THE DARK KNIGHT RISES FILM REVIEWS (SPOILERS. PERIOD.)

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Of course it is. It's in the title. It's about him making a difference and finding what Alfred hoped he would find outside of Gotham City. He rises from being labeled a murderer to becoming the hero that changes Gotham and becomes the legend that he aspired to be in BATMAN BEGINS.

Can you point to any story, anywhere, that has THIS as Bruce Wayne's story? Where he decides to "retire" for 8 years to feel sorry for himself? Who wants nothing more than to NOT be Batman anymore?

Let me know when you can't, ok?

I can't, because this is Christopher Nolan's story. I can see this is the very thing that puts you off, so I understand why you can't go along with the film beyond that.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:There's a lot more to it than the first two minutes you only watched.

And I explained why there was no reason to watch any further.

Keep reading my reply, you'll find it.

I understand why you stopped. I'm just saying there's more to it than that, that's all. I can see we've reached an impasse, so at this point we might as well agree to disagree.

James Stocks wrote:I understand why you stopped. I'm just saying there's more to it than that, that's all. I can see we've reached an impasse, so at this point we might as well agree to disagree.

The problem is, I am giving clear examples of what's wrong with the film, and all you can reply with is "Well, I liked it...". That's not really a disagreement.

But hey, not like I haven't dealt with this before or anything...

James Stocks wrote:I can't, because this is Christopher Nolan's story. I can see this is the very thing that puts you off, so I understand why you can't go along with the film beyond that.

And that is THE problem. This is supposed to be Christopher Nolan doing a Bruce Wayne story. Not Christopher Nolan doing a Christopher Nolan story with a character named Bruce Wayne.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:I understand why you stopped. I'm just saying there's more to it than that, that's all. I can see we've reached an impasse, so at this point we might as well agree to disagree.

The problem is, I am giving clear examples of what's wrong with the film, and all you can reply with is "Well, I liked it...". That's not really a disagreement.

But hey, not like I haven't dealt with this before or anything...

I said I acknowledge the film has flaws but for me they're not big enough to bring the whole house down. I can't deny that I enjoyed watching it anymore than you can't deny that it didn't work for you on any level.

Years ago, DC published a Superman Elseworlds miniseries called Secret Identity. The basic thrust of the story is that a real world guy called Clark Kent somehow gets superpowers so he becomes Superman. To me, the Nolanverse is the equivalent for Batman. It's a realistic Elseworlds story but it doesn't relate much or at all to what Batman is all about.

Ya know, one thing that I think TDKR emphasized was that mentality of 'Batman is a symbol, anybody can be Batman'. So thus we see Bruce Wayne fake his own death & John Blake 'rising' to the occasion to take over the mantle. So then anyone can be Batman. I could be Batman (yeah, right). I see a certain fallacy here & if Nolan knows the source material like he'd have you believe, he should've known better. I mean, look at what molded Bruce Wayne into Batman. The brutal death of his parents of which he was a witness. Then how that consumed his life & I suppose, made him vengeful in a way. So he trains relentlessly. And here's something. I keep seeing comments online about Bruce being 'trained by ninjas'. Well, he was in BATMAN BEGINS. But I sure don't remember that being present in the original Golden Age interpretation or even more recent comics interpretations. However, I could be wrong about more recent versions because certainly someone has already emulated Nolan like they did Donner. But I'm fairly certain it wasn't originally so.

So can any 'Tom, Dick or Harry' be Batman? I really don't think so. DOA the first night on duty.

non_amos wrote:Ya know, one thing that I think TDKR emphasized was that mentality of 'Batman is a symbol, anybody can be Batman'. So thus we see Bruce Wayne fake his own death & John Blake 'rising' to the occasion to take over the mantle. So then anyone can be Batman. I could be Batman (yeah, right). I see a certain fallacy here & if Nolan knows the source material like he'd have you believe, he should've known better. I mean, look at what molded Bruce Wayne into Batman. The brutal death of his parents of which he was a witness. Then how that consumed his life & I suppose, made him vengeful in a way. So he trains relentlessly. And here's something. I keep seeing comments online about Bruce being 'trained by ninjas'. Well, he was in BATMAN BEGINS. But I sure don't remember that being present in the original Golden Age interpretation or even more recent comics interpretations. However, I could be wrong about more recent versions because certainly someone has already emulated Nolan like they did Donner. But I'm fairly certain it wasn't originally so.

So can any 'Tom, Dick or Harry' be Batman? I really don't think so. DOA the first night on duty.

The pre-Nolan comics as I recall were intentionally vague about the subject. However, it was generally understood that whoever trained Bruce, it sure as shit wasn't Ra's al Ghul. One such teacher was Kirigi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirigi_%28DC_Comics%29). The best you can say is that some League of Assassin members shared a common teacher with Batman but to argue that Ra's had anything whatsoever to do with Bruce's training is, as best I can tell, completely a Nolan thing.

The name escapes me, it might be Shen-Chi, but the first Robin/Tim Drake miniseries had at least one other teacher as well. Various stories have implied that there were other teachers besides those two.

I don't think martial arts much entered Batman's repertoire until sometime in the late 70's or early 80's (just about the time the craze really hit big in America). Up to then, I think Batman at best dabbled with it but mostly relied on John Wayne fisticuffs, his strength and his endurance.

But even if you skip all that stuff, I've always interpreted that comic book Bruce's physical conditioning is comparable to a modern Olympian. Bruce began studying and, from the time he hit puberty, training and working so that he could become Batman by about the age of 21 or 22. Nolan's Bruce never even really started his training until he was about 21 or 22 (and yet we're always told it's Smallville that pisses all over established canon).

Either way though, most of that is far beyond John Blake's grasp. That's another reinvention of TDKRises. What I took from Begins is that Bruce wanted to become a symbol that can transcend the limitations people expect from other people. The notion wasn't so much that anybody can be Batman but that Batman's true identity is completely beside the point. What matters is what Batman stands for. THAT is what's supposed to be universal. But doing what Bruce did requires time, training and money far beyond the reach of your average shmuck. Not just anybody can be Batman.

Bruce- "Sometimes, I don't know what to think of this. It's just something I have to do."
Vicki- "Why?!"
Bruce- "Because nobody else can."

Actually, Bruce Wayne trained with none other than Henri Ducard. At least, that's the way it was prior to the "Nu52" bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Ducard

Henri Ducard is a fictional character in the Batman comic book universe. Created by Sam Hamm, Ducard's first appearance was in Detective Comics #599 (April 1989), part of the "Blind Justice" story arc. Sam Hamm was the screenwriter of the 1989 Batman film and was asked by Batman comic editor Denny O'Neill to guest write a story arc in Detective Comics,[1] within the arc he created the character of Henri Ducard. The character was later amalgamated with Ra's al Ghul as the main villain in the film Batman Begins, a reboot of the Batman franchise Hamm had helped originate.

And:

In the comics, Bruce Wayne approaches Ducard for training in Paris, during his early days traveling the world. Ducard, a knowledgeable detective with excellent man-hunting skills, imparts much of his knowledge to the young, keen Bruce. [2]

Later in the series, it is revealed that Ducard is largely amoral, working for criminals as often as he does the law. He deduces Batman's secret identity, but keeps it to himself, thinking, as he leaves, that Batman continues to exist because true criminals realize he distracts the people from the greater crimes by his public battle against lesser crimes. [3]

Ducard has also worked with the third Robin, Tim Drake, who went to Paris during his training, as Bruce did.[4] Unlike Bruce, however, Robin only encounters him in passing at the end of his training, in Hong Kong. [5] [6]

He also made a few brief appearances in the Suicide Squad book.

So 'Ducard' wasn't just some Nolan invention as I was led to believe. Interesting..........

Ya only thing nolan did was merge ducard and ras into one person.

Seems like this is as good a place as any to post this.

pinja's question- What has your opinion been on the Nolan Batman trilogy? And more specifically, on Bane's voice?

Greg Rucka- I think they’re exceptionally well-made films that are inherently ashamed of the fact they’re about a superhero who calls himself "Batman."

URL- http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/30045442431/what-has-your-opinion-been-on-the-nolan-batman-trilogy

For those who may not know, Greg Rucka isn't some shmuck who doesn't know what he's talking about. He's one of the big name Batman writers of the past couple of years. Of all people, he has credibility on this subject.

thecolorsblend wrote:Seems like this is as good a place as any to post this.

pinja's question- What has your opinion been on the Nolan Batman trilogy? And more specifically, on Bane's voice?

Greg Rucka- I think they’re exceptionally well-made films that are inherently ashamed of the fact they’re about a superhero who calls himself "Batman."

URL- http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/30045442431/what-has-your-opinion-been-on-the-nolan-batman-trilogy

For those who may not know, Greg Rucka isn't so shmuck who doesn't know what he's talking about. He's one of the big name Batman writers of the past couple of years. Of all people, he has credibility on this subject.

The sad part is, he started out so well with 'Batman Begins'. Seriously, out of ALL of them, 'Begins' is the only TRUE Batman movie out of all of them. That scene with Flass, in the rain, was probably one of the coolest scenes in ANY Batman film.

What the hell happened to Nolan after that?

'The Dark Knight' was a Joker film. There's no two ways around it. But hey, I liked it. It's just.... where was the cool Batman moments? China? What was so cool about it? He fought a bunch of faceless bad guys again. We saw him fly in the first film. But the Joker got all the cool moments, and all the cool lines. Still, I like 'TDK' very much, and have little else I can truly complain about. Plot-holes aside.

'The Dark Knight Rises' was easily the worst of the three. I could go on and on again, but what's the point?

I seriously hope they get comic book fans involved in the next production, i.e. directors and writers who are passionate about the genre. Ya know, like that fledgling Marvel Studios has been experimenting with?

Some good coments from the writer on nolan batman.

Apologist Puncher wrote:
'The Dark Knight' was a Joker film. There's no two ways around it.

I always get the impression that it's more of an ensemble film, specifically with Batman/Gordon/Dent/Joker all font and center together.

James Stocks wrote:I always get the impression that it's more of an ensemble film, specifically with Batman/Gordon/Dent/Joker all font and center together.

Yeah, but you also think 'Rises' is better than the other two, so there is that....

Maybe it isn't a better film technically, but I found it to be a more pleasing one. From the gut. For example I acknowledge that ALIENS is technically a better made film than either of the two cuts of ALIEN 3, and yet I find myself enjoying the latter a lot more because as flawed as it is I find it a much more interesting installment.

James Stocks wrote:Maybe it isn't a better film technically, but I found it to be a more pleasing one. From the gut. For example I acknowledge that ALIENS is technically a better made film than either of the two cuts of ALIEN 3, and yet I find myself enjoying the latter a lot more because as flawed as it is I find it a much more interesting installment.

Wow. It gets worse and worse.....

All I will say about 'Aliens 3' is that it was completely opposite of what they promised. And since I just watched the "Directors Cut' version not too long ago, I can also say it was a boring mess of a film.

Oh, and just for clarification, here's the teaser trailer for 'Aliens 3':



Not exactly what we got, is it?

Going by the trailer, it sounds less interesting than the actual film. Aliens on Earth? That would last like five minutes.

I like that ALIEN 3 goes onto be its own film as much as ALIENS was from the original. Giving Ripley the alien inside her was the natural way to go, her nightmare come true and how she goes about it is something I found compelling, particularly in the Assembly Cut (the theatrical ending ruins the whole point of her sacrifice).

James Stocks wrote:Going by the trailer, it sounds less interesting than the actual film. Aliens on Earth? That would last like five minutes.

Yes, because a squad of Colonial Marines didn't just last an entire movie against them. So no way an ARMY of them could put up much of a fight.

Right?

I like that ALIEN 3 goes onto be its own film as much as ALIENS was from the original. Giving Ripley the alien inside her was the natural way to go, her nightmare come true and how she goes about it is something I found compelling, particularly in the Assembly Cut (the theatrical ending ruins the whole point of her sacrifice).

Yes, and Weaver having them kill off Biehn's Hicks because she didn't like that he was encroaching on her characters popularity was fair to the fans, right? Or how about her saying that Ripley SHOULDN'T use any weapons because that's "not" who her character was?



Oh wait, that's EXACTLY who she became!

'Alien 3' is a boring mess. So much so, that David Fincher has had it stricken from his "resume". Read this for some more history on the project, and the ever weirder ideas they came up with:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/alien-3-tale-of-the-wooden-planet/

Haven't heard of that "out of character" part. Interesting. I've seen her in interviews about not wanting to rehash the first two, and it wasn't until the idea came of killing off Ripley that Weaver became more than interested because it gave Ripley a new angle to work with and no doubt she was pleased with the film centering on her and less on the alien (note that some of the drafts over the years didn't even include her given Weaver's reluctance). But I think it's much better that they didn't go straight back into combat territory because I don't think it could ever have been done as good as it was in ALIENS. Earth doesn't sound like it would work simply because the humans would not only have the numbers but also the means of wiping out the aliens with ease. Human characters were often either outnumbered or under-gunned and that's what kept the suspense.

As for Newt and Hicks. Newt annoyed me so good riddance. I really don't get why Hicks has fans, of all the marines in Cameron's flick I found him to bethe least interesting and most bland of them all, nothing more than a one note soldier boy. So it's no loss to me that he didn't make it (I do find it amusing that Hicks gets killed because he was "impaled by that safety support", it screams Fincher's dark humor). Plus, Charles Dance as Clemons was a hundred times more interesting as a companion for Ripley than Hicks would have ever been in my opinion, notably because they're both outcasts of sorts. I do wish he lasted a bit longer, but at least other guys like Ralph Brown and Charles Dutton managed to keep things nicely as far as supporting characters go. I have no idea where Newt and Hicks would fit into all this, but I'm not missing them. It was nice Bishop had a better end, I really like they scene with him and Ripley having a brief reunion, "it's very dark here Ripely".

Speaking of Fincher, I can't blame him about being bitter of that experience. Despite all the shit that happened in production, I think he managed to make something worthwhile and I can't think of a better way of ending Ripley's story. I also really like score by fellow Bat-composer Elliot Goldenthal, it's probably his best work (and it's used in BATMAN: DEAD END, ironically!).

Honestly though, I enjoy the Alien trilogy (emphasis on "trilogy") altogether almost equally for different reasons. For a long time I ranked 3 way higher than Cameron's effort, but all three are now pretty close after having watched them on the blu-ray set.

Oh, as for ALIEN RESURRECTION? A total waste and the most inconsequential of the films (I never bothered with the AVP films btw), but I do admit it's entertaining in a Saturday morning cartoon kind of variety. In the late 90s I thought it was pretty generic and did not see again until many years later and when I finally did it was a shock because after being very familiar with FIREFLY and SERENITY, AR came off like a weird pilot episode with a different cast. All the Whedon-isms were there, including everyone referring to the spaceship as "this boat".


EDIT: Fuck, I didn't expect to go on like that. If there's to be more ALIEN discussion, let's start a new thread and let this one focus on that Bat guy.

Ya know, one concern I had about TDKRises is how influential it would be in terms of being a concluding chapter. My fear was that the movie would lead Hollywood to do other "end of the story" types of superhero films. My opposition comes from how that might be executed more than just the concept of ending the story. Let's face it, these characters have no end. Stories like "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and (at least originally) TDKR were endings for those characters but they're the exceptions that prove the rule. Especially in today's anemic comic book market, there's no percentage in ending the story simply because of the risk that an entire segment of the fanbase may tune out permanently.

Even so, can you imagine the laundry list of ways Hollywood could fuck up conclusions of superhero stories? Singerman is largely viewed as a conclusion to the Donnerverse and look how that turned out. Surely I have to explain why Singerman having any canonical legitimacy bothers me, right?

But you look around the landscape and the few conclusions in these franchises that exist have mostly underwhelmed. That isn't saying they lost money necessarily but they're just not as beloved as superhero films that leave plenty of room for sequels. Maybe by virtue of being conclusions, Singerman, possibly Punisher- War Zone and you could even argue Watchmen just weren't accepted (although, yes, there were other problems with Singerman and Punisher but I'm running with a thesis here).

Anyway. The point in all of this is, yeah, TDKRises has done amazing business. No question about it. But at the same time, only a real idiot would argue it's grabbed moviegoers by the balls like TDK did. So my point here is that I truly hope Hollywood finally puts the "end of the story" thing out to pasture. It's rarely profitable and it's never universally adored.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Anyway. The point in all of this is, yeah, TDKRises has done amazing business. No question about it. But at the same time, only a real idiot would argue it's grabbed moviegoers by the balls like TDK did. So my point here is that I truly hope Hollywood finally puts the "end of the story" thing out to pasture. It's rarely profitable and it's never universally adored.

Maybe that's the beauty of the James Bond franchise. Change lead actors, etc. but the franchise marches on. I wish I could've said the same thing for Batman & Superman. Then reboots would not have been necessary. Anyway, you've got a point about comparing TDKR to TDK. Only an idiot would think it 'grabbed you by the balls' like TDK did. But why is this? One name alone: Heath Ledger. I'm aware we've already milked this thing to death but it can't be emphasized enough. Like I said, I didn't really prefer that version of the Joker. But apparently the masses did. It is what it is. But I will give Ledger this. Whatever it was he portrayed, it was probably 'Oscar worthy' even if he'd lived. It also made him the star of TDK & relegated Bale to 'supporting' cast. By comparison it's been said that Bale 'phoned in' his performance. So there you go. Like AP said, this was a JOKER movie. It's Ledger's gripping performance that sold this thing besides his untimely death which also obviously contributed.

Now what did Tom Hardly bring to the table? He may have done OK on his portrayal of 'Bane who is not Bane' but does it compare to Ledger's performance? No. It pales in comparison. And I think in time Ledger's performance will still be remembered but Hardly's will be largely forgotten. So I think that's the difference between these 2 films among other things. One other thing though. TDKR is largely a direct sequel to BATMAN BEGINS in some ways. Sure it continues from TDK but although TDK continued from BB it was also in some ways a 'stand alone' story. TDKR is more of a sequel to the first one. So there's that too.

I think in some cases a "conclusion" would work for some film series, but it should not work for all of them including superhero flicks.

I think the best course for all of these superhero films is to keep on going just like the comics. Perfect example for the film genre is James Bond. For the most part the series keeps on going and when an actor leaves the role they simply recast and continue as if nothing changed. No reboot or conclusion, but simply moving onto the next adventure. Only ONE reboot occurred and for the most part nearly everyone thought it did the series a favor and now it's moving on to new adventures.

So far only two franchises came close mirroring the history of comics and the James Bond films are the 1989-1997 Batman films and the MARVEL Universe films. New directors, leading actors and different styles took over but for the most part the series was treated as if it was all part of its own continuity. Like the James Bond films, when a lead actor leaves the series (Keaton, Norton) some of the supporting actors remain in their roles like Alfred or the gadget master Q. There's no reason for the other superhero franchises to not adopt that kind of method.

James Stocks wrote:I think in some cases a "conclusion" would work for some film series, but it should not work for all of them including superhero flicks.

I think the best course for all of these superhero films is to keep on going just like the comics. Perfect example for the film genre is James Bond. For the most part the series keeps on going and when an actor leaves the role they simply recast and continue as if nothing changed. No reboot or conclusion, but simply moving onto the next adventure. Only ONE reboot occurred and for the most part nearly everyone thought it did the series a favor and now it's moving on to new adventures.

So far only two franchises came close mirroring the history of comics and the James Bond films are the 1989-1997 Batman films and the MARVEL Universe films. New directors, leading actors and different styles took over but for the most part the series was treated as if it was all part of its own continuity. Like the James Bond films, when a lead actor leaves the series (Keaton, Norton) some of the supporting actors remain in their roles like Alfred or the gadget master Q. There's no reason for the other superhero franchises to not adopt that kind of method.

The problem with that isn't casting, it's characters. As good as Batman rogue's gallery may be, it has limits. Ditto Superman, Spider-Man and all the rest. If the Burton-Shumacherverse had been resurrected in 2005 instead of a reboot, right away you wouldn't be able to use the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, Two Face, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze or Bane. Batman still has a plethora of enemies to choose from but sooner or later you'd either have to recycle/reinvent characters (continuity be damned) or else create new ones (which likely won't be as effective as the originals). It's a good sentiment but James Bond more easily lends himself to an unending (or at least really freaking long) franchise.

The other side there is that a filmmaker may want to make an Adam West-style Batman in a way that audiences genuinely will enjoy. That's the premise- It's Adam West-style and we know it will be successful. Well, that'd be tough to reconcile from a narrative point of view if seven movies up to that point all show a dark, brooding Batman.

Sooner or later, you have to start over.