. I think the original would definitely deserve to be referenced as an eventual classic of this decade, just like several other films.

CNN's talking heads were trying to pin it on stress from being basically moved out of the limelight as the star of the movie because of Ledger's role/death...REALLY. I don't have enough facepalm to express my disgust for them talking about it.

Clearly the projector couldn't handle how awesome the movie was. Clearly. But seriously, I hope everyone in the theater was vouchered. Did they try to do anything else, like offering popcorn and such? Was it something they tried to fix?

Kind of off topic, but seeing Grindhouse in a rundown $1 theater is the way to go, especially for repeat viewings.

So...I had tickets to see this last night at midnight with my girlfriend. They're both still sitting in my wallet. She dislocated her knee on Tuesday while she was in Destin. She wanted me to still go by myself, but I refused because I promised to see it with her first. I already felt bad that we had to skip out on Indiana Jones at midnight because of miscommunication. We would have gone, but I knew the theater would be too full for her to have room to put her leg up and be comfortable. That, and the runtime for this movie is INSANE and I'm pretty sure she can't sit that long without hurting her leg. We'll see it soon, I'm sure. In the meantime, glad to hear it's as good as I had hoped and not just overhyped to hell. So, what are the odds of the Academy breaking with tradition/rules and awarding Ledger a Best Actor nom (award?) instead of Best Supporting Actor? I know the guidelines are a little weird, but they've been broken in the past, right?

Look for the bat signal and head toward the light!

This one's R-rating may help it, or it may be just another death nail in its coffin.

So much so in fact that out of everything I've seen for the film so far, there's only one moment where I can even actually say "That's Heath Ledger." It's in the most recent trailer when Joker gives out the line "And here...we...GO" It's because of the camera angle, but out of everything, that's the only time where I can "see" Heath. I know that falls more to make-up than to acting, but that's a lot better than Nicholson's Joker in my opinion. On top of that, he seems to be playing the role perfectly based on what we've seen so far. Guess we'll all find out if that holds up soon.

I completely lost interest and decided that Raw>The Mole. On top of that, the show just doesn't seem quite the same to me. It might have been my age when it was first on, but I don't remember it being so...boring...between the challenges. Maybe that's because the Celebrity Mole cast was really, REALLY fun to watch. Hrmm.

I really don't think that line is going to be the "I Drink Your Milkshake" of 2008. The movie was really enjoyable. I completely forgot that Seth McFarlane was doing the voice of the new character. That made me laugh when the credits started rolling. But (this may not be fair because I'm not familiar with the source material at all) it seemed a lot like the movie delved deeply into "HEY LOOK I ALSO DID PAN'S LABYRINTH" mode. Not that that's a bad thing, but I just don't remember that happening in the first one, especially to as great of an extent as it did. It was really good, though. Good superhero movie in the action/comedy vein of superhero movies. The inevitable third one (assuming it deals with Hellboy's destiny) is going to be REALLY interesting.

What are the guidelines for drawing a distinction between Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor? Both would be fine, but I think Ledger will probably deserve Best Actor for the movie, unless there are strange guidelines like I said.

Okay, please put up with my ignorance, seeing as how I've never played the game, but what is this supernatural stuff in the trailer? (Notably, the black winged thing that appears to be dragging someone out of a window) I had no clue that MP was like that at all. EDIT: And my undying gratitude goes to C-MIL. Thanks!

In all fairness, that scene was fake. No, I don't mean fake in the sense that it didn't happen because it's a movie, but fake as in that even IN the movie, it didn't ACTUALLY happen. It was psychological torture and nothing more.

Because it is a fake name. As for the "alternate scenes," those would only throw off people that were on set. If someone worked in post, they got to see the real ending, which WAS leaked about a week ago. Unfortunately, I don't think Desmond and Penny's story is over. I see Ben looking to get revenge for his daughter in a BIG way. I think we'll be saying bye to Penny and Des sooner than we think in a far less happy way.

I don't have a picture on hand (someone might), but in Raiders in the scene where Indy is down in the temple where the Ark was, in the background you can see some hieroglyphics and you can see a crude etching of R2 and Threepio. FOUND IT:

I thought a lot of the green screen looked terrible until I read that there were scenes that they were using old-school rear projection on, which just made me happy. Given what Spielberg has done recently with movies like Minority Report and other mammoth films with lots of special effects that have to come off correctly, I think the movie was going more for a certain "look" than looking flawless.

I know it is, and I know they want realism, and I know it's faithful, but that doesn't stop it looking like a cartoon character Whereas The Joker looks perfectly normal...? It's down to the shading, they're all going to look cartoonish, but Joker is shaded well with make-up, that Two-Face doesn't look deep enough. Might need to chop down the quote tree soon, but... At first, I thought your "cartoony" comment was sarcasm. It seems I was wrong. I don't think it looks cartoony in the slightest. I don't know how they would handle it better if they were going for a more "realistic" look.