lol imagine trying to watch a real movie (like one with characters and stuff) on the lincoln square imax screen

I'm pretty sure that all of the second unit footage was IMAX, so even the most minor scene transitions with an establishing shot would suddenly project in real IMAX for no more than 2 seconds...silly

The changing aspect ratio is incredibly irritating.

LOL you guys.

I just read that Christopher Nolan doesn't have a second unit (?)(!) so that dumbassery is all on him

pls explain what you're talking about

does this film literally change from having horizontal bars to not having bars in some scenes?

or is the 'screen space used' identical in all scenes, but the pov changes?

the stuff that's shot in "real IMAX" expands vertically to take full advantage of the screen

everything else has far narrower projection...no bars, its not a TV screen, but a distinctly different shape

just as dumb and distracting as it sounds

sounds awful.

i've only seen one movie at a real IMAX screen...that was, don't judge, fast five

what about the movie, sir

anne hathaway = A
everything else = B-/C+ or (5/10) or **/*****

that's horribly nasty

I imagine the dark shape will insist that all blu-rays from here on out change the aspect ratio from scene to scene

it is, after all the way to watch a movie

i can't judge the merits (again, only saw fast five on imax, which was prob. converted after the fact), but i don't know how anyone in the industry (which includes the dark shape) can swear off regular film...when they presumably are where they are today bc of regular film

If the film is shot and intended to be viewed that way? Yep.



IMAX is 70mm film.

pretty much, yeah

she adds spark and wit. she's the only lightness in the whole movie. she brings it to life every now and then. the joker brought humor and life to the last one. this movie has no such character, really, and its a big problem

everything else is so bleak and bombastic and brutish and nasty. the effect is actually oppressive; you don't watch this movie, you endure it

In summation, Matthew Modine has more screentime than Michael Caine.

Also Bane is an awful villain and a terrible role for an actor, though as punishment for This Means War, it will do. Imagine if Willem Dafoe had to wear that goofy-ass Green Goblin mask in every scene in Spider-man. That's what this was like.

Matthew Modine showing up in full ceremonial regalia for the final battle, lol.

It's some weird compulsion with Christopher Nolan, dragging out these has-beens and never-wases for random nothing roles in these movies. Like Modine, Tom Berenger, Rutger Hauer, Eric Roberts...I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering what drives him to do it. Its obvious and peculiar

Trying to be Tarantino?

But Tarantino 1) recognizes talent, and more importantly, 2) gives terrific, substantive roles to the people he digs up. Nolan drags out of the corpses of these guys for these minor and bland empty suit roles that could be played by anyone

I enjoyed seeing Ben Mendelsohn (so good and creepy in Animal Kingdom) in this, though he gets maybe the worst single line: 'You want ME to give you a COMPUTER PROGRAM which can ERASE PEOPLE'S NAMES, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, CRIMINAL RECORDS, and VERY EXISTENCE FROM THE WORLD'S DATABASES? Sounds too good to be true!' Holy clunky-introduction-of-MacGuffin, Batman.

Who played the white president? I recognized him, too.

I don't disagree. I still believe the basic impulse is the same. Tarantino just has more depth and imagination, plus a greater love for actors.

William Devane.

libs what page is your review on i wanna read it

pg 14

Libs you know I don't have the plutonium necessary to reach 1.21 gigawatts of power

All you need is a bolt of lightning. Unfortunately you never know when or where one is going to strike.