PDA

View Full Version : Batman: The Dark Knight Rises (Spoiler Thread)



Tycho
07-20-2012, 09:50 AM
I haven't posted spoilers myself, but let 'em roll in here.

My hospital I'm both a patient and coouselor at rented out a whole 20-plex (every theater!) for an early premier.

It was such an awesome movie. I left with an immediate desire to see it again!

Beast
07-20-2012, 03:33 PM
Haven't seen it yet. Not in a rush. I expect the same mediocre overhyped crap as the last two Nolan films.

I'm just glad the franchise is over under him, hopefully the reboot will be less "Batman In Name Only".

Hearing a lot of people who were fans of the first two finding this one to be pretty disappointing.

Tycho
07-20-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm on the contrary side of that Beast.

Now in terms of acting and a star portraying a person they are pretending to be, you can't take away from Heath Ledger's Joker or Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent / Two Face.

Those were real performances.

However, you can WRITE a really compelling story, and tell a personal journey for Bruce, and turn out a fine product. All the actors in DKR were great in their roles by the way. But the movie didn't try to out-do Ledger and Eckhart and I think for that we're all thankful.

In terms of taste, I was not looking for a comic book adaptation, but enjoy the all-adult-audiences inner-city grit of this sort of gang-warfare movie, the way the Nolan universe has always conducted itself. Bordering on the very believably possible.

I enjoy Adam West, but I might skip a big screen production like that, lest it was Austin Powers, deliberately made to be campy.

bigbarada
07-20-2012, 04:24 PM
Haven't seen it yet. Not in a rush. I expect the same mediocre overhyped crap as the last two Nolan films.

I'm just glad the franchise is over under him, hopefully the reboot will be less "Batman In Name Only".

Hearing a lot of people who were fans of the first two finding this one to be pretty disappointing.

I agree on the Nolan Batman movies so far. I think they simply take themselves way too seriously considering that they are about a guy dressing up like a bat to fight crime. That premise is corny just by it's very nature and when the filmmakers try to pass it off as gritty and realistic, then it just comes off as lame and almost self-parodying.

With Frank Miller's original Dark Knight comic book, at least he kept Robin in there to add some much needed lightheartedness to the story. There is no one like that to provide balance for the Nolan films. Everything is just dreary, hopeless and depressing. Some people might consider that entertainment, but I do not.

I'll watch Dark Knight Rises eventually, but I'm in no real rush to see it.

Also, I hear that they are already working on the next Batman reboot. So they are obviously just going to continue to milk this franchise dry.

Beast
07-20-2012, 04:25 PM
I'm on the contrary side of that Beast.

Now in terms of acting and a star portraying a person they are pretending to be, you can't take away from Heath Ledger's Joker or Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent / Two Face.

Those were real performances.
Really bad performances. I loathed Heath Ledger's Joker. To me, it wasn't the Joker.

There was no sense of him being a genius chemsist, no sense of him being a chaotic individual.

Both of which Nicholson's Joker nailed perfectly. With the Smilex Gas and the Random Mixture Element.

Hell, outside of the "Pencil Trick", the Nolanverse Joker was lacking any sense of humor at all.

Something that Nicholson's Joker also showcased. A good balance between scary and crazy clown.

Plus how he just casually asks for Bob The Goon's Gun and shoots him. He just felt like "The Joker".

Beast
07-20-2012, 04:37 PM
In terms of taste, I was not looking for a comic book adaptation, but enjoy the all-adult-audiences inner-city grit of this sort of gang-warfare movie, the way the Nolan universe has always conducted itself. Bordering on the very believably possible.
You do realize where your logic fails in this area, right? It IS a comic book adaptation. That's the whole point of using the DC Comics character of Batman in a movie. Not making a comic book adaption when that's exactly what you are making makes no sense. This isn't supposed to be a crime drama or gang-warfare movie. It's called "BATMAN". And the whole believeable realism aspect of the movies jumped off a cliff with the silly Batpod, ridiculous damage to Two-Face's face, and the fricking BAT SPACESHIP in the latest movie.

Darth Metalmute
07-20-2012, 08:05 PM
Nobody can do the Joker like mark Hamill.

Tycho
07-20-2012, 09:30 PM
Well, I did not want light-heartedness to this story for one.

It plays off a dark psychological tone (the nolan movies) with references to being disgusted with humanity. Something I can relate to. However, where you could see me agreeing with Rhas al Ghul that our society needs to be destroyed so we can start all over again, I think that Bruce's unwillingness to give up on people and provide a symbol for hope makes him courageous and heroic.

The sociopaths Batman goes up in these movies are expressions of this disgust with humanity. In the Nolan movies. Rhas al Ghul understood this concept best.

Now others might prefer stuff like the Schumacher films. I'd go and see them but hardly enjoy them as much.

Beast
07-20-2012, 09:41 PM
Well, I did not want light-heartedness to this story for one.

It plays off a dark psychological tone (the nolan movies) with references to being disgusted with humanity.
You are reading way too much into things if that is the meaning and message you got from the films.

Something I can relate to. However, where you could see me agreeing with Rhas al Ghul that our society needs to be destroyed so we can start all over again, I think that Bruce's unwillingness to give up on people and provide a symbol for hope makes him courageous and heroic.
Your skewed view of things really does color the films in a way that wasn't intende by Nolan. Or anyone involved.

The sociopaths Batman goes up in these movies are expressions of this disgust with humanity. In the Nolan movies. Rhas al Ghul understood this concept best.
You're grasping at straws that are not there. Watch the extras for these films. There's no hidden message here.


Now others might prefer stuff like the Schumacher films. I'd go and see them but hardly enjoy them as much.
Refrencing the Schumacher films when there's far better Batman interpretatiions to refrence is silly.

The Burton films nailed it perfectly. Even the DC Animated Features did. So did the Animated Series.

Tycho
07-20-2012, 10:07 PM
You are reading way too much into things if that is the meaning and message you got from the films.

Your skewed view of things really does color the films in a way that wasn't intende by Nolan. Or anyone involved.

You're grasping at straws that are not there. Watch the extras for these films. There's no hidden message here.

I'll eventually take a look at the DVD extras. You've seen some information I have not.

However, I write my novels from my "skewed point of view" and I need philosophies and motivations contributing as the catalyst for the actions the killers in my stories take. You have to understand good villains to write for them.

I'm interested in Nolan's take on the characters because they are still his interpretation of Bob Kane's story.

I've said more than a few times that I could have had Luke turn to the Dark Side and supplant the Emperor, failing to establish the justice that Vader never delivered. To further make Star Wars a nature/nurture psychological thriller, I'd make sure to be none to subtle in saying that Darth Plagueis used Palpatine's DNA to create Anakin and "Hego Damask's" (Plagueis real identity as a medical / pharmaceutical company director) access to Shmi Skywalker (unwittingly) to become his incubator for the ultimate Sith (Anakin).



Refrencing the Schumacher films when there's far better Batman interpretatiions to refrence is silly.

The Burton films nailed it perfectly. Even the DC Animated Features did. So did the Animated Series.

I thought you wanted "silly." My mistake about what you meant by "light or with some levity" such as with the Robin character which Nolan's Bruce is not likely to work with. He worked with Catwoman only because he needed to.

I agree with you on the Burton films. I own them and love them (Batman and Returns). I did not buy the Jim Carrey or Arnold movies.

I watched and enjoyed the animated shows and West's, but I am not passionate about them the way I am about the Nolan films.

Tycho
07-20-2012, 10:10 PM
Above, I meant that Luke would succeed in establishing the just Empire that Vader failed to create.

I had trouble editing the post.

Beast
07-20-2012, 10:46 PM
I'm interested in Nolan's take on the characters because they are still his interpretation of Bob Kane's story.
No they're not. What Bob Kane created is nothing at all like the soulless Nolan Batman stuff.
Nolan's take on things don't even approach the inspiration of The Killing Joke and Knightfal that was used.
Nolan's also said The Dark Knight was inspired by the movie Heat. And TDR by Dr. Zhivago. Also idiotic.

I thought you wanted "silly." My mistake about what you meant by "light or with some levity" such as with the Robin character which Nolan's Bruce is not likely to work with. He worked with Catwoman only because he needed to.
No. I wanted sometihing good. Nolan didn't deliver. Simple as that.
And Robin's character was kind of in Dark Knight Rises in a mangled take.
And Catwoman didn't even need to be in the film. Neither did Talia.
And it sounds like her character was almost as bad as Halle Berry's Catwoman.

bigbarada
07-23-2012, 02:57 PM
Watched the movie yesterday and it was pretty good. The ending seemed to drag on a bit and...

MAJOR SPOILER!



I don't understand why Alfred was sobbing at the Wayne gravesite in the end if he knew that Bruce Wayne survived the bomb blast. Judging by his reaction to seeing Bruce at the restaurant in the last scene, he clearly knew that he had survived all along right? So why all the theatrics at Bruce's grave?

Also, the whole thing with Joseph Gordon Levitt's character being revealed as Robin seemed like a waste of time in the end, because we know there isn't going to be a fourth movie, so why even add that in?

Anyways, I liked Bane in this movie. Just his voice alone made him a commanding and intimidating presence in the film. I just wish they had explained more about his origin and his abilities. He seemed to be able to disable people by touching them, but that's never fully explained in the film and what we are led to believe to be Bane's origin ends up being the origin of a different character entirely, which left me with some questions about Bane himself.

One thing that was never explained was why Bane's men were so devoted to him. I think that level of dedication needs to be explained in a film like this.

Beast
07-23-2012, 03:54 PM
I'm sure he probably did think that Bruce was dead. Just like in Batman Begins. Plus I believe it's explained earlier in the film that when Bruce disappeared back before he became Batman in Batman Begins, Alfred did the same thing. Traveled the world hoping he'd find him alive. Which doesn't make a lick of sense, but whatever. But yeah, I think he probably believed he was dead this time, until he found out about the pearls missing, since there was no real chance he would have logically survived. Or it was all a show so everyone thought Bruce was dead.

The Robin thing seemed like a big middle finger to the fans of the character to me. Especially since it was such a throwaway thing. It's like it was done at the last minute. Especially since he's named 'John Blake' rather than Richard Greyson or Tim Drake. Hell, may have just give him Azrael's name instead. Since that's who took up the mantle when Bane broke the Bat in the comics. And would fit the character closer than the Robins.

Bane's voice is ridiculous, but in keeping with Batman's stupid voice. Plus it still sounds voiced over rather than real. A lot of people have explained it as Sean Connery as Darth Vader. And I can definitely see that.

bigbarada
07-23-2012, 07:40 PM
I'm sure he probably did think that Bruce was dead. Just like in Batman Begins. Plus I believe it's explained earlier in the film that when Bruce disappeared back before he became Batman in Batman Begins, Alfred did the same thing. Traveled the world hoping he'd find him alive. Which doesn't make a lick of sense, but whatever. But yeah, I think he probably believed he was dead this time, until he found out about the pearls missing, since there was no real chance he would have logically survived. Or it was all a show so everyone thought Bruce was dead.

If he really didn't know, then I feel that his reaction was all wrong. It should have been more along the lines of, "Of course! How could I have thought that he was actually dead?" However, it was more like, "Oh hey, there's Bruce Wayne. I haven't seen him in a while." Way too casual considering the he just saw someone who, up until that moment, he had assumed was dead.

It was almost like they lost their nerve and spliced a different take from Alfred's "flashback" scene, from earlier in the film, onto the end of the movie, with an 11-hour pick-up shot of Christian Bale, just to keep from catching too much flak from fans for killing off Batman.

To me it just felt like a last minute cop out.

Beast
07-24-2012, 06:03 AM
Ya know... I almost wonder if it was a last minute cop out. Kinda like another role that Christian Bale ruined. John Connor in T4. The news leaked fairly early on that John was gonna die. And that the resistance, realizing how important he was as a symbol... would skin him and place that skin on the Marcus Terminator's endoskeleton to make the rest of the human resistance believe he was still alive. A much more daring ending.

Tycho
07-24-2012, 02:43 PM
Beast, perhaps you're right about Terminator 4's ending. It would be daring to go that route.

There was a lot of backlash that Ripley dies in the end of Alien3. I think her suicide was noble - showing she'd do anything to not let The Company attain an alien queen and truly demonstrating her values.

I'm closer to Terminator. The franchise means more to me. So I have to keep reconsidering your idea for a while. But it sounds good to start off with, if uncomfortable because I have a lot invested in John's character now after being a fan of the Sarah Connor Chronicles.

In my mind, I try and blend ALL installments of the Terminator content and you can with some wishful (but rational and creative) thinking - though the franchise would have to embrace my ideas to make that work. (I'd explain if anyone requests it - probably just a couple paragraphs is all it would take.)

But as it stands, if anyone buys the franchise, Marcus could go on without a heart since he's more machine than man. So the show could star Sam Worthington and Christian Bale, plus Blood Moongood (she's been great on Falling Skies) and even Arnold could come back with some CGI help to hide his age. Plus seeing Summer Glau again would be sweet! Leena Headley (spelling) could appear as Sarah, too - and they had a new actor playing Kyle, as Michael Bien is too old now and Kyle died young. But Brian Austin Green has a well established character as Derek Reese, too.

Like I said, I really took to TSCC on TV. While I'd predict not everyone here is a fan, I am really glad that I enjoyed it so much.

Beast
07-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Nah. There's no way of resolving TSCC with the Terminator films. It has to be viewed as entirely seperate.

And no, Marcus couldn't. His heart was keeping his organic bits alive. Chiefly his brain, as well as eyes and such.

I'm not interested in seeing TSCC expanded in any way. It was one of the most unsatisfying series in ages.

Bel-Cam Jos
07-27-2012, 06:50 PM
I finally saw it. If I were to rank the three films, which I will, out of ten, I'd do it this way:
1) Dark Knight 9.1, 2) Dark Knight Rises 8.9, 3) Batman Begins 8.6. I found they worked very well together, as a longer story arc.

SPOILERS (yeah, I know this thread's supposed to be that way, but just in case) BELOW:





Hines Ward returning punts? Most unrealistic detail in the film; :rolleyes: but I want a Gotham Rogues jersey!

The slowest timer in the... history... of... bomb... timers... ever... I though that there might be a 11:38 appearance (closest were 11:44 and 11:34, IIRC) on the dial. But the action sequences during the countdown were awesome enough to dismiss that.

The Pit prison sequence dragged on and on... just like it needed to. In the audience, I felt the despair and and pain and then triumph along with Bruce.

How can you say Anne Hathaway Catwoman shouldn't have been in the movie? Catwoman? Sure, not really necessary I suppose. There were several scenes where I just watched her. :crush: :love: :D I'd have been a hired goon that was easily dispatched by her, I suppose. ;)

If you read the novel Wayne of Gotham, you'll get some insight into the film. I read it before seeing DKR, and it made some parts make more sense in the film. I'd recommend it highly. Knowing the comic story of Bane would help, too.

I'm always disappointed that the drop-the-bomb-into-the-ocean technique has NO environmental concerns in movies.

I wondered if we'd see Bane sans mask. Or more insane criminal villains besides Crane/Scarecrow featured.

Maradona
07-28-2012, 01:49 AM
I saw the movie last Friday and wanted to like it more than I did. I liked much of Batman Begins, but never understood the goal of the antagonist in the film. What would blowing up Gotham accomplish? I found The Dark Knight to be a very viable crime film starring Batman and the Joker. The Dark Knight Rises could never live up to the expectations of The Dark Knight. I went in with that idea firmly planted.

Here are my concerns with the film:

In all my years of reading Batman comics and watching Batman cartoons, Alfred would never abandon Bruce or vice versa - he raised him as a son. On top of that, Bruce would never quit being Batman - much less after his pseudo-girlfriend died. He becomes Batman because of his parent's murder, so I can't see him not becoming more driven if another criminally motivated death followed. The film took place in a time span that was too brief for what was happening and there were several holes in a story that wanted to meld together an array of story-lines (Knightfall, No Man's Land, the continuation of the previous films). Bane breaks Batman's back, but he's healed by a blind prison chiropractor and returns with a few months AND his bad leg is now miraculously healed also. AND he was on the other side of the planet broke out of his mind and nearly barefoot, but he gets back over night into a guarded city and into a suit and overcoat? AND the whole guarded city thing, why would the government of the USA not send in the every SEAL team they have to eliminate the terrorists that have taken over such an large city? The cops have been rotting in the sewers for months with little to eat and no showers, yet they come out and are ready go Braveheart on the criminals who have been well fed and rested for that same amount of time? How are millions of people living in Gotham getting by in the city when all municipal services (power, water, sanitation) are cut? AND what was the goal of the villains? Revenge for not letting the original purposeless plan fail? Despite these and a few other holes (Bruce going broke on a faked stock trade in the middle of a televised attack on the stock exchange? The SEC would have overturned such a fraudulent maneuver almost immediately), I still liked watching the film, just not as much as The Dark Knight which was clinically tight in its story. I can only imagine what the story would have been had Heath Ledger lived to reprise his role as the Joker - who is not even mentioned in the film, even though every single criminal is liberated.

That said, Anne Hathaway and Cobra Commander were stellar in the film and rescued it. Morgan Freeman could read the phonebook and make it interesting and I loved the ending, every fanboy's dream ending to the Batman/Catwoman relationship that we NEVER got in any iteration in the 70 years of their story: they both live happily ever after together.

bigbarada
07-28-2012, 04:23 PM
Cobra Commander

In my mind, he will always be Tommy Solomon. :)

Maradona
07-28-2012, 07:50 PM
In my mind, he will always be Tommy Solomon. :)

He certainly was not much of a Cobra Commander, though I wonder what anyone could have done with that role the way it was laid out.

JediTricks
08-05-2012, 04:11 PM
Really bad performances. I loathed Heath Ledger's Joker. To me, it wasn't the Joker.

There was no sense of him being a genius chemsist, no sense of him being a chaotic individual.

Both of which Nicholson's Joker nailed perfectly. With the Smilex Gas and the Random Mixture Element.

Hell, outside of the "Pencil Trick", the Nolanverse Joker was lacking any sense of humor at all.

Something that Nicholson's Joker also showcased. A good balance between scary and crazy clown.

Plus how he just casually asks for Bob The Goon's Gun and shoots him. He just felt like "The Joker".Nicholson's Joker really isn't a character, he's just a wind-up toy, an antagonist with no real goal except "kill", that's fine for that film where it's all about style over substance, but I never bought him as a great Joker, just an interesting movie character. Ledger's Joker has a real motivation, a convincing one at that, the first time ever I bought that people would actually follow this person, be his henchman. He looked at things from a skewed perspective and had an occasional laugh about it. The SWAT van diversion being a fire truck on fire - I actually laughed at that one, it's ugly and grotesque but it's very Joker.


Also, the whole thing with Joseph Gordon Levitt's character being revealed as Robin seemed like a waste of time in the end, because we know there isn't going to be a fourth movie, so why even add that in?Gives the audience hope for a future for the character of The Batman. There may not be a superhero named Robin in that universe, but "Robin" will eventually take up the mantle of the Bat the way the original Robin - Dick Grayson - does in the comics (at least in some storylines, like post-Knightfall).


Anyways, I liked Bane in this movie. Just his voice alone made him a commanding and intimidating presence in the film. I just wish they had explained more about his origin and his abilities. He seemed to be able to disable people by touching them, but that's never fully explained in the film and what we are led to believe to be Bane's origin ends up being the origin of a different character entirely, which left me with some questions about Bane himself. Bane's power is he's strong and very smart and tactical, no superpowers or real special abilities beyond that. I didn't like his voice, not only was it hard to understand, but it sounded like an impression of Henry Kissinger. No teddy bear, no likey. ;)


One thing that was never explained was why Bane's men were so devoted to him. I think that level of dedication needs to be explained in a film like this.Yeah, this really doesn't play well in the film, it works in others when it's pay-based, but when you're screwing around with a nuke you really need to step up the loyalty factor a few notches. Like Barsad, Bane's #2, is he League of Shadows, is he just a believer, is he supposed to be Deadshot, what? They're just cogs in the story's machine, they aren't people and it weighs the film down.


I'm sure he probably did think that Bruce was dead. Just like in Batman Begins. Plus I believe it's explained earlier in the film that when Bruce disappeared back before he became Batman in Batman Begins, Alfred did the same thing. Traveled the world hoping he'd find him alive. Which doesn't make a lick of sense, but whatever. But yeah, I think he probably believed he was dead this time, until he found out about the pearls missing, since there was no real chance he would have logically survived. Or it was all a show so everyone thought Bruce was dead.I agree that Alfred thought Bruce was dead at the end of DKR, but he didn't travel the world looking for Bruce alive, he simply took a vacation every year to France and part of him hoped he'd see Bruce happy and enjoying a real life there.


The Robin thing seemed like a big middle finger to the fans of the character to me. Especially since it was such a throwaway thing. It's like it was done at the last minute. Especially since he's named 'John Blake' rather than Richard Greyson or Tim Drake. Hell, may have just give him Azrael's name instead. Since that's who took up the mantle when Bane broke the Bat in the comics. And would fit the character closer than the Robins.Jean Paul Valley wouldn't be a usable idea here, Tim Drake is the closest inspiration for this character but Robin the superhero isn't part of this universe, so they just went a different way, taking pieces and adding them up in another viewpoint to make a character who would have been Bruce's Robin had it worked out that way. Hell, you might as well be complaining the character wasn't Carrie from The Dark Knight Returns, since this movie borrowed from that source a bit.

And what of Jen in this movie who is clearly Holly Robinson from Year One and on? Why no complaint about that?


Bane's voice is ridiculous, but in keeping with Batman's stupid voice. Plus it still sounds voiced over rather than real. A lot of people have explained it as Sean Connery as Darth Vader. And I can definitely see that.Sounds like Henry Kissinger to me, and I think Batman's scary voice in BB makes sense, but he forgot how to do it and they goofed it in the 2nd and 3rd films. When Selina used her Batman growl in this film though, I did roll my eyes.


If he really didn't know, then I feel that his reaction was all wrong. It should have been more along the lines of, "Of course! How could I have thought that he was actually dead?" However, it was more like, "Oh hey, there's Bruce Wayne. I haven't seen him in a while." Way too casual considering the he just saw someone who, up until that moment, he had assumed was dead.I don't think so, Alfred is supposed to be a reserved character, and he knows that there's some public eye on him for who he used to be, so he'd play it cool for both those reasons and walk off into the sunset with them later.


It was almost like they lost their nerve and spliced a different take from Alfred's "flashback" scene, from earlier in the film, onto the end of the movie, with an 11-hour pick-up shot of Christian Bale, just to keep from catching too much flak from fans for killing off Batman.

To me it just felt like a last minute cop out.I feel quite the opposite, that this was the endgame they always had in mind when they decided to make this film, they needed an out because they couldn't imagine a life as Batman, and having him go out in a blaze of glory is lazy and obvious. If they done what you suggest, Alfred would have probably stayed to work at Wayne Manner with the orphans, or helped John Blake become the new Batman perhaps.


I'm always disappointed that the drop-the-bomb-into-the-ocean technique has NO environmental concerns in movies.Yeah, that bugged me as well, it was right on top of my annoyance of The Bat covering a distance of dozens of miles in under a minute - he'd have to be going twice the speed of sound in a helicopter!


In all my years of reading Batman comics and watching Batman cartoons, Alfred would never abandon Bruce or vice versa - he raised him as a son. Actually, he did exactly that for exactly this same reason in Knightfall, which this movie is loosely based on. But the movie doesn't really sell why Alfred all of a sudden has a problem doing the same things he did in the last 2 films, they don't build up this idea that Bruce is being overly cavalier with his life, they just throw it at the screen twice (here with Alfred and again in The Pit) and let it fall on the floor, which makes Alfred's leaving work so poorly here.


On top of that, Bruce would never quit being Batman - much less after his pseudo-girlfriend died. He becomes Batman because of his parent's murder, so I can't see him not becoming more driven if another criminally motivated death followed. The film took place in a time span that was too brief for what was happening and there were several holes in a story that wanted to meld together an array of story-lines (Knightfall, No Man's Land, the continuation of the previous films). Bane breaks Batman's back, but he's healed by a blind prison chiropractor and returns with a few months AND his bad leg is now miraculously healed also. AND he was on the other side of the planet broke out of his mind and nearly barefoot, but he gets back over night into a guarded city and into a suit and overcoat? AND the whole guarded city thing, why would the government of the USA not send in the every SEAL team they have to eliminate the terrorists that have taken over such an large city? The cops have been rotting in the sewers for months with little to eat and no showers, yet they come out and are ready go Braveheart on the criminals who have been well fed and rested for that same amount of time? How are millions of people living in Gotham getting by in the city when all municipal services (power, water, sanitation) are cut? AND what was the goal of the villains? Revenge for not letting the original purposeless plan fail? Despite these and a few other holes (Bruce going broke on a faked stock trade in the middle of a televised attack on the stock exchange? The SEC would have overturned such a fraudulent maneuver almost immediately), I still liked watching the film, just not as much as The Dark Knight which was clinically tight in its story. I can only imagine what the story would have been had Heath Ledger lived to reprise his role as the Joker - who is not even mentioned in the film, even though every single criminal is liberated. I'm with you on nearly all of this, although The Dark Knight Returns also has Bruce retiring, as does Batman Beyond, only to come back.

JediTricks
08-05-2012, 06:01 PM
So obviously, I saw the movie. I finally got a chance to take the time to see it on Friday morning. I found it an overall ok action/adventure film, but a pretty mediocre Batman film and not a particularly compelling drama - at least the last movie (which wasn't that useful a movie for Batman) was an exceptional drama right up until the very ending.

Here are my problems with The Dark Knight Rises...

- Batman doesn't do anything Batman-like, he doesn't do detective work, he doesn't use stealth, he doesn't use his smarts over his fists, he doesn't even do anything good with his gadgets, there's nothing particularly clever here from the character. His big fights are against Bane, he just punches away and loses both times (in the books, Bane knows Batman can beat him in a square fight, so he wears Batman down via other villains first), it's not interesting. There's 1 moment that was Batman in the whole film, when he's rushing the gunmen in the sewer and the light keeps flashing as he gets closer, that's it.

- There are no characters here, everyone is just a cog in the machine. They aren't driven by who they are, they are in the places they have to be doing the things they have to do and making they decisions they have to make based solely on where the plot needs them to be, they aren't well-rounded individuals. Nobody is really making choices, there aren't regular people doing regular things that meet with extraordinary circumstances, Gotham City is no longer a city of people but of bigshots and orphans and superheroes and supervillains and commissioners and lone genius beat cops and deceivers moving money and power around with no real purpose.

- Taking from Knightfall and No Man's Land was a mistake. Knightfall required a lot of time to get the ideas across, it had to use setup and pacing and patience, all elements inherent to comic books, just to get from A to B to C; in this film, there's zero setup, the film starts at the wrongest place possible to use the Knightfall concept - nobody would care if a wheezy retired recluse lives in Gotham - and there's not enough payoff to feel right, Bruce's triumph is fleeting and not terribly impressive in the film. No Man's Land was not very good on its own, but at least it was telling a long, on-the-ground story of Batman facing lawlessness, here we have a film where Batman is out of town for the entire event and Bane makes big speeches about people taking back their city yet you never see any of that in action, you only see empty streets with people hiding and criminals roaming. There's no fights for territory, no deals cut with villains to save lives, just a few Tumblers and trucks. Bane doesn't rise from the disaster, he causes it through a most ridiculous scenario that mirrors Batman Begins' same plot of using the sewers against the city - you'd think after that they'd have some level of security but apparently they're all very stupid now.

- Bruce Wayne is not a believable character, he mopes and he yells and he acts valiantly and he retires twice, but otherwise he's rather dull-witted and selfish and lazy. He can't see past his own nose, never once understanding the motivations of his greater enemies despite him already having learned a hard lesson about that at the hands of the Joker in the movie previous. The ideas that his days as Batman have taken their toll is semi-believable, but he's a billionaire, surely he can get knee replacement therapy or something more exotic, he doesn't even try. He never once saves a regular person in this film, he blows things up and saves a whole city but he doesn't stop any assaults or robberies, he doesn't seem to give a crap about the low-level crimes and how they affect people, all he cares about are large-scale problems - yet this is the same guy whose parents were killed because of small-scale problems and how they affect normal folks. Now Bruce Wayne only cares about "his city", never mind the people in it, now he fights for a nebulous political and geographical idea, and suffers not when he sees an innocent victim crushed under the boot of crime's oppression, but when that nebulous concept's vital organs are under attack.

- It's clear the Nolan brothers don't believe in Batman, they don't wish to imagine a world where Batman hones himself into a weapon for justice for the little guy so passionately that he spends every single night of his adult life for decades on end facing down violent crime. Instead, they see Batman as a passing fancy for Bruce Wayne, a hobby that can be walked away from long before he's out of the prime of his life simply because it's gotten challenging to show his cowled face in public, despite street crime still haunting the citizens just as much as it did the day before The Joker set his machinations in motion.

- Rachel is Bruce's motivation for hanging it up, why? She rejected him at the end of the first film, he lightly fixated on her in the second film and felt the sting of her death, but here she's the love of his life and without her he's nothing? Bullcrap.

- 8 years pass between the last film and this, why? It feels entirely inauthentic, Bruce has changed a little but Alfred hasn't, Gordon hasn't, Lucius Fox hasn't, hell even the Mayor is still the same guy and still wearing guyliner for some reason.

- Magically, Harvey Dent's death has made crime go away all by itself through draconian sentencing measures - never mind that this has worked exactly zero times anywhere in the history of the world - but it's worked specifically WITHOUT Batman? I guess Bruce must be a real piece of crap then, I guess street crime began the day Bruce Wayne was born and ended the day he hung up the cowl, and every day he was running around in tights and a cape he was actually causing the crime he was fighting. :rolleyes:

- In the last film, the story focus was shifted from Batman to The Joker and Dent and Gordon - a villain, a mixed character, and a supercop. In this film, the focus is shifted from Gordon and Batman to Bane and Catwoman and John Blake - a villain, a mixed character, and a supercop. But unlike the last film, the villain isn't compelling for very long and doesn't even mix things up after his reveal, the mixed character starts ok and then becomes a thin personae, and the supercop has zero setup and is just thrown into the film as the main character to follow. There's a ton of characters thrown about like that as well, Miranda Tate, Matthew Modine as the commissioner's right hand, Barsad (Bane's right hand), The Pit doctor and helpful guy, the orphan boy, and Dr. Foreign Dumbass who creates the bomb - none of them are really people, they're just cogs thrown into the mix that we're supposed to follow for some reason so that we can watch them get from start to finish, all taking focus away from the main characters - John Blake and Bruce Whine.

- Characters disappear for large chunks of the story with no impact. Bruce is missing in the first part of the film, film keeps going. Gordon gets shot and is unconscious in the hospital for the middle of the film, film keeps going. Miranda Tate shows up as a big deal, which is a REALLY obvious sign that she's a twist character (and what a LAME twist, Talia as a character is far more interesting than this "Ra's Al Ghul in a dress" and deserved way better), disappears for a long stretch then becomes vital to the plot. Alfred leaves for the second half of the film, apparently we aren't supposed to care until the end, and the film keeps going. This movie was like a hotel where everybody just kept checking out and then back in whenever the plot needed them.

- The authorities in our world face the threat of nuclear danger in a small city of 12 million people every day, and nobody seems to fall apart or brainlessly send all their resources in to get removed from the equation, are we supposed to believe that Gordon and Mayor Prettyboy-from-Suddenly-Susan have gotten so complacent about crime's lax status that they decide to turn down federal funds to fight nuclear terror threats? Kinda lame.

- Selina Kyle almost worked for me wholesale, but the film tread too lightly on what she stood for and who she was until she was just Batmangirl by the end. I bought Anne Hathaway as the character, but is she the prostitute watching out for Holly (sorry, "Jen") trying to make a better life while still being a hooker? Is she a Robin Hoodess who believes the rich have taken too much from the people and deserve to have some of that taken back? Is she a backstabber who is really just an easy sucker and is on the run because she's not as smart as she seems? Is she Bane's dishrag instead of resourceful and take-charge? And why does she end up with Bruce at the end, because she wears black skintight outfits and uses stealth and gadgets and helped him out a little, that's it?

- I liked Joseph Gordon Levitt and Anne Hathaway's performances here, but it's like they were in the wrong movies compared to everybody and everything else here.

- The Bat's underslung helicopter design would cause an excess amount of rotor wash making it too unstable to fly quickly, or at least that's how it seemed to me. Batman using a helicopter seemed dopey but at least the first part was entertaining. The Batpod was a snore, it did exactly nothing new and was never compelling as a long-term vehicle to begin with - in the previous film, it was a vehicle of necessity and did what it HAD to do, here it just does the same stuff because it can, and it doesn't do anything new.

- Bruce in The Pit was pretty uninteresting and jumped by quickly, and ended far too obviously and easily.

- Bane was basically a ton of reaction shots of some guy's masked face and sad eyes, and sounded like Henry Kissinger playing a robot in a 1970s film. He wasn't that big, he wasn't really that impressive a criminal mastermind, and he didn't have a teddy bear or any of the personality of the comics character.

- All the comics characters got the shaft in this film, really: Bruce isn't really who he's supposed to be, Gordon becomes a member of the French Resistance, Robin is some other guy entirely, Talia's just her father's storyline all over again, Bane is not really much of a character and feels inauthentic, Holly/Jen is an even bigger moron, Ra's Al Ghul is still dead and his plans never grew beyond their limited designs we saw in the first film. Only Selina gets close to her comics character for a while (a mishmosh of various Catwoman ideas from the last 30 years actually) and then tosses that out the window towards the end.

- The inclusion of Ra's Al Ghul as a dream sequence was a waste and a jerk-around since what was being said wasn't really what ended up being the truth, so it's just Bruce beating himself up in his head. And the League of Shadows plot here ended up being pretty junk, they have a ton MORE resources under Talia but they're all really bad at fighting and using stealth and working towards what they see as righting injustice. Oh, and then there's the fact that Ra's Al Ghul never wanted to die with Gotham, so why do Talia and Bane?

- While it was nice to see Scarecrow again, and apparently Arkham agrees with him because he looks healthier than ever, his role as judge felt an awful lot out-of-character for him and in-character for The Joker or Two-Face. With the release of all the criminals, it felt like a letdown not to see more bigtimers doing bigtime things with the walls down and no cops. What's a criminal to do when money has no value? Apparently we'll never know because this movie has no interest in talking about what it sets up.

- Taking the bat-arsenal from the basement of Wayne Enterprises and weaponizing it was too on-the-nose after the plot was already to use the Wayne Mr. Fusion to blow up the town. Why did Lucius keep that many Tumblers around in the first place? Also, we can see there's a second The Bat at the end of the film, why didn't Bane use more of these doodads than just a few cars?

- Batman gets stabbed in the back, LITERALLY, by Talia and yet he just takes it??? I guess he knew she'd die a ridiculous death in a dopey scene a few minutes later.

- Too many people figuring out Batman's identity right out of the gate, 1 per film should be enough. I know they're trying to show how these 2 new characters are both equally brilliant and a match for Batman, one good and one bad, but it takes the wind out of the reveal's sails when it happens over and over. Hell, throw in Talia knowing, Gordon finding out at the end, Alfred, Lucius knowing but never saying it out loud, almost every friggin' character in the film by the end knows Batman's "secret" identity!

- There's a lot of dopey little stuff, like Bruce Wayne's fortune disappearing through ridiculous stock buys right after computer takeovers of the stock exchange, Batman wasting a ton of precious time at the zero-hour painting gasoline bats on bridges, Bruce having no money and no backup cash anywhere yet is able to get out of The Pit in the middle east and be back at Gotham in a few hours, 100% of the Gotham PD being trapped underground for 6 months but being fed and kept healthy enough to fight, the return of the police force only to just walk into a fight instead of act like a thoughtful force, The Bat staying hidden for 6 months until needed, The Bat traveling at over twice the speed of sound to get the bomb away from the city in time, the bat-EMP gun being exceptionally selective on the types of things it affects, the replacement of concrete with explosive concrete taking years to do and being extremely loud and everybody would feel it while construction was underway, so on and so on, but really those were just icing on the frustration cake.

- Mashing Knightfall, No Man's Land, The Dark Knight Returns, and Batman Beyond (yes, really, Bruce's knee and the retirement subplot, and Blake is somewhat similar to Terry McGuiness) wasn't really a good way to ride Batman into the sunset when there wasn't a good understanding of who this character was and where he was going and how he got there. Too many mixed ideas here, too many villains and problems took away from the main points they wanted to do, and using Knightfall when you intend to kill off Bruce-as-Batman is just wasteful.


-------

So what did work for me?
- Catwoman for the first 2/3rds.

- John Blake was interesting to watch go (right up until that last nonsensical act, "I know there's an open tunnel but let's take the obviously sealed bridges instead").

- It was loud and pretty to look at.

- Matthew Modine was surprisingly good, I didn't recognize him as Foley the cowardly assistant commissioner.

- A focus on real effects over CGI.

- Batman in the dark hallway.

- Tom Lennon from The State and Reno 911 returns to play the doctor from Memento.

- The first scene with The Bat in action (even if the premise was incredibly stupid and he knew from the outset that it was taking focus off the real criminals so he's actually incredibly useless here).

Bottom line, it's a 6 or 7 out of 10 as a movie, and Nolan was right to have wanted to stop after TDK - that film was a masterpiece and Batman was in it too! - this movie is a long, occasionally boring mess that takes quite a while to get up to speed and then makes every wrong move with its characters and isn't well-acted or -scripted.

bigbarada
08-06-2012, 03:56 AM
What's a criminal to do when money has no value? Apparently we'll never know because this movie has no interest in talking about what it sets up.

I actually found that part of the movie the most interesting, because it felt like a commentary on the Occupy movement in the real world. If what happened in Gotham really happened to an American city and it stayed that way, then where would that society be 20 years down the road? Who would want to build a new home or office building there if just anybody could move into that building anytime they wanted? Eventually people would use up all the resources and if nobody is willing to work, because other people keep getting the fruits of their labor, then you'd have mass-starvation and mass-exodus once the food runs out.

The notion that everybody in Gotham would just share everything equally without reservation would never work in the real world, because eventually someone is going to get their hands on something that they are not willing to share and someone else wants it bad enough to try to take it from them. Then war and violence gets reintroduced back into the society at the drop of a hat.

Even though Nolan's plate was pretty full, I still wish he had explored the philosophy of "oh, everything in Gotham belongs to all of us now, isn't it great?" a little more. Even without the nuclear bomb a society like that would self-destruct and degenerate into rioting within a matter of weeks.

Maradona
08-06-2012, 09:58 AM
Strong review, JT!

Bel-Cam Jos
08-06-2012, 08:54 PM
Well, BB, then maybe the point of Bane's "the people" comments are meant to show that sometimes "the people" really do need someone to guide them and make decisions. Large scale true democracy doesn't work, but representative government can, IF the leaders are honest. And Batman can be that mediator when those in power (or more likely those trying to take power by force) go off balance.

p.s. I got a semi-real :rolleyes: Gotham City Rogues t-shirt.

figrin bran
08-06-2012, 10:09 PM
p.s. I got a semi-real :rolleyes: Gotham City Rogues t-shirt.

Haha! ;) Then explain how Hines Ward was able to outrun the destruction and return that kickoff :p Mike Wallace or Antonio Brown maybe...

I'm surprised that JT made no mention of the choreographed ballet fights. That did not work for me at all and only served to detract from the Bats vs. Bane showdown #2.

JediTricks
08-07-2012, 03:48 PM
I didn't really notice the choreography because I was rolling my eyes at Batman not being Batman. Punch punch get punched punch back elbow punch punch, so boring.

Bel-Cam Jos
08-07-2012, 08:23 PM
Haha! ;) Then explain how Hines Ward was able to outrun the destruction and return that kickoff :p Mike Wallace or Antonio Brown maybe...I saw the trailer, with the returner taking it to the house. Once I realized it was Mr. Dancing w/ the Stars with the wheels... well, check out my review earlier in this thread. :p Maybe Hines threw a nice WR block to spring himself for the TD.

jedibear
08-19-2012, 08:19 PM
Wow....this is another one of those instances, weather it's a new figure or a movie, where I read what folks are saying and just shake my head, thinking..."Did we see the same thing?"

I really liked this movie a lot.

Ah well....

JediTricks
08-23-2012, 07:44 PM
Wow....this is another one of those instances, weather it's a new figure or a movie, where I read what folks are saying and just shake my head, thinking..."Did we see the same thing?"

I really liked this movie a lot.

Ah well....What did you like? Did you like the previous 2 Batman films?

Tycho
08-30-2012, 01:51 PM
For me, for starters, I liked that I got to see this movie for free because Scripps was thanking its hospital volunteers.