i saw The Dark Knight on imax this past Saturday night...this is easily within the 3 greatest movies that I have ever seen.
This is a very long post, but I love this movie immensely and for anyone on the fence about seeing it, to quote the Joker: "Here we go!"
Some general points about the movie that make it a masterful piece of film work...
1. This movie is DARK. It is not going to make you leave the theater feeling elated or whatever...it will make you leave the theater making you feel that that is the best $12 you have spent for a movie in the past x amount of time (for me, it was the best money i've spent on a movie in the past 8 years)
2. Action aside, (imax makes several of the sequences just awe-inspiring, indeed several sequences were shot using the imax cameras, not traditional 35mm cameras) there're many themes that are going on that actually require the summer blockbuster audience to use their intellect. Little kids will like the movie for the action (though it is dark...I have read, and agree with, that critics believe the movie is slightly border-line rated "R" as opposed to it's PG-13 rating, not for gore or the like but from extremely mature themes and the immortal performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker), but it's the teenagers and the adults that will perceive what is actually going on: Batman is deadlocked with the Joker in a psychological test of wills as much as it is physical. This is within a backdrop of a chaotic and tragic Gotham and it tells the tale of what happens when humanity, society, and individuals are confronted by evil. Unlike most movies...this isn't a happy story per se; people are fallible, just like in the real world, and there are consequences.
3. Story. The story is extremely well-written, which one would come to expect from a Nolan-directed movie. There are many twists in the plot and the end of the movie is very indicative of a certain key dialogue between certain central characters that occurs earlier in the film.
4. Dark Knight, is of course, a summer movie, and this movie has an EXTREMELY fast pace to it, literally right from the opening second all the way to the final scene fade and the credits begin. A lot of action, gadgetry, and fights/vehiclular battles/confrontations that are actually done with a minimum of cgi, as the intention was to "ground" the movie as much as possible, and the overall effect is very impressive...action scenes are "accessible" in the sense that you can really see them to be happening outside on the street.
5. Settings. The nighttime belongs to Batman, but the daytime belongs to Joker. This makes for a very nice symmetry, as opposed to Batman Begins, which had mainly night-time scenes. Also, this is the first movie in the batman franchise where he actually leaves Gotham for a bit. It makes a very interesting sequence and it's a nice rest from the pandemonium of joker's gotham.
6. Last but Definitely not least....Heath Ledger. His performance as Joker is nothing short of monumental...many critics agree that his performance easily merits an Academy Award nomination. I have to definitely agree. And let people realize this now....a role in a comic book movie is strongly believed to be ocsar-worthy. 2 years ago...that would be unbelievable.
Even when the Joker is not on screen...you can feel his presence and his influence. To be concise, the Joker does not phyiscally appear in every scene, but the Joker's character is present in nearly every single scene from start to end. Truly an epic performance...I actually walked past Heath Ledger's apartment here in downtown manhattan two days after his death, and saw the flowers, cards, photos, candles, and such . It is a huge credit to the flawless skill of Ledger that you as viewer dont see the him at all in Joker. In 1989's Batman, you knew that was Jack Nicholson playing the joker, and he was very good. But Now...the Joker has completely engulfed the actor....you don't see Heath anymore at all.
It was only after the movie was over and the credits were rolling, and I thought damn that movie was magnificent...that I reflected that the talent responsible for such a masterful performance is now gone, and I was truly sad and felt some kind of loss.
In closing...Dark Knight is now responsible for being the measuring stick against which all other comic book and superhero movies will be measured. The bar for excellence has now been permanently raised to a staggeringly high level. Iron Man was great...but Dark Knight will be remembered as something else entirely....
Movie Discussion/Reviews
Moderators: Kup, Ultra Magnus
Did anyone catch the Watchmen trailer before TDK? I can’t even describe how excited I am about this movie. For those who haven’t seen it, you can check out the trailer here, or a lower-quality version on YouTube which will load faster.
This post is going to have some major spoilers for The Dark Knight, so if you haven't seen it yet and you want to be surprised, please skip over me. Rodimus, that means you, I'm friggin' serious.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Turn away, damn it!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
...Okay.
I LOVED this movie overall. I think I was on the edge of my seat during the entire thing--there was this sort of feeling of "awe" in the theater as it was beginning and the opening titles were rolling ... such an incredible silence and ... I don't know, I guess I want to say "respect" that was in the air. I don't think I've ever been in a room with so many people before and had such absolute DEAD SILENCE--I'm talking not a single chomp of popcorn, not the slightest cough, NOTHING. It was insane. That wasn't present for any other "big" film I've seen on its opening ... not for the first Spider-Man, not for the final Star Wars, not for anything. That single feeling was epic in and of itself.
But, on to the movie.
I knew Heath Ledger wasn't going to let me down. I knew from the minute I heard his voice in one of the trailers that he was going to be awesome, and he fully lived up to my expectations. I always hear comparisons to Nicholson's Joker ... Overlord, I think you made an excellent point on that. I also think that, for his time, Nicholson was fine, but Ledger really made the Joker his own. There are so many little details about his character that I could comment on, but that'll make this post even longer than it's already going to be, so I'm trying not to prattle on too much about him; suffice it to say he will be sorely, sorely missed.
However, as fantastic as Ledger was, I have to say, I think Aaron Eckhart completely stole the show. He was So. Damn. Good. If I have any one complaint about his Two-Face, it's that I think the CGI was a little over the top--being able to see his facial bone and tendons was a bit much to me. Aside from that, his acting was fantastic, and his character was written so well.
Okay, there's like a million other things floating around in my head that I loved and want to talk about, but this is already very long, and I need to get to the b*tching, lol.
There was one aspect of this movie that forces me to take it down from its pedastal, and that aspect is this: its blatant, disgusting fridging of its female characters. There are three main female characters in this movie. Let's explore what happens to them:
1.) Rachael. I wasn't a fan of Rachael to begin with, but Rachael gets blown the eff up. And to what end? Why, to further drive Batman and Harvey Dent, of course! Because really, they just weren't motivated enough. I think they needed a little push with some personal tragedy ... not that, hey, you know, Bruce's parents weren't already killed or anything.
I'm not against characters dying, be they male or female, but this death was clearly and simply a plot device for the sake of Bruce and Harvey, and that makes me want to pull my hair out.
2.) Ramirez (the policewoman). Turns out to be the traitor, gets the axe. She subtley gets characterized in this movie as being a strong cop throughout, but they couldn't have just let us have that, could they? And the excuse they use for why she did it is such a cop-out. Of all the people on that police force, the one, single woman had to be the bad guy in the end. Tell me why the %#&@ it couldn't have been one of the other men. I am so, so angered by this, it's unbelievable.
3.) Barbara Gordon. That poor woman was such a toy to everyone, from her husband to Two-Face. But I need to digress and say this: I heard the name "Barbara" and my heart kind of did a jump, thinking it'd be the future Batgirl, but it wasn't--it was Jim Gordon's wife instead. Okay, fair enough. I know all about how Chris Nolan is against any “sidekicks” in the Batman movies, so by no means am I expecting to see the actual emergence of Batgirl. I just was hoping for a nod, no matter how small, to Babs. Instead, we find out that Jim Gordon does indeed have a boy and a girl, and yet, do you remember even seeing the girl’s face at all? She’s literally faceless. The only shots you see are of the back of her head as her mother clutches her into her chest while they’re being threatened. And to top it all off, Jim’s SON is the one who becomes the central focus, the golden child, the little potential Batboy, when he doesn’t even EXIST in the comics! WHAT??? Why the hell couldn’t that have been his daughter? What is with this borderline misogyny? I really feel like they were just purposely trying to shove this in the face of comic fans who follow Batgirl/Oracle.
So, that’s my big complaint. That’s what ruined an otherwise spotless movie for me, and it’s just unfortunate. What makes it even worse is the fact that I’ve not read of a single critic who even caught on to any of this, because everyone’s too busy fellating the movie.
This post is going to have some major spoilers for The Dark Knight, so if you haven't seen it yet and you want to be surprised, please skip over me. Rodimus, that means you, I'm friggin' serious.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Turn away, damn it!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
...Okay.
I LOVED this movie overall. I think I was on the edge of my seat during the entire thing--there was this sort of feeling of "awe" in the theater as it was beginning and the opening titles were rolling ... such an incredible silence and ... I don't know, I guess I want to say "respect" that was in the air. I don't think I've ever been in a room with so many people before and had such absolute DEAD SILENCE--I'm talking not a single chomp of popcorn, not the slightest cough, NOTHING. It was insane. That wasn't present for any other "big" film I've seen on its opening ... not for the first Spider-Man, not for the final Star Wars, not for anything. That single feeling was epic in and of itself.
But, on to the movie.
I knew Heath Ledger wasn't going to let me down. I knew from the minute I heard his voice in one of the trailers that he was going to be awesome, and he fully lived up to my expectations. I always hear comparisons to Nicholson's Joker ... Overlord, I think you made an excellent point on that. I also think that, for his time, Nicholson was fine, but Ledger really made the Joker his own. There are so many little details about his character that I could comment on, but that'll make this post even longer than it's already going to be, so I'm trying not to prattle on too much about him; suffice it to say he will be sorely, sorely missed.
However, as fantastic as Ledger was, I have to say, I think Aaron Eckhart completely stole the show. He was So. Damn. Good. If I have any one complaint about his Two-Face, it's that I think the CGI was a little over the top--being able to see his facial bone and tendons was a bit much to me. Aside from that, his acting was fantastic, and his character was written so well.
Okay, there's like a million other things floating around in my head that I loved and want to talk about, but this is already very long, and I need to get to the b*tching, lol.
There was one aspect of this movie that forces me to take it down from its pedastal, and that aspect is this: its blatant, disgusting fridging of its female characters. There are three main female characters in this movie. Let's explore what happens to them:
1.) Rachael. I wasn't a fan of Rachael to begin with, but Rachael gets blown the eff up. And to what end? Why, to further drive Batman and Harvey Dent, of course! Because really, they just weren't motivated enough. I think they needed a little push with some personal tragedy ... not that, hey, you know, Bruce's parents weren't already killed or anything.
I'm not against characters dying, be they male or female, but this death was clearly and simply a plot device for the sake of Bruce and Harvey, and that makes me want to pull my hair out.2.) Ramirez (the policewoman). Turns out to be the traitor, gets the axe. She subtley gets characterized in this movie as being a strong cop throughout, but they couldn't have just let us have that, could they? And the excuse they use for why she did it is such a cop-out. Of all the people on that police force, the one, single woman had to be the bad guy in the end. Tell me why the %#&@ it couldn't have been one of the other men. I am so, so angered by this, it's unbelievable.
3.) Barbara Gordon. That poor woman was such a toy to everyone, from her husband to Two-Face. But I need to digress and say this: I heard the name "Barbara" and my heart kind of did a jump, thinking it'd be the future Batgirl, but it wasn't--it was Jim Gordon's wife instead. Okay, fair enough. I know all about how Chris Nolan is against any “sidekicks” in the Batman movies, so by no means am I expecting to see the actual emergence of Batgirl. I just was hoping for a nod, no matter how small, to Babs. Instead, we find out that Jim Gordon does indeed have a boy and a girl, and yet, do you remember even seeing the girl’s face at all? She’s literally faceless. The only shots you see are of the back of her head as her mother clutches her into her chest while they’re being threatened. And to top it all off, Jim’s SON is the one who becomes the central focus, the golden child, the little potential Batboy, when he doesn’t even EXIST in the comics! WHAT??? Why the hell couldn’t that have been his daughter? What is with this borderline misogyny? I really feel like they were just purposely trying to shove this in the face of comic fans who follow Batgirl/Oracle.
So, that’s my big complaint. That’s what ruined an otherwise spotless movie for me, and it’s just unfortunate. What makes it even worse is the fact that I’ve not read of a single critic who even caught on to any of this, because everyone’s too busy fellating the movie.
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
none
damn it havent seen it yet
Re: none
dude, i've rounded up 7 people to see the movie 1230 am sunday night/monday morning...and I just discovered tonight that 4 of them have seen it already, tonight, and they are all the more determined to see it again sunday on the imax screen.ghostinthemachine wrote:damn it havent seen it yet
Ah yeah I saw the Watchmen trailer...the comics are one of the better comics to be made in a really long time...have you read them Arcee?Arcee wrote:Did anyone catch the Watchmen trailer before TDK? I can’t even describe how excited I am about this movie. For those who haven’t seen it, you can check out the trailer here, or a lower-quality version on YouTube which will load faster.
This post is going to have some major spoilers for The Dark Knight, so if you haven't seen it yet and you want to be surprised, please skip over me. Rodimus, that means you, I'm friggin' serious.
*
*
*
*
*
*
So, that’s my big complaint. That’s what ruined an otherwise spotless movie for me, and it’s just unfortunate. What makes it even worse is the fact that I’ve not read of a single critic who even caught on to any of this, because everyone’s too busy fellating the movie.
i'd like to discuss your big disappointments, so, spoilers now!!!!
Highlight to read!
Rachael...I have to admit, you raised a very valid point. However, some small detail I had missed, and that my friend brought up, may change your view somewhat. So here it is:
In the police precinct, Joker tells batman the addresses and locations for Harvey and Rachael. Key detail though....Batman tells Gordon and the others he's going after Rachael, and that the Gordon and the others get Harvey.
But when Batman arrives, it's actually Harvey Dent at the address, and not Rachel as Joker made it seem. The scene moved very quickly and it's never really overtly explained, but after discussing with my buddy I think what happened was a completely masterful manipulation by the Joker.
1. He told Batman where Harvey and Rachael are, but the addresses were mixed up: Harvey's "address" was actually where Rachael was, Rachael's "address" was actually where Harvey was. Joker knew, from previous encounter with Batman, that he cares for Rachael. So what does he do? He mix-matches the addresses, and sends Batman to rescue Dent (Batman believes he's racing to Rachael) while Gordon and the others are too slow to get to "harvey" (which is actually where Rachael really is). Obviously, Joker knew Batman would get to either one of them before Gordon-whomever Batman got to first, would be saved.
2. But then why would Joker want Rachael dead? As you said, it serves as added motivation for the characters, etc. But when I spoke with my friend, I recalled how at the final dialogue between Joker and Batman, Joker proclaimed to batman that Dent was the "ace" up his sleeve. Meaning, from the very beginning, Joker intended to turn Gotham's White Knight into a maniacal freak...bring down Gotham's best to Joker's own level. That goes straight along with Joker's conversation with Harvey about "turning the world upside down" and proving that society rules and preconceptions are all a farce.
3. So in summary, in my interpretation reached in conclusion with talking with my buddy...Rachael was used by the Joker to perform his ultimate manipulation...to ensure the corruption of the most "gallant" figure in Gotham.
So, Joker manipulates Batman into rescuing Harvey, when Batman was intending to rescue rachael. Rachael dies, Harvey is destroyed, and Two-Face emerges in his place. The Joker's victory is complete and his goals are met, as he has turned Gotham's finest, and has simultaneously wounded Batman more seriously than he has ever been before. I agree it is somewhat of a plot device, but I think it's somewhat effective: Batman is looking to put down his mantle, but in such an epic battle against Joker, not only has Batman's most powerful and devoted ally (Dent) been destroyed, but also his emotional hope (hoping that he and Rachael would finally have a chance) is now permanently gone as well. When we see batman still in costume, exhausted from the ordeal and weeping, I as a viewer felt tremendously sympathetic for batman, as he really is portrayed as a tragic person. Insofar as that is concerned, I believe Rachael's death was a plot device as you said, but i think it's more towards making the audience realize that Batman has almost nothing, thanks to the villainy that is inherent in Gotham (death of his parents, death of Rachael, only has Alfred, and his wealth), yet he, and he alone, is destined to battle forces like the Joker "forever" (as joker says). With rachael gone that is all the more poignant and basically, depressing.
Again, that is just my interpretation reached in conjunction with my friend...since nothing was overtly said, but that small dialogue that Batman mentions to Gordon is indeed there...and when he arrives, it's not as he thought it would be.
the other gripes...I agree with you. They needed someone sort of "sympathetic" and they picked ramirez...and barbara gordon, well...she's lucky she's still alive. But you are right there are few critics if any to have picked up on this, and I'll be straight up and say I didn't pick up on it until reading your post, and in retrospect, it is indeed there. Perhaps they may make it up if the rumored Catwoman appearance for Batman 3 is true?
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
movies
we just got the cybertron dvd box set in at work last night also
I'm actually in the middle of it right now. I've read some of Alan Moore's other stuff which I have loved, and I only finally got around to cracking Watchmen open a couple of weeks ago. It's really engaging so far ... the momentum is building, and I am dying.Overlord wrote:Ah yeah I saw the Watchmen trailer...the comics are one of the better comics to be made in a really long time...have you read them Arcee?
I can't seem to get the white text to show through for some reason, so here's another big SPOILER WARNING:
*
*
*
*
*
*
See, I think they really nailed the Joker in the way they wrote him--his switching the addresses ... like you, it took me a minute to realize what had actually happened. But that's straight-out-of-the-comics Joker, which is why I'm not in a rage over what he did, just over what happened in the film overall in terms of the female characters.So, Joker manipulates Batman into rescuing Harvey, when Batman was intending to rescue rachael. Rachael dies, Harvey is destroyed, and Two-Face emerges in his place. The Joker's victory is complete and his goals are met, as he has turned Gotham's finest, and has simultaneously wounded Batman more seriously than he has ever been before.
Their intentions for the end result is all well and good, and like I said, as bad as this sounds, a part of me was actually relieved, because I really didn't care for Rachael at all. But if they were going to do that, then I don't see why they couldn't have made up for her death by making another character strong--i.e., Ramirez, who was the perfect candidate.Insofar as that is concerned, I believe Rachael's death was a plot device as you said, but i think it's more towards making the audience realize that Batman has almost nothing
Oh, and you know what else I found out? Not only is Jim Gordon's daughter faceless, but she's nameless as well. Someone posted on another board that they don't even give her a name in the credits. I keep trying to find a full listing online to see if this is true, but I can't seem to locate one.
I'd heard there was supposedly meant to be a reference to "Selina Kyle" at the end of this film, but that clearly didn't happen. I haven't heard any rumors about her for the third, but that would be pretty cool.Perhaps they may make it up if the rumored Catwoman appearance for Batman 3 is true?
-
S0und_wave
- Decepticon Communications Officer
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 5:35 pm
- Location: New York
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
none
antman 2010
avengers 2011
blackhole 2008
captain america the first avenger 2011
deathlok 2008
the flash 2010
green lantern 2010
iron man 2 2010
madman 2009
magneto 2009
nick fury 2010
punisher war zone 2008
shazam 2008
spiderman 4 2011
superman the man of steel 2011
thor 2009
transformers 2 2009
watchman 2009
white out 2008
the witchblade 2009
wolverine 2009
wonderwoman 2009
avengers 2011
blackhole 2008
captain america the first avenger 2011
deathlok 2008
the flash 2010
green lantern 2010
iron man 2 2010
madman 2009
magneto 2009
nick fury 2010
punisher war zone 2008
shazam 2008
spiderman 4 2011
superman the man of steel 2011
thor 2009
transformers 2 2009
watchman 2009
white out 2008
the witchblade 2009
wolverine 2009
wonderwoman 2009
Last edited by ghostinthemachine on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
movie list
thanks i had it wrote down and forgot to add it
has anyone seen Jumper, National Treasure 2, stranger than fiction, i just watched all three of them and thought they were great
has anyone seen Jumper, National Treasure 2, stranger than fiction, i just watched all three of them and thought they were great
Saw "The X-Files: I Want to Believe" and I want to recommend this movie, but I can't. I loved the show (before David left) and was really looking forward to the movie, but it was very disappointing.
I don't want to give anything away but here are my complaints:
- Plot moves very slow and would work better on the small screen (you really expect something bigger from a movie)
- Also, plot not very X-File-ish, it felt more like "Silence of the Lambs" meets "The X-Files"
- Scully too tied up in a B-story and not very involved with main plot, which impacts the Mulder-Scully chemistry
- Gruesome (for the X-Files) without being too graphic (my wife actually headed out to the lobby near the end because she couldn't take it any more)
I left the theater wondering why they even bothered making such a movie. I liked the fact that it didn't tie into the (at times tedious) mythology of the series, but there are many "monster of the week" episodes of the series that were far better than this movie.
If anyone else has seen the movie, I'd love to hear what you think.
I don't want to give anything away but here are my complaints:
- Plot moves very slow and would work better on the small screen (you really expect something bigger from a movie)
- Also, plot not very X-File-ish, it felt more like "Silence of the Lambs" meets "The X-Files"
- Scully too tied up in a B-story and not very involved with main plot, which impacts the Mulder-Scully chemistry
- Gruesome (for the X-Files) without being too graphic (my wife actually headed out to the lobby near the end because she couldn't take it any more)
I left the theater wondering why they even bothered making such a movie. I liked the fact that it didn't tie into the (at times tedious) mythology of the series, but there are many "monster of the week" episodes of the series that were far better than this movie.
If anyone else has seen the movie, I'd love to hear what you think.
Re: movies
I saw Stranger than Fiction a while ago and loved it. I know a lot of people didn't care for it, but the whole situation surrounding the author is what really appealed to me.ghostinthemachine wrote:has anyone seen Jumper, National Treasure 2, stranger than fiction, i just watched all three of them and thought they were great
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
movies
i agree im not a big fan of will farrell but it was a great movie
-
Cliffjumper
- Cybertronian Cowboy
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:50 am
- Location: Canberra Australia
Seen jumper too it was ok not gonna get to excited though good idea but just didnt do it good enough I think
-
Commander Megatron
- Custom Rank 4 U! Ask an Admin!
- Posts: 8745
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: Kolkular
-
ghostinthemachine
- Aerial Supreme Commander
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am
none
British gymnast is new Tomb Raider
By Mike Smith
ADVERTISEMENT
Move over, Angelina Jolie. There's a new Lara Croft in town, and she's a 23-year-old gymnast from South London, Tomb Raider publisher Eidos announced this week.
Ever since actress Rhonda Mitra first took on the role of Tomb Raider heroine Lara Croft in 1997, Eidos has sought real-life counterparts for its acrobatic archaeologist heroine, and they've helped propel the video game series to worldwide sales topping 32 million. Up until now the British publisher's picks have tended to be models or, like Jolie, movie stars, but Alison Carroll might just be the first Croft to have the physical abilities to do her famously acrobatic opposite number justice.
ALISON CARROL AS LARA CROFT
Carroll boasts 12 years of gymnastics training and numerous honors representing Great Britain in sporting displays. Although her Lara role won't involve any movie work, she'll still be kept sufficiently busy traveling the world promoting the latest Tomb Raider game, Underworld, to allow her to quit her day job -- as a receptionist.
"It's unbelievable how realistic [Lara's] movements are in Tomb Raider: Underworld and it's so gratifying to be able to use my years of gymnastic training to portray such a beloved character," Carroll said in a press release.
Although Carroll's more than able to match Croft kick for kick, she's still undergoing a training regime that includes weapons classes in Eastern Europe, survival technique instruction from British SAS troops, and -- naturally -- a crash course in archaeology.
By Mike Smith
ADVERTISEMENT
Move over, Angelina Jolie. There's a new Lara Croft in town, and she's a 23-year-old gymnast from South London, Tomb Raider publisher Eidos announced this week.
Ever since actress Rhonda Mitra first took on the role of Tomb Raider heroine Lara Croft in 1997, Eidos has sought real-life counterparts for its acrobatic archaeologist heroine, and they've helped propel the video game series to worldwide sales topping 32 million. Up until now the British publisher's picks have tended to be models or, like Jolie, movie stars, but Alison Carroll might just be the first Croft to have the physical abilities to do her famously acrobatic opposite number justice.
ALISON CARROL AS LARA CROFT
Carroll boasts 12 years of gymnastics training and numerous honors representing Great Britain in sporting displays. Although her Lara role won't involve any movie work, she'll still be kept sufficiently busy traveling the world promoting the latest Tomb Raider game, Underworld, to allow her to quit her day job -- as a receptionist.
"It's unbelievable how realistic [Lara's] movements are in Tomb Raider: Underworld and it's so gratifying to be able to use my years of gymnastic training to portray such a beloved character," Carroll said in a press release.
Although Carroll's more than able to match Croft kick for kick, she's still undergoing a training regime that includes weapons classes in Eastern Europe, survival technique instruction from British SAS troops, and -- naturally -- a crash course in archaeology.
Wes and I *loved* The Dark Knight! It is the best money that we've spent on a movie in a good long while. I loved the Joker!
Why so serious?
Well its been awhile since I bought it but since no one has said anything about this movie I decided to give my two cents worth about the newest George Romero film "Diary Of The Dead". I don't know if it was released here in American theatres or not but I believe it saw screen in Canada.
You may know George's earliest works Night Of The Living Dead (1968), Dawn Of The Dead (1978), Day Of The Dead (1985), Night Of The Living Dead (Re-Make 1990 directed by Tom Savini), Land of the Dead (2005). Each one of his movies are a melding of horror with just a bit of social satire based on the events of the day.
The latest in the Dead movie line is Diary Of The Dead an irreverent poke at current society being so communications based and how powerful the media has become...even to the point in which it can take truths and spin them to suit their audience or controllers. He also tosses in the fact that the government shouldn't be relied on to come save the day so faithfully nor should you completely trust the people that serve that institution.
This is a venture that yet again went into his independent film maker's roots. He's always had to beg and borrow for his Dead movies pretty much except for "Land". Not having a studio's wallet to back him this go around didn't leave George much play for effects but when he doesn't have studio influence he can usually make a grittier movie with no compromises.
I digress.....
Most of George's "Dead" movies begin when people know of the dead menace and have come to grips with its existence and are trying to find a way to deal wth it.
This movie begins at the very beginning of the zombie plague when not many people have become walking dead and small isolated incidents of the phenonenon are viewd as hoaxes instead of truth.
At the very beginning of the movie we see something George has never shown anyone in any of his other flims. The first zombie attack. No reason is given for the outbreak but this is pretty monumental for one of his movies.
A news reporter and her crew are at the scene of a double homicide/suicide. As they are filming the cameraman tapes footage of all of the victims rising attacking ambulance service attendants as well as law enforcement en-masse. Law enforcement has no idea how to handle the situation. As human nature dictates the police begin firing wildly and harm bystanders including the reporter with no damage being done to the zombies.
It isn't until an officer hits the zombie in the legendary place does go down and stay down.
The cameraman who is helpless witness to all of this takes the entire incident to his employers and later uploads the entire happenings on the internet.
The movie then cuts to the spotlit characters in the movie.
All of them are film students and their professor who of all things are in the middle of the woods making a mummy horror film as a class project when news of the living dead outbreak are beginning to air.
Of course no one believes the reports of the dead walking at first and the authorities assures everyone that the problem will be easily dealt with...within a day at the most and not to worry.
The film students learn otherwise and the leader of the group the student whose project is to make the movie begind filming everything that heppens to them in their travels to go home, find help and eventually just to survive.
As time quickly wears on the small group discovers that the reports of everything being under control were grossly exaggerated. After losing a couple of friends in a hospital and Amish country which has a hilarious scene utilizing dynamite, the group finds an underground cell of survivors in a small town in upstate Pennsylvania.
While getting supplies from the group the film students see the incident the cameraman uploaded to the internet on television. The students see that the media has adulterated and spun the footage to seem as if the police and government have the situation under control which is far from the truth.
It is evident from what the kids have seen just by trying to get to some sort of shelter....they've seen the tip of the iceberg as to how bad the situation will eventually get.
And it does..........
Needless to say this is not a movie for small children.
As a Romero fan I felt obligated to buy this movie when it came out. I hate to say it but this movie wasn't his best one. Now when I say that the movie was okay.....but it just doesn't have the zing of Dawn Of The Dead but...who could top that? Anyway maybe I am being a bit harsh Romero films are kind of like Thundercats, Transformers and pizza - even when its bad its still pretty good. There aren't many DVD extras to speak of either.
One of the best movies I have ever seen based on a George Romero flick is Zach Snyder's 2004 Dawn Of The Dead. I thought it was going to be terrible and take the original Dawn's premise and stomp all over it but I was pleasantly surprised when Snyder took George's world and turned it on its ear with a tangent. I wouldn't even dare call it a re-make its a darn good movie that stands all on its own. In fact it has the intestinal fortitude that I wish "Diary Of The Dead" didn't have.
Why so serious?
Well its been awhile since I bought it but since no one has said anything about this movie I decided to give my two cents worth about the newest George Romero film "Diary Of The Dead". I don't know if it was released here in American theatres or not but I believe it saw screen in Canada.
You may know George's earliest works Night Of The Living Dead (1968), Dawn Of The Dead (1978), Day Of The Dead (1985), Night Of The Living Dead (Re-Make 1990 directed by Tom Savini), Land of the Dead (2005). Each one of his movies are a melding of horror with just a bit of social satire based on the events of the day.
The latest in the Dead movie line is Diary Of The Dead an irreverent poke at current society being so communications based and how powerful the media has become...even to the point in which it can take truths and spin them to suit their audience or controllers. He also tosses in the fact that the government shouldn't be relied on to come save the day so faithfully nor should you completely trust the people that serve that institution.
This is a venture that yet again went into his independent film maker's roots. He's always had to beg and borrow for his Dead movies pretty much except for "Land". Not having a studio's wallet to back him this go around didn't leave George much play for effects but when he doesn't have studio influence he can usually make a grittier movie with no compromises.
I digress.....
Most of George's "Dead" movies begin when people know of the dead menace and have come to grips with its existence and are trying to find a way to deal wth it.
This movie begins at the very beginning of the zombie plague when not many people have become walking dead and small isolated incidents of the phenonenon are viewd as hoaxes instead of truth.
At the very beginning of the movie we see something George has never shown anyone in any of his other flims. The first zombie attack. No reason is given for the outbreak but this is pretty monumental for one of his movies.
A news reporter and her crew are at the scene of a double homicide/suicide. As they are filming the cameraman tapes footage of all of the victims rising attacking ambulance service attendants as well as law enforcement en-masse. Law enforcement has no idea how to handle the situation. As human nature dictates the police begin firing wildly and harm bystanders including the reporter with no damage being done to the zombies.
It isn't until an officer hits the zombie in the legendary place does go down and stay down.
The cameraman who is helpless witness to all of this takes the entire incident to his employers and later uploads the entire happenings on the internet.
The movie then cuts to the spotlit characters in the movie.
All of them are film students and their professor who of all things are in the middle of the woods making a mummy horror film as a class project when news of the living dead outbreak are beginning to air.
Of course no one believes the reports of the dead walking at first and the authorities assures everyone that the problem will be easily dealt with...within a day at the most and not to worry.
The film students learn otherwise and the leader of the group the student whose project is to make the movie begind filming everything that heppens to them in their travels to go home, find help and eventually just to survive.
As time quickly wears on the small group discovers that the reports of everything being under control were grossly exaggerated. After losing a couple of friends in a hospital and Amish country which has a hilarious scene utilizing dynamite, the group finds an underground cell of survivors in a small town in upstate Pennsylvania.
While getting supplies from the group the film students see the incident the cameraman uploaded to the internet on television. The students see that the media has adulterated and spun the footage to seem as if the police and government have the situation under control which is far from the truth.
It is evident from what the kids have seen just by trying to get to some sort of shelter....they've seen the tip of the iceberg as to how bad the situation will eventually get.
And it does..........
Needless to say this is not a movie for small children.
As a Romero fan I felt obligated to buy this movie when it came out. I hate to say it but this movie wasn't his best one. Now when I say that the movie was okay.....but it just doesn't have the zing of Dawn Of The Dead but...who could top that? Anyway maybe I am being a bit harsh Romero films are kind of like Thundercats, Transformers and pizza - even when its bad its still pretty good. There aren't many DVD extras to speak of either.
One of the best movies I have ever seen based on a George Romero flick is Zach Snyder's 2004 Dawn Of The Dead. I thought it was going to be terrible and take the original Dawn's premise and stomp all over it but I was pleasantly surprised when Snyder took George's world and turned it on its ear with a tangent. I wouldn't even dare call it a re-make its a darn good movie that stands all on its own. In fact it has the intestinal fortitude that I wish "Diary Of The Dead" didn't have.