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

James Stocks wrote:Matthew Modine said so.

You mean that superfluous character that had NO importance to the film whatsoever?

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

Again, we must have watched two completely different movies.

Nonsensicle bits, yes, but they don't ruin MY enjoyment of the film and I don't see how they're crucial.

colors above showed just how wrong this statement is.

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.

Except, of course, it DOES.

Did the film NOT beat us over the head with the fact that Wayne was "broke"? And yet, he can do what I describe above with ease? Sorry, but 'Rises' made a rule, then broke it when it was convenient for it. And "Bane"'s bomb being timed to the SECOND when NONE of the characters saw it didn't matter to you? Really? How about Miranda's badly-acted monologue at the end? Did it not bother you that the three main characters stood there watching her instead of getting rid of the bomb?

Sorry. A film like 'The Expendables 2' I can shut my brain off and just enjoy the sheer bad-assitude of it all. But 'Rises' purports to be MORE, so the rules are different. Plot holes? More like plot CRATERS to me.

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.

Don't get me started on how stupid that ending was...

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.

1. Begins.
2. Dark Knight.





3. Rises.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Sorry. A film like 'The Expendables 2' I can shut my brain off and just enjoy the sheer bad-assitude of it all. But 'Rises' purports to be MORE, so the rules are different.

I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

James Stocks wrote:I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

Didn't watch that. Didn't need to. People who refuse to see what is plainly there have already decided the film is "fine" the way it is, and no hitting them over the head with facts will dissuade them.

You know, like the Apologists?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

Didn't watch that. Didn't need to.

Terminator 2 has plot holes. Tim Burton's Batman films has fuckton of plot holes. The Avengers has plot holes. Lots of movies have plot holes, it doesn't make them bad movies as long as there's an emotional core to them. That's why these films are very popular.

James Stocks wrote:Terminator 2 has plot holes. Tim Burton's Batman films has fuckton of plot holes. The Avengers has plot holes. Lots of movies have plot holes, it doesn't make them bad movies as long as there's an emotional core to them. That's why these films are very popular.

If you'd be so kind, please list the plot holes in 'The Avengers', and then we'll compare them to the craters in 'Rises'.

Thanks.

P.S. What exactly WAS the "emotional core" of 'Rises'? Definitely not Rachel Dawes death, as we so clearly saw Bruce jump from Tate to Selina Kyle in a matter of days.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Terminator 2 has plot holes. Tim Burton's Batman films has fuckton of plot holes. The Avengers has plot holes. Lots of movies have plot holes, it doesn't make them bad movies as long as there's an emotional core to them. That's why these films are very popular.

If you'd be so kind, please list the plot holes in 'The Avengers', and then we'll compare them to the craters in 'Rises'.

Thanks.

You asking me to get into that discussion tells me you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. In that case, just watch the video since they elaborate about it much better than I. The whole review is pretty insightful, whether you agree or think it's bullshit. It's not Nolan fanboy wankery, I promise you that.

What exactly WAS the "emotional core" of 'Rises'? Definitely not Rachel Dawes death, as we so clearly saw Bruce jump from Tate to Selina Kyle in a matter of days.

I thought you saw the movie twice.

James Stocks wrote:You asking me to get into that discussion tells me you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. In that case, just watch the video since they elaborate about it much better than I. The whole review is pretty insightful, whether you agree or think it's bullshit. It's not Nolan fanboy wankery, I promise you that.

Don't have the time or inclination, sorry.

I thought you saw the movie twice.

I did. The fact that I even have to ask should tell you something.

You not able to answer tells me EVEN MORE...

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:You asking me to get into that discussion tells me you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. In that case, just watch the video since they elaborate about it much better than I. The whole review is pretty insightful, whether you agree or think it's bullshit. It's not Nolan fanboy wankery, I promise you that.

Don't have the time or inclination, sorry.

When you do, check it out.

I thought you saw the movie twice.

I did. The fact that I even have to ask should tell you something.

You not able to answer tells me EVEN MORE...

Again, whenever you get the chance check out the whole video review. Until then.

James Stocks wrote:Again, whenever you get the chance check out the whole video review. Until then.

I didn't ask the video, I asked you? Not sure how this is so confusing, so I'll chalk it up to you not knowing either.

Alright then. The film is about Batman rising and Bruce Wayne finally moving on with his life in peace.

James Stocks wrote:I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

Not to gang up on you but this leads to a classic Nolanite double standard that drives me up the wall.

I've noticed Nolanites want it both ways. "Nolan made the material credible. He made a realistic world that's easy to really invest in. You can BELIEVE this stuff!" Now, (A) no you can't but (B) for the sake of argument, let's say that's true.

His movies are filled to overflowing with half-baked character arcs. Bruce is lonely and broken after Rachel's death... so he hops into the sake with Miranda Tate and then marries (or whatever) Selina. In the same fucking movie. Worse, there's no real transition between any of those. Moreover, we don't see WHY he believes in Selina. All she ever did for the first half of the movie is sell him out. Later, he guilted her into doing the right thing. On the whole though, I fail to see what qualifies her as long term material. It would've been no less illogical had Miranda Tate survived that Bruce marry her.

You bring up shit like that with Nolanites though and they say that "this is just an action movie, man, it's a comic book, you have to suspend your disbelief". Suspending disbelief is when we accept the impossible. For examples, we can choose to forget that the laws of physics CAN'T permit Iceman from the X-Men to generate freezing cold temperatures and ice in that way or that Superman, who is invulnerable, SHOULDN'T be able to discern cool/60'ish degree air from hot/90'ish degree air. Things like that. We can accept the premise of such blatant non-science in order to engage the story.

That's much different than suspending critical analysis. There's simply no logic to a great many things in TDKRises. In and of itself, that's not a big deal but TDKRises aspires to be more than just another brainless action movie. However, it exhibits all the tropes and clichés of a lot of action movies (ie, illogical stuff like the Bruce/Miranda stuff up there or action stuff like somehow outrunning a heat seeking missile and guiding it back to the enemy).

So which is it? Did Nolan make action films that transcend the genre? If so, how do you account for the above problems? If not, why do people act like his movies are so freakin brilliant?

These are tests that Burton doesn't have to pass because he never made any representation about creating fine cinema. Love him or hate him, all Burton wanted to do was create movies which look really cool and are fun to watch.

EDIT- I'm not necessarily challenging you on any of these points. I'm just saying it pisses me off when the "high art" shit gets played because somehow Nolan's movies are both "high brow cinema" and "shlocky action fests" depending on what the Nolanite needs to justify his argument.

They aren't "Nolanites".

James Stocks wrote:Alright then. The film is about Batman rising and Bruce Wayne finally moving on with his life in peace.

This, of course, has NEVER been Bruce Wayne's story. Ever.

And since we saw maybe 40 minutes of TOTAL Batman in the film, I'd say the "emotional core" was pretty flimsy. Wouldn't you? Not to mention the fact that he had decided willy-nilly to just stop being Batman for no good reason. So him "rising" was from a self-imposed retirement.

Which isn't very impressive.

James Stocks wrote:They aren't "Nolanites".

It's a convenient label designed to identify a particular type of fan. Trekkies, Trekkers, Deadheads, Ledheads, etc. If you find the word to be pejorative, just pretend I said "fan and ardent defender of Chris Nolan's Batman movies".

EDIT- My point here is that the object of this isn't to insult you or other Nolan fans. It's just to blow off some steam about a double standard I see those fans employ in almost every discussion on this subject.

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:They aren't "Nolanites".

It's a convenient label designed to identify a particular type of fan. Trekkies, Trekkers, Deadheads, Ledheads, etc. If you find the word to be pejorative, just pretend I said "fan and ardent defender of Chris Nolan's Batman movies".

I was talking about the video, the one that you were quoting me on. They aren't Nolanites. One of them even makes it clear they're not the biggest fan of Nolan.

James Stocks wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:They aren't "Nolanites".

It's a convenient label designed to identify a particular type of fan. Trekkies, Trekkers, Deadheads, Ledheads, etc. If you find the word to be pejorative, just pretend I said "fan and ardent defender of Chris Nolan's Batman movies".

I was talking about the video, the one that you were quoting me on. They aren't Nolanites. One of them even makes it clear they're not the biggest fan of Nolan.

Ah. I haven't even watched the video so I don't know what they say. I meant to refer to Nolan fans on other forums (Batman On Film's forum, IMDB, probably AICN and others).

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:They aren't "Nolanites".

It's a convenient label designed to identify a particular type of fan. Trekkies, Trekkers, Deadheads, Ledheads, etc. If you find the word to be pejorative, just pretend I said "fan and ardent defender of Chris Nolan's Batman movies".

I was talking about the video, the one that you were quoting me on. They aren't Nolanites. One of them even makes it clear they're not the biggest fan of Nolan.

Ah. I haven't even watched the video so I don't know what they say. I meant to refer to Nolan fans on other forums (Batman On Film's forum, IMDB, probably AICN and others).

Okay, just needed to let steam out I see. Well you should know I really don't care about fanboys. One of my friends got attacked on facebook because he thought TDKR was "pretty good" instead of the best thing to ever happen. Naturally I told him to unfriend the pricks.

Anyway, folks here should give the video a shot. I think they present their thoughts very well on TDKR, whether you agree with them or not.

James Stocks wrote:Anyway, folks here should give the video a shot. I think they present their thoughts very well on TDKR, whether you agree with them or not.

As have I, but you refuse to respond. I can't question a video, or respond to errors in their assertions.

What's the point?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Alright then. The film is about Batman rising and Bruce Wayne finally moving on with his life in peace.

This, of course, has NEVER been Bruce Wayne's story. Ever.

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.

James Stocks wrote:I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

Just watched the first 2 minutes, and I already see it's not worth the other 11. Basically they are saying "Well, we admit that the movies aren't very intelligent, so that means we shouldn't care about all the stupid shit and plot holes that don't make sense". Uh, what?

In movies like 'The Raid', or 'Expendables 2', there is stupid shit that happens. We get this. We expect this. But it still gets you from Point A - Z without doing a 180 on themselves. They don't build themselves up to be "better" than the genre, only to fail at even rudimentary story-telling. If 'Rises' was just an action movie, or even just a comic book movie, it would be easier to accept the stupidity inherit within. But when the director and cast ALL talk as if their films are "above" the source material, you better back it up.

'Rises' didn't.

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?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:I take all action/adventure films with a grain of salt. Here's a video that perfectly sums up my view of the Nolan films, concerning plot holes: https://youtu.be/3awmpoB6sP4?t=6m

Just watched the first 2 minutes, and I already see it's not worth the other 11. Basically they are saying "Well, we admit that the movies aren't very intelligent, so that means we shouldn't care about all the stupid shit and plot holes that don't make sense". Uh, what?

In movies like 'The Raid', or 'Expendables 2', there is stupid shit that happens. We get this. We expect this. But it still gets you from Point A - Z without doing a 180 on themselves. They don't build themselves up to be "better" than the genre, only to fail at even rudimentary story-telling. If 'Rises' was just an action movie, or even just a comic book movie, it would be easier to accept the stupidity inherit within. But when the director and cast ALL talk as if their films are "above" the source material, you better back it up.

'Rises' didn't.

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

I have a question for ANYONE who can answer:

Why, knowing how dangerous it was, did Bruce not send Fox down to flood the chamber where the MacGuffin... I mean "neutron bomb" was being housed, once he knew he was losing control of his company? He had the schematics and diagnostic info to recreate it down the line if he wanted to, so why have Fox give a "tour" to Miranda instead of saying "Fuck it, I'm not risking this thing falling into the wrong hands now that I can't be watching over it any longer"?

Oh. That's right. "Bane" needed to find it...

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.