Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 

Nautical Honors Society:
Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

myself:
but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

Milanezi:
I haven't seen the movie yet, it arrives only next Friday here in let-down land (Brazil), I've got tickets to saturday, not Friday so I MIGHT, just MIGHT, escape the horde of teenager lunatics that insist on making jokes throughout the whole movie.
Well, what the frak is going on here MovieBob??? ...

I finally saw the movie, on Saturday, and... And I wish I hadn't written anything from my old post (the one I just quoted), after watching the movie, not only do I agree with MovieBob, I also think he was pretty nice towards the movie. It's not that the movie was bad, but it was mediocre, had an unforgiving plot hole, and well, the great revelation by the end of the movie, and I'm not talking about the plot-twist, it's the hero-related one, rendered useless the whole trilogy, since this Batman "universe" will never continue because Nolan refused to do so. And then there is the BIG OFFENSE, Mr. Nolan could have had the decency of altering a minor scene in the movie where "scarecrow" shows up, I mean, as MovieBob said,that scene doesn't even FIT Crane's character, it was made for the Joker, now okay, no problem, the actor is dead, so change the scene, or delete it, or simply change the lines and get a common thug to do what Crane does, because the Scarecrow would NEVER act like that, that scene was "Hannibal: Origins" (or whatever it was called) all over again, a modus operandi that makes no sense to the given character. I WANT to enjoy the movie, because it is a Batman movie, but thing is, knowing that there isn't going to be a 4th movie (only the reboot, now I say, THANK GOD for it), I see myself bending over to watch Tim Burton's series, because Nolan managed to ruin his whole trilogy with one movie. It's clear to me, Ledger died, Nolan didn't want to make the 3rd movie anymore because of that, but he had to because of contract, and what we got is a movie that you'll forget about a few hours after leaving the theatre.

Andy of Comix Inc:

Nautical Honors Society:
Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

myself:
but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

I do agree, the realism was good because Nolan had created a perfect balance between "real" and "ridiculous comic book stuff". Now, Marvel managed to pull out a movie based on the outrageous, it took all liberties it could in terms of dismissing reality in exchange for the colorful comic book world. Indeed, one can't compare the Batman series to the others, but as you said, Nolan spread this last movie too thin and it became pretentious, Nolan slipped and his realism betrayed the sense of comic book amazement, turning the movie sorta... dumb I guess? Like a kid wanting to play as an adult, it's cute, it's entertaining, but not as much as the kid that plays like a kid (Avengers).

lord.jeff:
Just saw the movie, I agree with all that Bob but unlike Bob I don't find good actors playing out to a crap script makes up for the script being crap, which it is, I couldn't help but feeling most the movie being a boring build up the never got any pay off and this film needs a lot more Batman, Bob wasn't exaggerating when he said Joseph Gordon-Levitt character is the main protagonist of the movie especially during the second half when we get no Batman until the big save the day moment.

SPOILERS, really I'm replying to someone who saw the movie, everyone else don't read:

I didn't feel a lack of Batman, but I did feel a lack of character in everyone, the twist with Talia just turned a good-enough Bane into a hulking mess. People have to remember Bane from Batman & Robin, he sucked because he was a puppet, and again we have a Bane who's a puppet being used by Talia. And what the heck was that all about Bruce wayne coming back from the prison? That place looks like either Asia or Middle East, yet Bruce Wayne just pops up inside a city (under siege), completely clean and ready to battle... Okay, I can forgive most of that, but there's no way he would be able to enter Gotham in time...

Milanezi:

Andy of Comix Inc:

Nautical Honors Society:
Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

myself:
but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

You haven't really added much to your counter argument.

Once again this has become a battle of opinions.

And to that I must say I respect yours.

For me substance lies in a decently compelling script, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

Good day.

Nautical Honors Society:
You haven't really added much to your counter argument.

Once again this has become a battle of opinions.

And to that I must say I respect yours.

For me substance lies in a decently compelling script, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

Good day.

Eh, for me substance comes from more than just dialogue. I agree Rises had good dialogue. I didn't like the plot, that's not the same as not liking the script. Most of my issues come from the pacing of it. I'd argue Avengers is a superior film because it had much more fleshed-out character interactions, but that's a case of wit vs plot and Avengers had no plot.

So, I guess we're in agreement then. Sort of. I still think Rises was too silly to have anything hold any weight, but it did have its moments. Well, actually, that's all it had. My opinion is thus: Dark Knight Rises is a handful of perfectly written, perfectly directed, perfectly acted, perfectly scored and perfectly staged set-pieces... stitched together in a less-than-great way. Taking each scene individually, 11/10. Best film of the year. As a whole - editing, overall character arcs and all that - that's where it trips over, and that's where I find fault in the thing, and that's what made me leaving the theater going "ehhhh." Avengers - though I hate to compare - was a coherent, straight line of quality that snowballed all the way through to the credits. Rises was a bunch of incredibly peaks of brilliance, marred by occasional erratic dips of sloppiness. I really liked Rises, but what I hate most is that it was that close to me loving it.

Have you seen Prometheus? Rises actually reminds me a lot of Prometheus. Really, staggeringly well-made bits - I mean like, "wow" moments, and a hell of a lot of them = but stapled together not all that well. And thus I conclude that maybe, just maybe, Rises will redeem itself in the same way Prometheus may - in an extended edition Blu-ray release. It happened with Watchmen, too. I really feel like it just needs one or two more scenes to flesh some things out or improve the pacing, and wham! - near-perfect (if not perfect) film. I know you've not been very into this back and forth, but I'm interested to hear your opinion on this subject if nothing else?

The Avengers vs The Dark Knight Rises

The Avengers: The turn off your brain, sit back and have fun movie
Before it is released: "Please don't suck please don't suck please don't suck please don't suck."
After it is released: "It didn't suck! It didn't suck! It didn't suck! It's the best film of the year!" (we'll just ignore all the glaring flaws, weaknesses and utter crap in the movie because there's enough good stuff in the movie to say it doesn't suck)
Hits the mark?: Yes. Aim low, hit target, collect 1 billion dollars.

The Dark Knight Rises: The keep your brain engaged, sit back, have fun and be moved movie.
Before it is released: "This is going to be the best movie of the summer! Remember The Return of the King, and how it was the most awesome of the three Lord of the Rings movies, and how it won all those Oscar? This is going to be totally like that."
After it is released: "This... isn't nearly as good as The Return of the King? It's not even as good as The Dark Knight? Director, I am disappoint. Let's pick at every flaw, weakness and utter crap of the movie in our disappointment."
Hits the mark?: No. Aim high, miss target, might still collect 1 billion dollars.

All in all, TDKR aimed far higher than the Avengers. TDKR tried to actually tell a story, unlike the Avengers which just tried to find ways to tie kewl fight scenes and high-larious! one liners over a 2 hour movie. That it told a mediocre story then told that story in a very mediocre way is disappointing and deserves most of the criticism being thrown at it. Hopefully Nolan reads the criticisms and takes them to heart; we hold him to much higher standards than Joss Whedon, so when he doesn't live up to them we are disappointed.

Andy of Comix Inc:
Have you seen Prometheus? Rises actually reminds me a lot of Prometheus. Really, staggeringly well-made bits - I mean like, "wow" moments, and a hell of a lot of them = but stapled together not all that well. And thus I conclude that maybe, just maybe, Rises will redeem itself in the same way Prometheus may - in an extended edition Blu-ray release. It happened with Watchmen, too. I really feel like it just needs one or two more scenes to flesh some things out or improve the pacing, and wham! - near-perfect (if not perfect) film. I know you've not been very into this back and forth, but I'm interested to hear your opinion on this subject if nothing else?

That's an interesting comparison, between Rises and Prometheus. And uncomfortably close to the mark; I think overall Rises is a far superior film to Prometheus, but both had great expectations, and both failed to meet those expectations.

Just saw the movie last night and I'd say that Movie Bob was spot on with his analysis. It's good, but not great, (not as good as Dark Knight) has some serious pacing issues, puts a lot of effort into upping the stakes, but ultimately, leaves you feeling disappointed. (Also, it has some good, strong, intelligent female characters)

That final act was pretty insane, though. :o

I liked the movie but the only thing i didnt like was the lore for one bane is hispanic his mask doesant cover his mouth but thats design choice i dont remember bane being in the league of shadows at any point (hopefully someone will give an answer) Bane was born in blackgate not the pit and yes bane was born in the pit in the movie but the other person (no spoilers) was also born but it focuses on that person and im pretty sure bane is allot bigger than that

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=es&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbnid=K9Gxbi15Nt-AGM:&imgrefurl=http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/early-reviews-dark-knight-rises-bane-high-marks-173841016.html&docid=14AFCfjdRJxvyM&imgurl=http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/p0w6rZ1pVsW9YHqNImglzw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMwMw--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/movietalk/Bane-jpg_181056.jpg&w=303&h=456&ei=clscUImvJ6eV0QXV9ICgAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=745&vpy=225&dur=20&hovh=276&hovw=183&tx=117&ty=127&sig=118144716801371223290&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=93&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:147&biw=1366&bih=676 Crappy Bane

http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=es&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ld42QECos-Dp1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.mundoreturn.com/arte-conceptual-bane-chuck-dixon-doug-moench-graham-nolan-1993&docid=noFyLuIFIb8uFM&imgurl=http://www.mundoreturn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bane2.jpg&w=500&h=668&ei=clscUImvJ6eV0QXV9ICgAw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=969&vpy=303&dur=147&hovh=260&hovw=194&tx=107&ty=234&sig=118144716801371223290&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=121&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:175&biw=1366&bih=676 Awesome Bane

Just watched it. Sigh...
So Bob, you go into a complete fan rage over The Amazing Spiderman, which had its flaws but was generally coherent and fun enough to pass the time, but say this bloated mess is good?
You said the Lizard's motivation made no sense, yet are fine with the nonsensical crap that passed for a villainous plot in TDKR.
You say the plot is good but let down by structure. The plot COULD have been good, yes. It wasn't. If you played a drinking game with this movie - where you had to take a shot every time there was a plot contrivance, an unlikely coincidence, a last-second save or a scene where characters just happen to meet each other - you'd die of alcohol poisoning.
Two hours and 40 minutes.
Worst movie I've seen in years.
One last point: the "bomb" (energy reactors do not work that way) deteriorated over five months, but our heroes only manage to get in a position to deactivate it when it's in its last minutes? Not only that, but it has a countdown clock that is precise TO THE SECOND when it was never designed as a bomb in the first place? Yep, sure...

WanderingFool:

Inkidu:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D

Dude... you got to give this eqaution a name, its that good.

I don't really think there is a formula to quantify a subjective view, since that's more inherent to objectivity. Of course a journalist should be as objective as possible, but in the end all writing has a subjective undertone (as well as the appreciation of that writing).

Uberpig:
One last point: the "bomb" (energy reactors do not work that way) deteriorated over five months, but our heroes only manage to get in a position to deactivate it when it's in its last minutes? Not only that, but it has a countdown clock that is precise TO THE SECOND when it was never designed as a bomb in the first place? Yep, sure...

I agree that using the whole "time bomb as a plot devise" was an example of terrible writing, but the thing that upset me the most was the use of stock imagery of New York for the wide-shots. I mean, you can so clearly see, from a couple of shots of Wall Street and Gramercy Park, that Gotham is supposed to be a parallel to Manhattan, whereas for me it always felt more like Chicago or maybe Brooklyn.
Those issues aside, I would say that the film is worth seeing if only for the performances of Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy. And at least their characters had interesting backgrounds and motivations, but as Bob said, the whole thing lacks structure. The length alone indicates that they tried to cram too much into one movie and the editing reflects that, by not leaving enough space for the necessary pacing.

The problem with this movie was that the previous one was so good. It made peoples expectations unrealistically high.

MovieBob's review is nearly spot-on, but I have to disagree with how he interpreted Bruce Wayne's second "rise" to the role of Batman in the middle of the movie.
Because it wasn't a second rise at all, it was a continuation of the first. You see, it was established that even though Bruce donned the suit and punched up a few criminals, he never really reprised his role of The Batman. Not only was he physically majorly out of shape, but his heart just wasn't in it. That's why we got the whole "second rising" as MovieBob calls it, or rather the actual "rising" to the role of Batman.
In other words, Bruce Wayne's reprisal of the role of Batman at the beginning of the film was simply not the real deal - Nolan was trying to convey that the suit doesn't make the Bat. It was only after Bane drove him to the edge with the whole "watch Gotham burn" move that Batman truly resurfaced in Bruce.

On a side note, I loved the Killer Croc reference. It's like Nolan was just sneaking in his take on how ridiculous much of the comic book universe is.

Just saw TDKR, and this is all I will say:

Most of Bob's gripes are accurate, if somewhat exaggerated (as in the time jump presentation issue... not that bad). But this film is far from a disappointment. It works pretty well most of the time, and even seeing the flaws didn't detract from my enjoyment. Not as good as The Dark Knight, but still a pretty good film, and a fine closer to the Nolan Batman franchise.

I've just seen the movie today and... wow... WTF did I just watch? Let's forget the first 2 movies (Nolan's) for a second. Let's suppose that you didn't even see them. Let's also suppose that you're used to seeing well structured and well edited movies (I had just rewatched Goodfellas the other day). If you're such a person, then this movie is BAAAAAAAAAD. I've had my share of stupid movies this year and Batman Rises takes the cake and eats it too. If you have the least bit of intelligence you'll know this to be true. No amount of extra deleted scenes can fix this mess (unless they deleted half the movie). It's that bad. It redefines my definition of a bad movie. It pushes The Mummy Returns from the top spot of the most idiotic movies I've seen to date (it was a melancholic honor anyway). Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad. And I respect Nolan, a lot. I loved Memento and The Prestige (and of course, The Dark Knight). I know he's capable of delivering well structured movies. But this one is anything but...

And just to get this off my mind... check spoiler.

Look, I already knew the story inside out. I had read the reviews, spoilers and comments. So I knew what to expect story-wise. I was expecting to like it even more, since I knew the plot twists that had so many people dumbfolded. However, what nobody else pointed out, what Bob tried to say but kept it mostly low, is that all the rest is really poor film-making. I feel sorry for the people who made it, and especially for all those people stuck in traffic because of the roads closing to film this shit.

Waaghpowa:
"Poorly paced"

Like all of them? With Batman Begins, I swear I accidentally skipped parts at the beginning because of it's pacing.

Thing I've noticed about Nolan, he sometimes has a hard time with pacing and making things over complicated as you mentioned. I thought Inception was good, but it was needlessly complicated, spending waaaaaay too much time explaining things. He also has a tendency to make things longer than they have too. I felt that Dark Knight dragged on a tad too long and could have done with being maybe 30 minutes shorter.

On that note, I'll be seeing this movie at midnight tonight. Not because I'm a Batman fan, because I'm definitely not, but so that:

1. The end of the trilogy
2. My criticism can be justified, because I hate it when people will rag on something they've never seen.

Edit: Now that I've actually seen it, all I have to say is disappointing. Again, it's poorly paced and etc like Bob said, I also found it to be way too long and needlessly complicated again. I was bored most of the movie. Bane's voice comes off as just obnoxious, and the character as a whole and the rest of the film is just predictable.

Before the film came out I told everyone at work what my predictions were for the formula for the movie.

Brood, villain doing something, brood, villain doing more of something, Brood, fight villain and

brood, final showdown. And that's basically how it went down.

On it's own, I would have to say that it's not that good a movie. Taking it into consideration that it's the final part of a trilogy, it's decent.

Good shout and pretty much how I feel.

It just dragged, and dragged, and was totally unnecessarily overcomplicated for no reason at all. It actually came across as a rather amateurish movie in terms of storyline delivery too.

It picked up towards the end, but the first few hours were just so "meh".

How this has received the praise it has is beyond me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here