MovieChat Forums > DarkKnight
DarkKnight (262)
Posts
The Warner Bros reference was cringey as hell.
JJ says Palpatine was a clone in Return of the Jedi
Palpatine was a clone according to Rise of Skywalker novelization.
Why no Razzie nominations?
Colin Trevorrow's Episode IX script leaked.
Is this gonna be PG-13?
Will the Turtle appear in the sequel?
View all posts >
Replies
I disagree. I found the film very well paced for it's runtime. It didn't feel like 3 hours at all
10/10 for me too. Easily the best Batman film since 2008 . Will be seeing it again as well.
It's at 96% on RT with 102 reviews now. Higher than The Dark Knight's 94%. Looks like we have a winner here.
95% on RT so far. So far so good.
That's actually true to an extent. Most of the film's budget goes towards the actors and director's salaries.
Very little money is actually spent on CGI and effects. That stuff probably only costs like $10-20 million or so.
Just look at Avengers Endgame for example.
The budget for that was like $300 million, but $50 million of it went towards Robert Downey's paycheck. It's just crazy how just one actor's paycheck can take up nearly a third of production costs.
Robert Downey is great as Iron Man don't get me wrong, but it wasn't a $50 million performance or anything.
A bigger budget doesn't mean a film will look better than a smaller budget film, nor does it mean it will have better action.
The Matrix 4 had a $200 million dollar budget, and it looked worse than the 1999 version which was made for $60 million.
I'm actually glad this one has a smaller budget than the others. Maybe they'll be using more practical effects instead CGI.
Not every movie needs CGI in every shot. It's the story that comes first.
RIP Sidney.
I disagree.
I though this one was much better than the last few. I give it 6/10. I really liked the new tone the film had, but it really didn't do much to change the formula of the series. I did get some minor entertainment out of it though
The production values were also better than the previous films by far. The last couple looked like sci-fichannel productions. This one looked much higher budget.
With that being said the series stopped being any good by part 3. 4 and 5 were crap, and 6 was just OK. 7-8 were even worse, so it's not like they could do any worse here.
I think Warner Bros line was taken from the real life pitch meeting for Matrix 4.
The Wachowkis really didn't want to do a fourth film, but decided to do it anyways because WB would get someone else do it regardless.
So Lana purposely made the film bad to get back at WB, which is who the line is actually directed towards.
View all replies >