Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
ouch thanks Debbie Downer  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew24
I bet it stays in the top 10 but some people will be overly critical and make it drop lower than it should.
|
One way to prevent people being overly critical is to make a movie that is difficult to criticize.
If Nolan wanted a masterpiece, he should've held the line on the movie's length to get rid of the choppiness that is very evident, and forced the scriptwriters to rewrite the scenes where absurdities happen. As I said, the eventual director's cut may change my mind on how good it was, but as it stands I don't think it is even the best superhero movie of this year (Iron Man was better), never mind the best movie of all time.
PS - just for example, why have barrels of explosives in the ships, why couldn't he just have attached mines to their hulls where no one could see them, and then crippled the ships by detonating a small mine on the screws to show he wasn't bluffing (instead of somehow stopping the engines by "magic")? I'll tell you why - because the writers feel the stylistic motif of the barrels is important, and the plausibility of the plot is not.
My personal opinion is that there is no reason you can't have BOTH style and substance, and that choosing one over the other is a huge negative, whichever way that you go.
PPS - I see that Nolan and his brother actually did the script. So it makes it even less forgivable, as the entire movie is his in both conception and execution.