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

Why did Alfred act like Wayne's whiney old wife, who disapproved of everything he does? I mean.....man.

Hardly's "Bane" wasn't as bad as I expected, but not exactly much better either. His death was pathetically retarded, and seemed almost like a "throw-away" scene for someone who was SUPPOSED to be the main villain.

And they should have included the line from the original comic after he "broke" Batman:



The movie was "O.K." at best. Not as bad as 'Green Lantern', nor as good as 'The Avengers'.

Yeah, Hardly Bane's death in TDKR was kinda stupid. I mean, you've got this guy who's this big of a threat & he's done in by 'Selina Kyle' who blows him away with artillery she didn't even really know how to operate! Give me a break! It really was a retarded way to do the villain in.

And like you said, not as good as Avengers. "Nuff said!

Apologist Puncher wrote:And they should have included the line from the original comic after he "broke" Batman:

I was surprised they didn't, actually. It's a pretty good line.

The fights and the breaking the bat scene werre indeed bad. Wish they did that better. As for next batman it rreally needs to be a clean break restart/reboot like man off steel is. I woulsnt want another director to be forced or harp on nolan take and if we tried to do a sequel we have john blake as batman/robin/knightwing take which wouldn't be great in my mind.

Plus if wb is serious in doing a shared universe deal nolan bat,man wouldn't work. We need to stike a balance of comicbooky stuff and some realism/world presented as a normal place where crazy/zany things can happen. So we can have a batman that would gell with new superman and other supers. That is all I want. Now who is best to do that I don't know but I do hope wb can get it right with superman, the next batman, and if we do get jl/other new solo ffilms out of big guns. It would be great to see wb/dc get it right and be on page like marvel studios has done so far.

Apologist Puncher wrote:The movie was "O.K." at best. Not as bad as 'Green Lantern', nor as good as 'The Avengers'.

I try not to compare the Nolan movies to other superhero films. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way to these Batman movies.

Still, I liked TDKRises a lot more on first viewing than I did TDK. Part of me kind of admires the courage in ending Bruce's story. Any kind of ending. Spider-Man 3 could be interpreted as an ending to that franchise... but at the same time it could've continued. They didn't really end Peter's story. So part of me I guess is awarding points for taking something intended to be ongoing, putting a ribbon on it and saying "we're closing this door now". A lot of things related to the core concept of TDKRises bugged me when they first came along as spoilers and most of them still bother me.

But still, ending Bruce's story? Pretty ballsy.

Since we're posting pics here, I made a facebook cover. If you want it, it's all yours.

thecolorsblend wrote:I try not to compare the Nolan movies to other superhero films. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way to these Batman movies.

I do. Apples + Apples.

Still, I liked TDKRises a lot more on first viewing than I did TDK. Part of me kind of admires the courage in ending Bruce's story. Any kind of ending. Spider-Man 3 could be interpreted as an ending to that franchise... but at the same time it could've continued. They didn't really end Peter's story. So part of me I guess is awarding points for taking something intended to be ongoing, putting a ribbon on it and saying "we're closing this door now". A lot of things related to the core concept of TDKRises bugged me when they first came along as spoilers and most of them still bother me.

I could go over the numerous nonsensical things that happened in this film, that DIDN'T happen in the previous two. Like Bruce Wayne, with no money, no passport, no ID, not only makes it back into the US but into a militarily quarantined Gotham City? Seriously??

But I won't. Not worth it.

But still, ending Bruce's story? Pretty ballsy.

A Batman "career" that lasted a grand total of about 18 months.

Here's a good read, and 90% of what this guy brings up is true:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_movies/news/?a=64971

99 Reasons Why The Dark Knight Rises SUCKED

And I love the Nolanite responses below. Exactly the same as Apologists used to do. "i dunno red it" "u don half no live" "u r jess uh hader".

You know, unable to counter his points?

Apologist Puncher wrote:Here's a good read, and 90% of what this guy brings up is true:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_movies/news/?a=64971

99 Reasons Why The Dark Knight Rises SUCKED

And I love the Nolanite responses below. Exactly the same as Apologists used to do. "i dunno red it" "u don half no live" "u r jess uh hader".

You know, unable to counter his points?

He raises a lot of good issues, some of which I hadn't thought too much about.

But a few things stood out.

1.Pacing of the story was horrible. It felt like watching a 3-hour long trailer where dialogue is delivered at a snap pace and given no time to sink in.

I would agree. The first hour of the movie (ie, right around the time Batman shows up for the first time) would be the first twenty minutes if anyone else was directing. When you realize that the thing doesn't really start until Batman has his first confrontation with Bane, you realize that the meat of the story is Batman coming back to Gotham after a severe injury... but there's a huge fucking preamble to get there. That's not a praise or a criticism; just an observation.

4. I believe studio script writers who had to review the film were too scared to tell Christopher Nolan he has to "show" rather than "tell". The film contained far too much junk that just simply tells us what is going on rather than let us actually experience. We are told the villains motivations are to build up hope of the people then bring it crashing down yet we never see this occur. We are told how fast, brutal, and ferocious Bane is yet the fight scene choreography was rather slow and dull. One last example comes in the clues that Bruce is still alive then we see Bruce in the cafe, the shot of him in the cafe went far too long and should have only had Alfred get a passing glimpse of Bruce and the result would have been more ambiguous and more Christopher Nolan.

Um, a lot of this stuff could accurately be said of Batman Begins and TDK as well. So why do those get a free pass while TDKRises gets hammered? And that goes for a lot of other criticisms the guy has too.

9. The dialog in the script is overly dramatic and filled with far too much exposition. Nobody talks like that in real life and for a movie grounded in realism the amount of exposition took me out of the narrative in several scenes.

Ibid.

11. Too much repetition in the script. Did we really need to hear JGL called a hot-head so many times? Did we really need to see the wheels on the Bat Pod flip 15 times? Did we really need to be constantly reminded that Bane was a member of the League of Shadows about 80 times by every character in the film practically?

Ibid. Remember how many times BB told us that shit gets real if the train reaches Wayne tower? Or that fucking stethescope flashback? Or the over-written, overly didactic dialogue? Again, I'm not arguing that TDKRises doesn't have these problems. The issue is that the other two have the same issues.

10. For a movie grounded in realism (remember all the bruises from the first film) we see Batman shrug off an awful lot of punishment in this film. First the no cartilage in the knee, the ass beating/broken back from Bane, a stab to the gut from Talia. Batman shrugs all of this off and doesn't lose a single step. As a matter of fact, the more punishment he receives it appears the stronger he gets through the film.

This is the real problem with realism. When you go out of you way to try playing by real world rules, you don't get to selectively obey these things.

99. Character Issue - Bane - It surprises me that so many Spider-Man fans jumped all over Raimi for the liberties he took with the Spider-Man mythos and changing even simpler aspects such as Spider-Man shooting the webs form his body as opposed to a device he created. Yet Bane gets to completely change from being super human thanks to a chemical process to being just some buff dude who needs constant pain killers.

*sigh* Ain't that the truth? But long ago Nolan was given lifetime permission to change whatever the hell wants without fear of reprisal. It's how things are.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:The movie was "O.K." at best. Not as bad as 'Green Lantern', nor as good as 'The Avengers'.

I try not to compare the Nolan movies to other superhero films. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way to these Batman movies.

Still, I liked TDKRises a lot more on first viewing than I did TDK. Part of me kind of admires the courage in ending Bruce's story. Any kind of ending. Spider-Man 3 could be interpreted as an ending to that franchise... but at the same time it could've continued. They didn't really end Peter's story. So part of me I guess is awarding points for taking something intended to be ongoing, putting a ribbon on it and saying "we're closing this door now". A lot of things related to the core concept of TDKRises bugged me when they first came along as spoilers and most of them still bother me.

But still, ending Bruce's story? Pretty ballsy.

I agree with that. Say what you want, it's ambitious to give a definitive end. When I first heard of Bruce Wayne quitting Batman I was very skeptical but the way it was handled I give it a pass. Gotham's no longer the corrupt city it used to be and such. The idea of Batman being more of a symbol than a man. Only problem I have is John Blake taking the mantle, because I suspect that the first night he goes out in costume he dies ten minutes in. Sure, he's a good detective but Bruce Wayne was trained by fucking ninjas.

Also, how long will it be before some kid hits those piano keys and discovers the bat cave. I suppose Alfred took care of that.

James Stocks wrote:I agree with that. Say what you want, it's ambitious to give a definitive end. When I first heard of Bruce Wayne quitting Batman I was very skeptical but the way it was handled I give it a pass. Gotham's no longer the corrupt city it used to be and such.

I've noticed that comic geeks have imagined endings for various characters. If you think of it as a three act story, we see a fair bit of Act 1 (the origin) but mostly we're permanently stuck in Act 2 (the hero's career as a hero). It's rare to see a conclusion of a character in comics. So most of the time, we have to imagine what Act 3 (The End) might be.

For Superman, I go with the Grant Morrison idea of him leaving Earth eventually, long after he'd outlived his contemporaries. Spider-Man sets the standard of the hero who will go out in a blaze of glory. Power and responsibility. He'll never permanently quit. He's going to die in the line of duty. But I truly believe Batman would make a decision along the lines of what Bruce did in TDKRises. Maybe for different reasons but he'd eventually retire (from being Batman and from public life in general), maybe marry some chick (Selina is as good as anybody, and better than most) and move away from Gotham City. As much as I don't care to see the adventures of John Blake as Batman, I do acknowledge that maybe the idea of Bruce retiring is partly what sells TDKRises for me. Hmm...

I still like the "crazy obsessed" interpretation of Bruce Wayne who simply doesn't want to retire at all. Like in BATMAN BEYOND he continues to go out as Batman way into his 60s. But he doesn't quit willingly, he's forced into retirement because his body is in no condition and he had to use a gun to scare off a villain. There's even one episode where a villain uses a mind control device telling him "Bruce, jump out the window" but he fights and doesn't jump. Terry (the new Batman) is surprised that he could resist it, but Bruce points out "he called me Bruce, in my mind I don't refer to myself as that..." implying he still thinks of himself as Batman first, Bruce Wayne second which is pretty fucked up.

Anyway, I think today would be the perfect time to do a BATMAN BEYOND feature film and that is only because I believe Clint Eastwood would be the PERFECT old Bruce Wayne. I point to him as the sole reason for even making a BEYOND flick. Plus it would be different enough from the other flicks.

i could see him too as a old bruce for a beyond film if that was to ever happen.

I'd rather them go with THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS if they were gonna do a live adaptation of an old Batman. I know they're coming out with an animated feature. A live-action film would be great. The only problem is, it would probably conflict with any ongoing young Batman film series, unless they want to pull a 'James Bond' & have 2 films out at the same time with different actors.

Better yet, they could pull off a Sherlock Holmes. There's the film series with RDJ, the BBC series and the upcoming ELEMENTARY series (which looks stupid, to be honest). I kind of wish they'd do that with James Bond, where the films go their own route while there could be HBO movies that are more faithful straight adaptations of the books. I think that would be a great idea for Batman. Have a film series do their own thing, while there are one-off TV productions of various Batman stories like THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.


Anyway, I just returned from my second viewing of TDKR, this time with my mom since she's been eager to see it. Having just watched the first two Nolan films (which I hadn't really seen in a long time) and TDKR all in one week, I think the third movie is the best of that series. Like I said weeks ago it flows better, the dialogue is a major improvement, the spectacle is a lot more extravagant and fun to watch on the big screen. It overall is the best "blockbuster", for lack of a better term. I still think having John Blake take the mantle is kind of stupid, but I do like the idea of Bruce Wayne realizing that Batman is more of a symbol, something bigger. He may have only had an 18 month career but his impact on Gotham is more phenomenal than any mortal man can live up to.

My ranking:

BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM - 10/10
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - 9/10
THE DARK KNIGHT - 8/10
BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD - 8/10
BATMAN BEGINS - 7/10
BATMAN BEYOND: RETURN OF THE JOKER - 7/10
BATMAN: THE MOVIE - 7/10
BATMAN 89 - 7/10
BATMAN RETURNS - 6/10
BATMAN: MYSTERY OF THE BATWOMAN - 5/10
BATMAN FOREVER - 5/10
BATMAN & ROBIN - 3/10

James Stocks wrote:Anyway, I just returned from my second viewing of TDKR, this time with my mom since she's been eager to see it. Having just watched the first two Nolan films (which I hadn't really seen in a long time) and TDKR all in one week, I think the third movie is the best of that series.

Um...wow.

I seriously fail to grasp how you came to THIS conclusion.

Like I said weeks ago it flows better, the dialogue is a major improvement, the spectacle is a lot more extravagant and fun to watch on the big screen. It overall is the best "blockbuster", for lack of a better term. I still think having John Blake take the mantle is kind of stupid, but I do like the idea of Bruce Wayne realizing that Batman is more of a symbol, something bigger. He may have only had an 18 month career but his impact on Gotham is more phenomenal than any mortal man can live up to.

Ignoring quite a bit MIGHT make it "flow better". But sorry, I can't ignore things slapping me in my face.

Seriously. NO ONE sees the bomb once "Bane" takes out the core, yet EVERYONE has it timed TO THE MINUTE of the explosion? Huh?? The forced love scene between Bruce and Miranda that was NEVER hinted at and forgotten 2 minutes later? "Bane" sends Batman overseas to be in a prison where he has NO ONE to make sure he stays put, instead of sticking him in Blackgate or Arkham so he can watch everything go down first-hand? Really? How about a penniless, passport-less, IDENTIFICATION-LESS Bruce Wayne is not only able to fly back and pass-thru US customs, but infiltrates a virtual police-state with ease?

These are just a few of the nonsensical going's-on in 'Rises'. I could keep going, but to what point? You saw a completely different movie than I did I think...

And I saw it twice too.

Apologist Puncher wrote:The forced love scene between Bruce and Miranda that was NEVER hinted at and forgotten 2 minutes later?

You're only saying that because the entire premise of the movie is that Bruce is still lovesick for Rachel after all these years.

Still, I could halfass No Prize this by saying "Miranda" would do it because she'd want to twist the knife (I mean in the metaphorical sense; not the two inch knife that somehow subdued Batman later on in the movie) and revealing her true identity *AFTER* he'd boffed her would certainly do that. As for Bruce, he might do it because he's basically hit rock bottom by about that point... which only partly explains his actions and doesn't at all justify his romance with Catwo-- I mean Selina later. But it's the best I've got.

Apologist Puncher wrote:These are just a few of the nonsensical going's-on in 'Rises'. I could keep going, but to what point? You saw a completely different movie than I did I think...

And I saw it twice too.

Or here's one. John Blake is apparently the new Batman, right? So... I guess he dies the first night on the job, right? Sure, he can handle himself in a fight but it takes a lot more than that to be what Bruce Wayne became. He doesn't have the martial arts training or the financial resources Bruce did and, what, is Lucius going to tailor a suit just for him?

And since we're being analytical here... you've got the cops facing off with Occupy Wall Street. The cops are presumably outnumbered and definitely outgunned. One of the Tumblers takes aim at the cops and... The Bat disables one of them. Only one. I can appreciate that Batman wouldn't carpet bomb Occupy Wall Street but why the hell not take out the Tumblers?

Oh wait, the Nolans knew Miranda would need a getaway vehicle later on, I forgot...

EDIT- As I say, the conclusion aspect of TDKRises cuts through a lot of shit with me. I like it because that's somewhat how I always saw the end of Bruce as Batman. But that doesn't mean I have to overlook the films other flaws. Because it doesn't. And I won't.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Anyway, I just returned from my second viewing of TDKR, this time with my mom since she's been eager to see it. Having just watched the first two Nolan films (which I hadn't really seen in a long time) and TDKR all in one week, I think the third movie is the best of that series.

Um...wow.

I seriously fail to grasp how you came to THIS conclusion.

Matthew Modine said so.

Kidding. Here's my explanation: Of the three films, this is the one I enjoyed the most.

Ignoring quite a bit MIGHT make it "flow better". But sorry, I can't ignore things slapping me in my face.

Seriously. NO ONE sees the bomb once "Bane" takes out the core, yet EVERYONE has it timed TO THE MINUTE of the explosion? Huh?? The forced love scene between Bruce and Miranda that was NEVER hinted at and forgotten 2 minutes later? "Bane" sends Batman overseas to be in a prison where he has NO ONE to make sure he stays put, instead of sticking him in Blackgate or Arkham so he can watch everything go down first-hand? Really? How about a penniless, passport-less, IDENTIFICATION-LESS Bruce Wayne is not only able to fly back and pass-thru US customs, but infiltrates a virtual police-state with ease?

These are just a few of the nonsensical going's-on in 'Rises'. I could keep going, but to what point? You saw a completely different movie than I did I think...

And I saw it twice too.

Nonsensicle bits, yes, but they don't ruin MY enjoyment of the film and I don't see how they're crucial. TDKR isn't the kind of film that depends on the little things like that. Nolan's films are more about the feeling and spectacle (and for what it's worth, the plots in these flicks are a hundred times more coherent than the 90s Batflicks). I totally get that it will throw guys like you off since you're much more observant than I am, but for me they're nitpicks I acknowledge then move on because the film has bigger fish to fry than take the time to explain to audiences how Batman returns to Gotham overseas. As for the love scene, I saw it as Miranda taking the opportunity at exploiting Bruce Wayne when he's at a vulnerable point, that way it will cloud his judgement and when she finally strikes he'll never see it coming.

But I still think the whole John Blake finding the batcave and him taking of the mantle is stupid. He may be a good detective (oh how I wish the Nolan films embraced that more) but does he have the same commitment as Bruce Wayne? He wasn't even trained my ninjas. I'll overlook some things in this flick, but this I can't.

Overall, I enjoyed this flick the most in Nolan's series and I believe over the years this will be the film I want to revisit the most.

Apologist Puncher wrote:How about a penniless, passport-less, IDENTIFICATION-LESS Bruce Wayne is not only able to fly back and pass-thru US customs, but infiltrates a virtual police-state with ease?

Forgot to reply to this but, yeah, I have to agree. The Nolanites usually play the "I'm Batman" card but, sorry, I need more than that. Just because the guy's Batman and not everything can be or should be explained doesn't mean this aspect should be let off the hook. Getting out of wherever he was and then getting IN to Gotham... I just need something. Tell me he swam, tell me smuggled himself in with some supplies, tell me he flew in with a rocket pack jammed up his ass, just give me something.

Here's a photo of a deleted scene of how Bruce Wayne returned to Gotham:

https://2img.net/h/i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/phoenixmb/2012/TDKR-deleted-scene.jpg

I can't believe you rated Batman (1989) so far down your list!

UNBELIEVABLE!

And I thought I was being generous. Not my fault. Best thing about the Burton films are the performances, art direction, production design, music, ect. All of those get a A+, but it's the scripts that really bring them down because the stories are largely incoherent. I would have said 89 had those problems because of the writers strike of 1988, but then there's BATMAN RETURNS...

We likely will never see batman or some others be on live action tv while a film/film series is going on at same time. We probably get the same bs crap on why sv never got to use batman. And some characters to wb are better suited for film/make them more money there then on tv. Only way we get same characters on screen at same time is animation since its a totally different medium.

James Stocks wrote:And I thought I was being generous. Not my fault. Best thing about the Burton films are the performances, art direction, production design, music, ect. All of those get a A+, but it's the scripts that really bring them down because the stories are largely incoherent. I would have said 89 had those problems because of the writers strike of 1988, but then there's BATMAN RETURNS...

Burton is a visual and performance director more than a script director. I'm willing to let him slide on a lot of script problems (the reactor subplot in Batman Returns) since that was never his bread and butter to start with. It's like downgrading a Kevin Smith movie because it lacks visual flair. Well, um, he's not really that kind of director (for better or for worse).

For a director like Nolan though, the most visionary director of all time and even all parallel universes though, the guy whose movies are supposed to be absolutely air tight and unimpeachable are riddled with plotholes and poorly conceived character motivations/arcs. A questionable script for a guy like Nolan is a much bigger offense. In my opinion anyway.

thecolorsblend wrote:For a director like Nolan though, the most visionary director of all time and even all parallel universes though, the guy whose movies are supposed to be absolutely air tight and unimpeachable are riddled with plotholes and poorly conceived character motivations/arcs. A questionable script for a guy like Nolan is a much bigger offense. In my opinion anyway.

Which I'd say is even more evident in Burton's films. The guy has done some really great films and ED WOOD happens to be one of my all time favorites, but his Batman films (despite its positives giving the films some levity to them) lacks a compelling story. It's like watching a child play with a bunch of toys and indulging in his imagination but without a skeletal story. He's playing with various moods and themes which all sound really great but there's no coherency to them, he never really thinks it through on a basic level.

This is probably more appropriate to talk about in a different thread as this is starting to stray away from the Nolan films. My friend at the moment is doing annotation notes on all of the Batman films from Burton, Timm, Schumacher, Nolan and soon even the Adam West flick. I think you guys will find it very fascinating as they get straight to the strengths and weaknesses.