The Hot Blog

Is Bill Murray gonna be there?

Also, incest jokes are funny.

No bears allowed!

an internet film guy making a tasteless comment equating a film to incest...

jesus. could he any more predictable?

im not even offended by the comment. i'm offended by the consistent lack of originality.

It's like that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry gets upset that Tim Watley has converted to Judiasm for the jokes.

"Are you offended as a Jew?"

"No, i'm offended as a comedian"

This is Devin. He works for CHUD. Chud are in the business of FREAKIN SHOE-HORNING IN ANY HORRIBLY AND LACK OF HUMOUR HAVING REFERENCE into their website. Thus explaining why Smith being there classied that joint up!

This is a tough room.

I thought it was interesting because it was an ugly joke in the middle of a promotional event. But instead... knives for Devin.

Oh well...

It wasn't just a slight against Devin, Dave.

More of a comment on the unoriginal fanboy headlines you read on a lot of websites that reference sodomy, incest, rape, and general mysoginy and pass it off as "wit".

It's so lazy, 10,000 raging fanboys do it every day on forums and talkbacks. It's an almost instant indicator of a complete lack of talent.

You want to know why so many websites have trouble being taken seriously?

Because real film critics/reporters wouldn't use "anal rape" as an adjective.

Ha ha, fat nerds at Comic Con...wish I were there, it sounds so fun!

Doesn't surprise me that dude's from CHUD. Everyone over there is pretty assured at how hilarious they are. Say what you will about AICN, but I prefer a sometimes dumb enthusiasm over smarmy unfunny humor. They don't have anyone who can touch McWeeney or Vern.

Hey, I said "touch!" Throw in a joke about Jan de Bont being a rapist and I could be an internet humor writer!

[gives Perm the appropriate]: HIYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOO!!!

I am also with anghus on this: give me the freakin scoop without the disgusting subtext. It's not like the guys at CHUD suck at being entertaining writers, but their sense of humour is atrocious. It's beyond juvenile. It's simple simply lame. A classy website does not need lame humour and gawdy humour.

So out come the knives, when you drop lame humour. This is how it goes. Now enjoy the show!

Yeah, that made very little sense, and I apologize for it. These things happen without a lot of sleep... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Kristen Stewart is apparently there for "Twilight"?

I like her.

shit, now that made me laugh

Anybody read that rant from Devin hating on people who see TDK multiple times? He says they should be seeing indies or fucking. Someone who writes for a site named Chud should not be calling out nerds.

Sloan: he simply does not GET IT again. While he gave the flick an 8.5. He did end the review by stating the Spidey has two better films, which is now utterly ponderous.

So Devin is getting his hate on with another Nolan and Co. Batman movie. If there is a third. He will hate the third and damn it with faint praise.

Nevertheless... he's a pisser.

No, I half-agree with him that Spider-Man 2 is better than TDK.

I'm also still tired of this 'If you didn't love it as much as someone did, you HATED it' routine.

There is no Marvel movie that even comes close to The Dark Knight. Thus explaining why you OBVIOUSLY do not LIKE something as MUCH AS ME or most people these days.

That's the thing, Jeff, it has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with a preceived lack of honesty. If you feel a movie this great, this grand, and this BETTER than every other comic book movie ever made is lesser than a movie with a "RAIN DROPS KEEP FALLING ON MY HEAD" montage.

Well... ain't that grand for you, but it reads like a bunch of lies to me. You are either down or you are not. That's how it works. Do not complain about it... embrace it.

So you're saying (a) that The Dark Knight is, on an objective level, discernible by some scientific method, 'better' 'great' and 'grand', and (b) I instinctively recognize it but, for reasons of my own, am lying to you by saying that it's only very good and quite well-accomplished...?

IOI, would you care to confirm or perhaps modulate these thoughts?

What reason would I possibly have to lie to you about some movie that I know is 'grand', as if it was the same as knowing that water is made of H20 and saying that it was actually NH3 for some strange reason.

Neither Spidey (let's pretend 3 didn't happen) is as good as TDK. Of course, I thought that before I ever saw TDK because I think the Spidey flicks are vastly overrated. I'll take BB over Spidey, too.

IO, I'm a big booster for the Dark Knight and all things Batman. I saw Spiderman 2 one time and that was enough...it was entertaining but that's about it for me. Dark Knight was brilliant.

Having said THAT, saying anyone who didn't love Dark Knight as being dishonest is very strange. Different tastes and all that, man. Live it. Love it. My girlfriend loved the new Indiana Jones. What can you do?

I just checked out that article on CHUD, I guess that's the same dork from the video above. He has a point though. Who in their right mind would see the same movie five times in a theater in one weekend? One time I saw the same movie twice in a weekend because I saw it Friday and a girl wanted to see it the next night, and luckily the movie was awesome enough to do that and not care (Kill Bill, by the way). So I could even see twice, if you liked it. But fans already had tickets for three or four shows BEFORE it opened, so what if they hated it?

Although I looked a little at the forums...dear Jesus God what a bunch of smarmy tools. But it is interesting how seeing a movie many times over on DVD is okay, while seeing it many times in a theater isn't. Of course they'll try to cut off discussion by saying something like "you must be stupid" but really...why watch The Thing 30 times on DVD when you could still be seeing other movies, or reading or whatever which was the point of the article?

Spider-Man 2 is pure cinema pretending to be a geek movie.

The Dark Knight is a geek movie pretending to be pure cinema.

God grant you all the serenity to know the difference.

CALL FORTH THE DREW!

"So you're saying (a) that The Dark Knight is, on an objective level, discernible by some scientific method, 'better' 'great' and 'grand'"

It's not just me. It's a lot of people. Comparing those Spidey films to the Dark Knight is really like comparing apples and oranges. Crow can be whatever the hell Crow is, but one is clearly on another level. May someone grant you the serenity to figure that one out.

", and (b) I instinctively recognize it but, for reasons of my own, am lying to you by saying that it's only very good and quite well-accomplished...?"

It comes across to me like you are damning it with faint praise. I did come up with this last night before heading to be, because I figured you would respond in the way that you did Jeff.

So here's a bit better explanation: I am not a fan of nit-picking. I think it's trite, it lacks imagination, and that there's always an answer to almost any criticism anyone ever has about anything.

This sort of means that everything is all or nothing with me. I either totally get it and embrace or not. Which leads to me getting a bit heated when others are click to nit-pick at something that means something to me like they would pick at a turkey leg. It just sets me off.

This has been a slight explanation of my psyche. Turn in next week, when we discuss the Boomstick Edition of Army of Darkness.

Nitpicking sucks and seems to be the internet pastime of choice, but there's also a point where you can look at something and see flaws or not. If you only go for a "sucks" or "awesome" approach, then trying to have a reasonable discussion about anything is pointless.

Aren't there any movies that you think are just "okay," or "reasonably good," or "not that great?"

"Spider-Man 2 is pure cinema pretending to be a geek movie."

True dat.

IOI, I think the whole point of discussion is to whittle down distinctions. I think I would be lying if I said 'The Dark Knight is a perfect movie', which is apparently your position (please correct me if I'm wrong - really, I'd like an unambiguous position on this - perfect or is there a single, tiny flaw in it that you can discern?) and I think it's a lot more interesting to talk about a movie and say, "this was good because of xxx, and that was bad because of yyy, but then it was redeemed by zzz" like Hebrew scholars digging over the Torah.

Jeff: I simply find nitpicking lazy. There's always an answer. So the lack of finding an answer sort of bugs me.

Also, it is the perfect movie for me. It's everything that I always wanted in a Batman movie, and never thought I would see. I am in awe of this flick. It's that grand.

So we disagree, but look at us being civil! WOO HOO!

Okay, but there's a difference between 'nitpicking' and actually discussing flaws and places where an artistic vision may have had a blind spot.

But since you find the movie 'perfect' there's absolutely no point in discussing it. The question is, is it 'perfect for you' or is it 'perfect for everyone'?

I also don't think there's such a thing as a 'perfect movie' - even a movie that's 'perfect for me' like, say, the original Dawn of the Dead, I'm happy to acknowledge has major and obvious flaws and weaknesses.

That's the thing Jeff. I am not a dude who goes looking for flaws and weakness. I have the ability to discern what the hell is going on. Thanks to a vivid imagination. So again, there is no problem without an answer.

Now drop your problems with the Dark Knight. Let me at'em!

I don't think that's true, though. I know you had problems and saw flaws in War of the Worlds, Cloverfield, and plenty of other movies.

I'll only give you one flaw in The Dark Knight for the moment: I wish they had given Maggie Gyllenhaal more to do, both for the actress and for her character's sake.

Jeff: that's not a flaw as much as it's a pet peeve of mine. Cloverfield is another one of those movies written out to make the fucking Military seem like a bunch of idiots. You know the Military? Those bright folks who are responsible for GPS, VELCRO, MICROWAVES, RADAR, and so on, are portrayed as not having the INTELLIGENCE TO USE HEAT-SEEKING MISSLES ON A MONSTER WITH BIG BLOODY BULBOUS AIRSACKS ON THE SIDE OF IT'S HEAD! THAT'S NOT A FLAW! THAT'S SIMPLY MORONIC!

War of the Worlds plays into my belief in people. It's too cynical for my taste. It also wants to have it both ways. On one hand, people band together to survive. While on the other hand, the people only want to kill for a car. It's ridiculous.

Again... these are not flaws. They are just fucking stupid. Nevertheless, I am a huge Maggie Gyllenhall fan, and she did what they paid her to do... make you give a shit about Rachel before the inevitable happens. If it were Katie Holmes in that roll. People may have applauded during that scene.

Oh yeah: this is a nit-pick. It's not a flaw.

Which?

Your Maggie Gyllenhall flaw is a nit-pick. She was paid to do what that character DESPERATELY NEED after Katie Holmes became Katie Cruise. So you are just nit-picking.

No I'm not, allow me to elaborate. The point I was making wasn't just that I would like to have seen more Maggie Gyllenhaal because I like her as an actress, but also that her role in the film felt truncated and under-developed. I didn't believe in her relationship with Dent as much as I would have liked, and I didn't really feel like she was as much of a full, autonomous character as much as I would have liked. As a result the movie felt constrained as regards her character; another word would be to say that the lack of scope or breadth given to the character is a flaw. Not a major one, but a flaw nonetheless.

Here's another one: Nolan's direction feels somewhat airless and bottled-up - somewhat overly prosaic.

By the way, your Cloverfield and WOTW arguments ("That's moronic" and "It's ridiculous") are flaws that you find in those movies. Kind of by definition.

They are not flaws to those movies. That's the thing: Cloverfield's world exist with a military unable to defeat a monster that could be seen as some reference to the inadequacy of the BUSH administration. Thus making it a METAPHOR and not a FLAW.

The problem with War of the Worlds stems from a stupid movie with a stupid premise. This is not a flaw. This is the truth.

It's a movie based around aliens being so inept and power-hungry, that they would send ships to a place MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE THAT PLACE EVOLVES! IT'S MORONIC! Is that a flaw in the movie? Nah. The writing? I could see it, but the writers decided to make it a conceit.

If you are going to bitch about conceits. You might as well bitch about every deus ex machina in the history of filmmaking. Nevertheless, your definition of flaws and my definitions of flaws come down to semantics. Again, I do not really look for them, and notice them when they are glaring.

IOI, we're not even speaking the same language. I like WOTW very much, but the stuff you're talking about are flaws. Just because something was done deliberately ('conceits', as you call them) doesn't mean they didn't proceed from a flawed conception in the minds of the writers/producers/Spielberg.

IO speaks 'binary' language...(get it? IOIOIOIOIOIO...binary...) ba dum dum. sorry, carry on arguing

Yeah, you two just don't have the same frame of reference here.

You're both watching the same game but IO is cheering on the home run and Jeff is complaining about the quarterback.

Eric: good point. I am just not a negative person. I am also a person with a vivid imagination. Who really does not go looking for a problem, because every problem has an answer.

So Jeff is negative. I am positive. So that's how it works.

I agree with Eric... noting that neither one baseball play or one football player consistently wins the game on its own.

Almost every Dark Knight rave from critics pointed out its obvious flaws. And challenged in even a small way, I believe most of the raving critics would quickly acknowledge that while Nolan pushed the comic book movie into some new territory for that genre, the film cannot start to hold up to the best dramas on any generation. Really, it's not as special a movie as Memento. But it is a special event as a comic book film, for all of its very clear flaws.

Yeha, except that I really don't think this is about 'negative' and 'positive', especially because I could come up with counter-examples where I would be cheerleading a film and IOI would be blasting it to bits.

My attitude is more about finding the precise shade of gray that every movie falls into between the polar extremes. I don't mind being called a contrarian, though (although on this particular movie I don't think I'm right in the mainstream).

You are clearly smoking. The best dramas of any generation are easily forgotten. They are generally trite, many very little once you leave the theatre, and are always the first DVDS to hit the clearance bins.

This is the problem with people like you Poland. You like to think that one kind of film is better than another kind of film, when they are all just FILMS. The fact that you put up a special space for a great film, demonstrates your own flaws as a critic, a writer of film, and a fan of film.

Seriously, this post of yours is more disgusting than anything Lex has ever posted on this blog, because it reveals who you really are as a man.

Take this for what it is, but people who value film as much as you do. Do not see Memento as being a special film once you get past the gimmick. Seriously, the Dark Knight is once in a life time flick, and the critics always see the flaws. Flaws that anyone with two-bits of sense can rip apart in two minutes.

Jeff: blasting to bits films I do not like. The ability to turn a corner works both ways, sir. The thing of it is: being a contrarian is lazy to me. It's lazy to always look for problems. It's lazy to always look at something, see the flaws, and focus on them.

If I wanted to rip the world apart. It would be easy. Ripping things apart always is, but I would rather look at them with the eyes of hope. Instead of those weird freakin eyes of negativity. WOO!!!

Oh yeah... that MEANS not MANY up there.

IOI, so we're on the same page, can you tell me what you mean by 'flaw' and what an example of ripping one apart might be?

Also, I think Memento is a better film than The Dark Knight. It's about more than its own gimmick.

Sorry, there's no need for a discussion. If you think Memento is better than the Dark Knight. We have nothing to discuss.

hey, don't knock the clearance bins! they are nectar and i'm the honey bee (i am a bit like the dad on 'everybody hates chris', tho, when it comes to buying dvds)

You know what's a flaw? Ferrari's lack of grip recently is a flaw. F1 not regulating torque controls properly to give McLaren an unfair grip advantage is a flaw. My hair's inability to take a haircut well is a biological flaw. Those are flaws to me. I do not look for reasons to hate anything in pop-culture. I keep my mind and my eyes open.

What I have learned though is: people like you simply do not understand this strategy. It confounds you that someone can be this way, but that's how I roll.

That's all well and good...but there are still plenty of movies you don't like, and I think it's a mistake to think that it's for a different set of reasons.

It's a MISTAKE to YOU. We have a different view of the world. It's obvious now that you have never quite understood my view of the world. While I am always forced -- not by you but people like you -- to deal with your view of the world.

This all means that we see things differently. I am not stating either one of us are more right or more wrong, but I have my view of the world. You have your view of the world. Implying your view of the world on mine really does not work.

Well IOI, the whole point of this, for me, is to figure out what you're talking about (your criteria and evaluative process) and what exactly this 'view of the world' of yours is - and if it exists at all. I don't think, at a base level, that the decisions you make to label something 'good' or 'bad' are really any different from the ways I, or anyone else, make those decisions.

Hey, I saw Dark Knight tonight. Why didn't anyone tell me that Tommy "Tiny" Lister is in this? Jeez. A movie with Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Eric Roberts, Anthony Michael Hall, William Fichter and Tommy "Tiny" Lister? Of course it's making millions!!!!!!

And Nicky Katt! I loved his scene(s).

Jeff: of course they are, but you keep thinking that they are not.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: