The Dark Knight Rises

In retrospect I think the movie was pretty decent. Though I felt pretty bad, that it had to be a sequel to Dark Knight w/ Joker. The movie had enough elements in it to be three separate movies, that's why it was sloppy on the execution.

1) How many different characters did they throw in? Unlike the "old" batman's I was expecting a little bit more finesse with character transitions. You had the introduction to Robin, which I thought was played very well. You had Bane, who basically was a
protector to "the child."
You had Cat Woman, who was just a master thief w/ her own morality compass.
Daggett who wasn't supposed to die so early, did. He was supposed to be a HUGE antagonist. Though instead.. turned into hamburger meat by Bane.

2) I believe they could of done a better job showing Batman's struggle. I know it was a nice release from him being the focus of attention, but they were almost getting to the point of just being random. Bruce Wayne was of course absolved of being the batman, due to this "fake" peace time.
During this time, he gains a physical ailment in this leg. Then of course he was still grieving due to Harvey's death and his "love of his life's" death. When hearing that Bane was in town and was building an army, he suited up like it was no big deal. Though when first facing Bane he got his stuff pushed in. He then was thrown into the prison in which no one escaped but of course "the child." Towards the end of the movie you finally hear that Bane is not the child and the focus shifts immediately to the girl. The girl is basically the Child of "Raz Alghul", aka a man who was exiled for loving the lady of some emperor etc etc. Blah Blah Blah. He later formed the league of shadows, employed Bane, then banished Bane due to his physical ailments in the prison and love for his daughter.. etc etc etc etc... Jesus way too many moving pieces. They could of broken this stuff down alone into their own little movies, but instead they chose to squish it all together and call it a "movie."
Bottom line is I thought the background with how Bane/Batman were related as far as the league of shadows was played down. Then at the 60% mark of the movie, they introduced a bomb... I guess that's just another movie cop out. A Bomb.. really? I can go to 24 for that. I wanted something darker.. or at least expected it. I get it.. Clean energy could be nuclear.. etc etc. Though it's nothing new.. It's like the Amazing Spider Man.. and just putting in new actors.
Then they threw a cameo in by the scare crow... Really? Again? How did he get to be the judge?

3) The Rating. I get it PG-13 movies sell more than Rated R movies. Though by doing this the film felt played down. It made it from being a Dark film to being a ... meh I barely think had dark elements in it at all. Heck the only thing that made it dark was the theatrical sound track by Hans Simmer.
(then the part where they hung the special force people and made the others walk on ice)

4) Very Little Action. I don't get what they were trying to shoot for. Were they focusing more on the transition to Robin? Were they focusing more on the Bane vs Batman going forward? I didn't get a sense of action until 30 minutes till the ending. It wasn't even a build up, it just kept going non linear after non linear, trying to hit every element they could think of. It was kind of like an ADHD/ADD screenwriter took to writing this shit out.

I might be a bit harsh, but I think the movie was overall good.. I just think the execution was poorly done and of course I think way too many character injections to place.. which left no time for emotional build ups. By the time they starting doing one emotional build up they shifted to another character.. it was like.. wait.. damnit what the hell?

So I give it a 7/10. I liked Batman Begins better than this though, then of course who can top Dark Knight.
 
I don't get how people think TDK is the best in the series. The movie is incredible slow. Slow to the point that in the times I've watched it, I've either gotten bored or fallen asleep. I think if they'd put the Joker in any of the other movies, people would say TDK was alright. The Joker is cool, but I didn't really like Heath Ledger's Joker, so I didn't care much for the movie. It's not a bad movie, per se, but it has some problems that I feel are overlooked. I've never read any of the comics or graphic novels so I guess that would be why I enjoyed TDKR so much more. I'm not very picky about movies, either, so as long as it doesn't bore me I'll probably like it. I don't like to get too critical about things and just enjoy the ride rather than look for inconsistencies, etc. TDKR was about 15 minutes longer than TDK and it kept me hooked in rather than bored me so I liked it a lot more. Begins will still be my favorite, with TDKR coming in to a close second, and TDK not really on my list. It's just my opinion, but I still don't get what makes TDK so much better than Begins.
 
I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I prefer TDK over BB. But that's just me. I like TDK for Heath Ledger's performance, but also for Harvey Dent/Two-Face. They just happen to be my favorite Batman villains so I just prefer TDK. I honestly thought BB was incredibly slow, personally.
 
i dont understand the joker thing, i think he was jut way over hyped by the fact that the guy who played him, died, i dont think he would have had nearly as much praise as he gets if he was still alive, I'm not denying he was good, but I preferred batman begins and TDKR, to the dark night, it just felt slow to me, i was gettign bored and started arsing around with my phone half way through, and when i thought it was finally over, the harvey dent thing happened, it jut seemed to go on abit... Im sure everyones gunna jump all over my post and declare im some sort of heathen, but i just didnt feel it
 
It was just so much darker! You had some sick bitches in BB trying to wipe out the city as usual but we're used to that. What we're not used to seeing is a psycopath who's always one step ahead of Batman, planning everything, playing mind-games with him. Alfred's speech about "some men just want to watch the world burn" really hits the nail on the head with the Joker and it makes him so much more sinister. It's the fact that Nolan managed to create a deeper relationship between Batman and the Joker than he did with, say, Ra's al Ghul or Bane. I'm sticking with my thoughts that once you see The Joker face off with Batman you've seen the epitome of a villain/hero relationship and you're not going to do better than that any time soon.

Don't know how you can say it starts off slowly when the opening scene is a bank heist rife with guns and sneaky plans!
 
well, i think the middle is slow, it just started dragging on

edit* just noticed it wasnt me that even said it started slow haha. Ahhh I just wasn't feeling it, nothing more to say really
 
Agreed with Kerrigan. Nicely put.

As Joker said himself in TDK, "why would I want you dead batman, you complete me".
Sick play between him and bats.

I recently played Arkham City and damn Joker and Batman have something different than a simple good guy bad guy thing. Their dynamic is twisted as the Joker knows Bats wont kill him so he can tease batman and manipulate him in a twisted way. But the Joker wont kill batman easily either cause without batman what has the Joker to do then?
 
best of the three, despite some massive story telling problems and shocking continuity errors. i saw it in imax and was blown away, it was a hell of an experience.

the problem with the dark knight was the last half hour. batman beat the joker, the joker had one final ploy and escaped. then he had to beat the joker again. then he had to resolve the harvey dent situation. it was an anti-climactic end.

the night before watching it, i came up with a theory from watching batman begins that the trilogy is actually a sequel to taken, because of ra's al ghul's line where he says he used have a wife, but she was 'taken' from him. then dark knight rises went and ruined it :sad3:

oh, and bane sounds like darth vader meets sean connery. i'd heard that going into the film. film ruined.
 
This movie is a giant clusterfuck mess that consisted of nothing but countless unanswered questions. It was horribly done. Christopher Nolan is a well-respected director and writer in that he's truly passionate about his work. So what happened here? Was there no love involved in this installment? It failed, and it failed hard.

Look, a lot of people enjoyed it. For once, I can't see or understand why. It was a mess, and this is coming from someone who is always so open-minded when going to see a film, especially ones affiliated with DC comics.

This film was like a bunch of ideas crammed into one movie, but each one never even had a proper conclusion. Let's take what they did with our main man, Batsy, for example. He's been pretty humourless in this trilogy. Out of the cape and cowl, yes, he had his moments and one-liners, but it was a subtle treat. Especially since he was never Batman when those moments occurred. However, Chris decided, for whatever reason I won't want to dig deeply into for the life of me, that good old '60s Bats should appear briefly at some point in this film. Remember when Catwoman ditched him and he delivered that memorable (in all the wrong ways) line; so that's what that feels like? A small thing to be up in arms over, I know, but it's a pretty easy example of how shit went down in this film.

A mess. A big, unsure, undecided, uneasy mess. I hated it.
 

I haven't read through the thread, but I am probably going to have the unpopular opinion.

I found the movie to be very ok. In fact, if Catwoman wasn't on screen, I was bored. I found myself zoning out several times through the movie that I can't even recall the plot. However, if a movie did come out starring Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, I would go see it.

Honestly, I wasn't very fond of the Nolan Batman movies. The first movie, I can't even tell you the plot because I found it boring and kept zoning out. The only thing I remember about it was Scarecrow because he was a lame villian on the Superfriends. Dark Knight was much better but I only really liked the parts with the Joker and Two face. The third one felt more like an action movie than a batman movie. The movies just didn't work for me. I didn't find Bruce Wayne/Batman interesting. Heck I found the Adam West version to be more entertaining. It's about a guy that dresses up as a bat to fight crime. It doesn't need to be taken seriously.

TDKR would have redeemed itself for me if it was revealed that Aquaman was the one who saved Batman at the end.
 
I very much enjoyed this film. It brought Batman's story to a nice close, but at the same time left so much in the Batman universe to be told. It's a shame Warner Bros. is deciding to yet again re-hash Batman for the upcoming Justice League film. It would have been so great to see some spin-offs from the Nolan Batman trilogy. Like a Robin film, or a new Catwoman (The one with Halle Berry absolutely sucked.)

I am hoping that with Nolan being on the creative board for all things DC film, that Man of Steel would tie in with this Batman and then lead on to Justice League, but I don't even think Man of Steel is gonna tie in with Justice League either. :( It makes me sad, because Warner have had every opportunity to do what Marvel did when it came to lining up The Avengers. Unless the Nolan Batman trilogy and Man of Steel link together with Justice League, then I think it's gonna fall short. The reason Avengers worked so well was because Marvel Studios spent a good five years establishing the characters and winning over audiences. All Warner seem to be doing is trying to keep pace with the competition. =\

But yeah, went slightly off-topic there, so...

I thought The Dark Knight Rises was probably one of the best Batman films I've ever seen... and I've seen all of them. :) The cast was amazing. Tom Hardy as Bane was friggin' awesome; I was shocked with Joseph Gordon Levitt's performance, as I've only ever seen him in teen romance/comedy films, but he was fantastic in TDKR. Again, I was very reserved about Anne Hathaway being Catwoman, as I've only ever seen her (again) in "chick flicks". But it was nice seeing these actors in something completely different, and doing it very well.

Of course, I find that Christian Bale has been great as Batman in all three of the films; possibly better than Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer, though they're still my two favourite Batmans. I also liked Cillian Murphy's cameo in the film. He's probably one of my favourite actors ever, and he did such an amazing job as Scarecrow who is also my favourite ever Batman villain.

One thing that threw me, however, was the lack of Batman! Not that it was a bad thing, as he still maintained a strong presence throughout the film. But it was awesome that Nolan shed the spotlight on many of the other characters.

All in all, it was a very good film, and it's such a shame that we won't be seeing any more of this as Nolan laid down the foundations for something that could be truly amazing.
 
chris nolan isn't any kind of creative director for dc. he is producing man of steel, and is then walking away from superhero films indefinitely. also, they've announced that there won't be another justice league-related film until it comes out in 2015, which i think is an enormous risk. i think whether or not man of steel ties in with it will depend entirely on how well it is received.

there were some very interesting rumours going around a week or so ago that joseph gordon-levitt would be picking up the role of batman in dc's future films, and that he may have a cameo appearance in man of steel. they were never anything more than rumours though, because warner and dc have both denied that it's happening. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top