Squaremaster316

Don't see why not.

DUD out of *****A fitting end for an absolutely atrocious series of films. Easily the most fundamentally flawed movies ever made.Detestable protagonists with the biggest Sue/Stu complex ever seen, atrocious acting from all involved, exceedingly dull atmosphere, laughable special effects, and the BIGGEST COPOUT TWIST EVER.No consequences, no growing as characters, just awful from start to finish.

An absolute career worst for everyone involved.Flat, unfunny jokes; unlikeable, poorly written characters, and a plot that goes absolutely nowhere.1/2* out of *****Hardy redeemed himself in July, perhaps Pine can do the same next year. Reese, hopefully Mud can get good distribution.

Batman Begins came out first, period.Making Batman relevant to movie goers was far more important than getting a JLA film going. Why should Batman be hampered down with numerous references to another superhero during his debut film? The film had to prove that it was capable of standing on its own two feet again without help. The first film shouldn't have to compromise itself for another film coming out over a year later.All WB had to do was make a reboot or remake of Superman and nothing would have been effected, it wouldn't even have had to reference Batman (Iron Man 1 didn't reference other superheroes)

Nothing was stopping WB from making a Superman film where he debuted shortly after Batman. It was the stupid decision to make a film that was a sequel to the two Donner films instead of making it its own beast that caused the JLA to be put on hold.

Bland, uninspired, and unfunny.Apatow's worst production ever.2/10.

Some people ask as to why a Justice League film has never been able to make it to the big screen during the previous decade. Some state that Nolan's attempts to ground Batman, not to mention his refusal to include other characters derailed any plans for that to take place. That's a load of bull. Batman Begins gave a slightly altered take on Batman, but nothing that couldn't be incorporated into a shared universe if WB wanted. They could have simply hired a new director to continue with the current franchise and blended it into other universes. No, the blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of another man who is no stranger to adapting graphic novel properties for the big screen, X-Men director, Bryan Singer. The year after Batman Begins hit theatres, Singer unleashed what he called a "love letter to Richard Donner" in a film called Superman Returns. SR was, to say the least, a problematic film. But while the poor casting choices, bizarre characterizations, lack of ideas (with a plot that basically remakes the first film), definitely hurt the quality of the film itself, the main problem was that it also marketed itself as a sequel, indicating that the events of Superman 1 and 2 DID occur. In other words, for a shared universe to be possible, WB would have to retcon the hell out of Batman Begins, if not just reboot again altogether, to incorporate the events of the first two Superman films, which occurred years before Batman came into existence. However, given the far stronger critical and audience acceptance, as indicated by the much stronger home video sales and references in pop culture, there was no way BB was budging. Personally, I have no investment in a JLA film and could care less whether or not one ever gets made, but the bottom line is that Superman Returns was far more guilty of derailing any momentum for such a film than any of Nolan's Bat films.

*****/*****Masterpiece.

When comparing Nolan's resume to Jackson's, Jackson has somewhat more stylistic range, no two films in Nolan's resume are as drastically different from each other as Brain Dead/LOTR.On the other hand, Nolan top films rival Jackson's best and has never made a film anywhere as bad/mediocre as The Lovely Bones.Their latest contributions to their respective franchises, While TDKR and TH are considered the worst of their respective franchises, TDKR still has more going for it and doesn't feel like they're stretching anything to make the film longer.Overall, Nolan's quality is more consistently good than Jackson's.

Sinister Care to discuss it further?

Avengers, easily. Very little emotional investment and the villain plot was pretty cookie cutter.Amazing Spider-Man. Lots of story issues and an unlikeable protagonist. Gwen Stacy was the only good thing about it for me.Hotel Transylvania. Watchable, but not one of the better animated films this year.Cabin in the Woods: clever twists but with stock characters who are mostly unlikeable.

WB better hope this performs well overall. They really need a new tentpole franchise with Potter ending last year and the Dark Knight Trilogy wrapping up.This year in particular wasn't that great for them, Outside of The Dark Knight Rises, nothing even broke 120M domestic or 330M WW, with numerous big budget flops such as Dark Shadows and Wrath of the Titans and only a few successful low budget films such as Magic Mike and Argo, they haven't been a very stable year for them. Let's see if Peter Jackson's next trilogy hope Man of Steel helps them stay in the game.

Yes and double yes.Not only should the rules be enforced more often, they should be much stricter.Bold font should be deactivated and words in all caps should be limited to 10% of the total number of words in a post. Anyone trying to insight feuds in a thread should be banned immediately.Also, all bans should be permanent. "If you're prevented from posting for a day, you're prevented from posting for life."

The Dark Knight Rises is not flawless, but it is less fundamentally flawed than the Avengers.

AN OVERBLOWN GENERIC STORY WITH NO REAL TENSION OR DRAMA IS NEVER GOING TO MAKE THESE LISTS, THAT'S WHY DEAD MAN'S CHEST AND PHANTOM MENACE FAILED TO GARNER THE SAME ACCLAIM. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES IS A FILM THAT HAS THESE IN SPADES AND ARE EXECUTED MASTERFULLY. TA IS BY FAR THE MORE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED OF THE TWO. LOKI'S DEFEAT WAS LACKLUSTER, AND DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE DEUS EX NUKE.

Normal font for everyone else, exaggerated OTT for those who abuse the system.

ARE YOU RIMMING WHEDON, FEIGE AND THE REST OF MARVEL? I'D HAVE TO POST ABOUT 5 MILLION OF THESE THREADS TO BALANCE OUT THE CONSTANT BLOWJOBS YOU GIVE TO EVERYTHING STAN LEE HAS EVER HAD HIS NAME ATTACHED TOO.

Well spoken, knowledgeable, prepares well ahead of time (writing script, decent production values) and doesn't just sit down in front of a webcam spouting whatever comes off the top of their head.

Avengers had very little concern for making people emotionally attached, just like Zombieland. Little tension and drama because it might get in the way of the action. Seriously, the loss of your son equals the faux Titanic love story? This is how you do it.

The fact that pure irredeemable trash such as This Means War, Battleship, BD, and Taken 2 were on there pretty much renders any "TRUTH" to this list null and void. Bottom line, outside of Inception, Hardy has never been involved with a better quality production, neither has Neeson in the last 19 years outside of Batman Begins, and BRokeback and Rachel Getting Married are the only Hathaway productions that even rival it.

Less than 10% of the films on that list even rival THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and everything else is an atrociously directed and written hackjob. At least AFI has the right idea when it comes to films with truly standout qualities, something the Avengers sorely lack.

The Fountain and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas seem to be prime examples of divisive films.

Batman Begins: ****3/4The Dark Knight: *****The Dark Knight Rises: **** - ****1/4 depending on my mood.So, yeah, the worst of the trilogy.Still, better than the weakest installments of many other highly regarded trilogies such as Jedi, Temple of Doom, GF3, Bourne Identity, Back to the future 2 (&3), and is it just me or does Fellowship just have some odd scenes that become distracting.