GrimTuesday:
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.

The problem is that after the performance that Ledger gave as Joker - the most iconic of the Batman villains - NOTHING they did could possibly stand up to The Dark Knight.

As for my thoughts, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the trailer clips I've seen I was wondering if at any point Bane juices up with the Titan crap and goes all Hulk on Batman, evidently that never happens and the only real similarity to Bane in the movie and the comics is the name and the mask. That's a bit disappointing, but then again this trilogy has been going for "realism", so I guess having a hulked-out super-freak for a villain doesn't really jive with what they're going for.

Thanks for the spoiler warning synopsis at the beginning - a straightforward brief assessment of how you felt about the movie. I sometimes avoid reviews for movies I KNOW I'm going to see anyways because I don't want my opinion to be shaped by what other people's opinions are, not necessarily because I'd find out that character X actually has a penis or some surprise or another.

I suspected from the get go that this one was going to have all of the problems of the first two movies in the series (and then some), but I wouldn't really care that much considering how much I enjoyed both of them. I do hope Nolan steers away from blockbusters pretty soon because it's starting to feel like all the Nolan Batmans and Inception are fairly similar creatures.

I'll be sure to watch the rest of this tomorrow.

Frank_Sinatra_:

The Last Nomad:

I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

And instead of Talia al Ghul, they should have brought back Raas al Ghul(is that how it's spelt?) like there was rumours about for so long, he's immortal in the comics anyway. But maybe that was a bit far-fetched to the Nolan films, and it would have tied the film to Batman Begins instead of being the stand alone film that it is.
[alot of speculation in this post as I haven't seen the film, maybe Raas is in it, Bob did mention special Cameos did he not?]

Ra's al Ghul. It's a weird name.

He actually isn't "immortal." He has to be put in a Lazarus Pit to be brought back to life and when someone does that to you, you lose more and more of your mind. Plus this Ra's was in more of an Asian area where the Ra's from the comics is from the Middle East where most of the pits are located.

I don't want to spoil for you with your speculation, so keep speculating.

(side note: Jesus Christ I'm a Batman nerd.)

Aye, Ra's. I could have looked it up I suppose. I remember seeing rumors about something that resembled the Lazarus pit(s) was seen on the set. Or to be more precise, a pit with a large green covering, which could have been used as a green screen to add cool effects, and I assume a Lazarus Pit would look fairly fucking strange.

RJ 17:

GrimTuesday:
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.

The problem is that after the performance that Ledger gave as Joker - the most iconic of the Batman villains - NOTHING they did could possibly stand up to The Dark Knight.

As for my thoughts, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the trailer clips I've seen I was wondering if at any point Bane juices up with the Titan crap and goes all Hulk on Batman, evidently that never happens and the only real similarity to Bane in the movie and the comics is the name and the mask. That's a bit disappointing, but then again this trilogy has been going for "realism", so I guess having a hulked-out super-freak for a villain doesn't really jive with what they're going for.

Aye, the only connection is that he breaks batmans back apparently, and has a bit of a mask.

captcha: no holds barred. Haha!

Andy of Comix Inc:

Soviet Heavy:

Andy of Comix Inc:
Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6003-Untangling-Spider-Man

You seem to misunderstand me. I mean Spider-Man as in Spider-Man, the film. Not The Amazing Spider-Man, which is a different film. It's okay. It's an easy mistake to make. Except one proves my point and the other exasperates it...

Exacerbate, not exasperate. Though exacerbation can lead to exasperation.
/Grammar Nazi.

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

Fantastic. Your equation will be useful for centuries to come.

I would have picked Red Hood or Hush to be the trilogy concluding villain. Although I will concede that neither would have made much sense in the context of this particular storyline. (Both of those characters have strong ties to Batman and adding them without any previous buildup would be a major asspull). Which leaves Riddler, I guess, but he's not really...epic material, I don't think.

Was I the only one hoping Gordon Levit to end-up becoming Nightwing?
I think Bane was probably supposed to be in this movie originally as Joker's mercenary or something but then they had to bump him up to main villain.

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

He DID say it was good though.
And as for totally loves it: I think The Grey would be a much better example. He never said Sucker-Punch was the year's first great movie.
XP

The Last Nomad:

Frank_Sinatra_:

Cheesebob:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?

Hush. He's a great character for Batman, but seeing as he would have had to been worked in Batman Begins I guess he wouldn't be a good choice. Hugo Strange would have been interesting, or if Nolan wanted to do interesting shifts of reality in a pseudo mode of Inception he could have used The Mad Hatter. Personally I don't think Deadshot or Zasz would have really worked well, but that's just me.
Now since Bane "may have or have not" have had connections with the League of Assassins from the first movie, why not ditch Bane and go for Talia al Ghul instead? Shit, she was a serious pain in both Batman and Bruce Wayne's life for a while there. Maybe she would have fared better as a central villain, or as a secondary like Two Face was in The Dark Knight.

Hey Bob, if you read this, can I get your thoughts on it?

I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

That...
...
...
...

Sounds AWSOME! Still woulda preferred Riddler or Doctor Freeze if they couldn't bring back you-know-who.

I'm one of the people that thought The Dark Knight was just okay, so I'll probably be fine with the fact that this one is, too.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in watching Batman growl at people and Bruce Wayne be an angsty prick when the aforementioned isn't happening, nor does the overall premise look particularly interesting, so I'll probably skip it anyway.

Despite its accolades and overall quality, I've felt 'The Dark Knight' actually moved away from a more ingrained comic book sort of movie. Perhaps a better way to put that is: 'Batman Begins' looked and felt more about Batman, while 'The Dark Knight' looked and felt more about a city with a caped crusader.

I'm thinking the main problem (because no film is perfect) with 'The Dark Knight Rises' is that, according to Nolan, it's a "war film"--in my opinion, his necessary step forward as a filmmaker first and a Batman helmer second. Batman has become an increasingly rare sight in the movies, and the action has been nudged further and further into daylight. I like that Nolan sorta addressed the "if Batman comes out at night, why don't the crims attack during the day?" question some of us have had, but, like I said, it pulls the emphasis away from Batman, methinks.

Not as good as 'Batman Begins'? I can accept that; that's still my favorite Nolan Batfilm thus far.

Not as good as 'The Dark Knight'? I don't think too many people expected it to reach that height; that was a box office lightning storm no one could have predicted.

Not as good as 'The Avengers'? That coming from Bob, I don't buy it for one second.

Hit the nail on the head for me Moviebob!

I thought almost exactly the same after seeing it. Except for Anne Hathaway's part...I've never really liked her and I thought her acting seemed forced and tried to 'steal the spotlight' from other actors in the movie.

Too many new characters to develop, not enough Batman, a twist that (to me) felt like a 'twist for the sake of a twist' thing (I never read the comic books) and seemed unnecessary etc. all the other stuff you mentioned I agree with.

Overall good not great. It's not as good as Dark Knight or The Avengers and I believe will be over-hyped and over-rated to the same extent that Inception is/was.

No plans on seeing it. Sorry, but the movies really did nothing for me. I found them all to be poorly paced and too long.

On the one hand, sad that they couldn't quite live up to the last one.

On the other, never really expected it too and, let's be honest, I'm not sure 'Not quite as good as The Dark Knight' really counts as a criticism. That's like saying Jesus curing the lame wasn't quite as good as Moses parting the Red Sea. It's inevitable that movies in a trilogy will be compared to one another, but had this movie not been the sequel the TDK I think the love would still be flowing in abundance.

Wait, wait wait wait wait.....
You thought Inception had a narrative rhythm
Action sequence, exposition dump, the same exposition dump again, the same exposition dump for a third time (except this time Ellen Page is saying it for no adequately explained reason) another action sequence and then we're on to the next trilogy of the same fucking exposition dump again until you find out Cobb accidentally killed his wife, then another action sequence then more exposition dumps...
That's rhythm? I'm calling your criticism credentials in to question Bob.

Cheesebob:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?

There was talk of a Johnny Depp Riddler and a Phillip Seymour Hoffman Penguin. Sorry if I'd been Ninjad.

EDIT: And this, "I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production." The Last Nomad.

Cheesebob:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?

Maybe he doesn't count as A List, but I'm gonna say who I've been saying I'd love to see since Begins.

Maxie Zeus.

I think he would have been a GREAT addition to the Nolan perspective of more realistic, less kooky villains. A fellow billionaire with serious delusions and grandeur.

Phlakes:

notimeforlulz:
Pleas pleas please don't have spoilers, usually I'd watch the spoilers anyway, but this time I don't want to, and I would like to watch the entire episode...

And watching....

mild spoiler warning immediately, fuck.

Are you serious? I have to stop watching 1 minute in....

I don't buy the "I can't review it without saying what happens" for a second, I've read half a dozen reviews by now and none of them had a single spoiler.

And this one isn't mild.

Do you mean the one that comes up about mid-way through the review?

I didn't like the last one for a lot of reasons, and I doubt I'll like this one. If I wanted politics mixed into fiction I'd watch msnbc or foxnews. So I'm going to pass.

Cheesebob:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?

Just off the top of my head?

Black Mask - especially the second version where the director of Arkham goes nuts and becomes the villain. Lots to play with there.

Calender Man - The Long Halloween, just a perfect hunt the serial killer type theme.

Harley Quinn - Yeah she is the Jokers Girldfriend and colorful. But there is once again a nice darkness in her story as the Psychiatrist who goes nuts that has a lot to play with. Plus while being a relative newcomer to the bat universe she is well known and wildly popular. Especially among the female fans.

Hugo Strange - another shrink gone crazy (Batman seems to have a lot of those.) Possibly the coolest name out there.

Red Hood - OK this one is hard to do without having a Robin in place so to speak.

I saw this movie two nights ago, opening night in Australia. My impressions were that it was a better film than The Dark Knight, purely because not one actor carried the film as much as Heath Ledger did. It felt more like a solid movie.

I didn't even care enough about Batman Begins to watch it. I might skip this one had I not have free tickets. That my mom won. On a supermarket.

Comic book movies!

i have to agree. the movie is good but not as good as the previous 2. had a good time watching it and i sure will get it on dvd once its out.
but i just think that catwomans character wasnt really explained well. also have admit that it does have some weird moments in it. i dint really understand how this new cop (forgot his name now) knew who batman was. he sounded like he knew who he was when he was talking to bruce.
maybe i missed something that i dint understand this part but thats how it felt to me.

anyway, good movie, worth watching, has a satisfactory ending.

Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.

SamStar42:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.

Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.

Soviet Heavy:
Exacerbate, not exasperate. Though exacerbation can lead to exasperation.
/Grammar Nazi.

Oh. *coughs, embarrassed*

Though that's not a grammar problem, I just used the wrong word. Exacerbate. Exasperate. ...you know that's a pretty easy mistake to make...! I am Australian, I struggle to remember what words mean 'n shit. Plus, I have a tendency to throw out words I've never used before and just perchance getting them 100% right, both contextually and in definition. 99% of the time it works (I consult the dictionary afterwards, not beforehand, and usually call myself a genius when I'm right. Feels good, man).

shadowmagus:

SamStar42:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.

Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.

I've read about eight reviews. NONE OF WHICH stated that.

It's a dickmove. It might not be seen as a massive shock, but when he says 'i have to explain the plot' I didn't think he'd fucking go that far, considering that again, NO OTHER REVIEW has had to say that. Bob has pissed me off before but this is a new level.

Cheesebob:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?

If Nolan could have worked in Owlman (somehow), that would have made for an awesome movie. Who else could go toe to toe with the Bat other than his evil counterpart? Don't know who would play him, though.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have low expectations. As soon as I heard Bane say in the trailers "I'm Gotham's reckoning," my heart sank. The big bad of this movie... is nothing more than a rehash of the first film's big bad. It's pretty bad when you already feel like you've seen a movie just by watching a trailer. Being more open and aggressive instead of being quiet and subversive doesn't make your "destroy Gotham because it sucks" plan any less "been there, done that." I don't know much about Bane beyond his Venom enhancement and "breaking the Bat", but is this really the only thing they could do with the guy? Look, I know you want to redeem his goon status from "Batman and Robin", but I'd rather see a different villain take the forefront if it meant a more original plot. Take Hush, for example... a threat more to his Bruce Wayne persona, prompting his Batman identity to take action. Or maybe something with Hugo Strange. *sigh* Again, haven't seen the film yet, but given preliminary impressions, I think I'll pass on viewing it in theatres.

Y'know, I don't remember the Joker being in "The Dark Knight". I remember this unpleasant hobo in bad clown makeup who kept showing up and stealing screen time from the truly interesting villain, Two-Face.

Are we still getting something tomorrow like we did when Bob posted his Spider-man review early?

Hope so!