Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

TDK is almost impossible to beat. So, I am going to this expecting slightly worse then TDK but better then BB, which I thought was drab.
Sure it was o.k, I just thought they should have had a more obvious character arch for Bruce. It was there, just not as much as I wanted.

And Avengers was good, but not great. I thought Spiderman 1 & 2 were way better.

So color me hopeful for this to be fairly good.

It's a Nolan film, nuff said.

I'm glad Bob didn't give this such a great review, because that means that anyone who sees the review should be pleasantly surprised at how good this movie is. After watching it last night at the premiere I have to say that it was a satisfying end to a series, and thoroughly enjoyed it, go watch it NOW.

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

You nailed it, I have felt the same way about Movie Bobs reviews since his review of Fast Five. He has an undeniable bias towards certain kinds of things he feels needs to be in a movie and tends to praise the ones I end up finding nowhere near the quality he laid upon it.

Saw it at midnight, I entirely agree with Bob.

Without giving anything away I will tell everyone to imagine the Scarecrow's part as if that had been the completely absent Joker; because it's really clear that originally that was going to be the Joker's appearance...

I thought the same thing halfway through the movie. I leaned over to my friend and said "Hey, if this is a Batman movie, where the hell is Batman?" Then it bugged me for the rest of the movie until he showed up again.

But, as to missing the Superman trailer, you didn't miss much. It was a couple of scene shoddily thrown together with a voiceover from Russell Crowe as Jor-El with credits for the major players interspersed within it. Only at the end does one see a glance of Superman, and he isn't really doing anything except flying really fast.

I knew it wasn't going to be as good as the last one.

Sorry Bob, but this was the best superhero movie ever. By far. Better than Avengers and TDK, and the emotion was incredible, immense, and deep.

"it's good but not really" == "It dosen't suck"

The mere fact that you even enjoyed the movie probably means that it will be better than I was anticipating.

It was an okay movie. A lot of it worked. A lot of it wasn't that good either. It's a weird film.

I can best sum it up like this:
Is it a good comic book film? No. It's barely like the comics.
Is it a good Batman film? No. Batman's barely even in it.
Is it a good film period? Absolutely.

But that's the thing. It's weird, because it's a really great film... that has Batman in it. But it is not, to me, a Batman film. If anything, this is Jason Gordon-Levitt's movie; his character is the one that solves the puzzles, does the detective work, helps the people, organizes the resistance, develops the emotional bonds, and, well, is put in the position of doing what Bruce Wayne can't/won't by the end of the film.

I just have mixed feelings. Some things were just amazing, while others were lame. It was a rollercoaster of extremes.

And I will NEVER get used to Bane's Darth Vader-meets-Sean Connery voice. I couldn't help myself. I chortled whenever he spoke.

Anyone know what the Kingdom Come quote is?

All I can think about when it comes to The Dark Knight Rises now is the shooting in Colorado. the guy who did it said "I am the Joker". No, he isn't. He's like those guys at the beginning of The Dark Knight claiming to be Batman, except far worse, because he's got 12 dead people and 59 (so far) injured people hanging over him. But, I'll give him this at least, he is a psychopath, kind of like the Joker.

Saw it this afternoon and can't help but agree. Brilliant film, much better film overall than the Avengers and yet I preffered the Avengers as it was more entertaining as a whole than this film. It was a good story but I saw the twists coming a mile off, being a fan of Batman and comics in general, and some of it seemed long winded and confusing. Tom Hardy's representation of Bane was awesome though.

That being said, it was one hell of an ending for the series and leaves enough gaps in the story for it to be picked back up if Christopher Nolan ever choses to, or if a JLA movie ever comes to pass.

And here I was thinking they wouldn't put up the review because of what happened in Denver. Or that at least someone would mention it in the comments.

Nope, we're all snuggly safe here in Escapist-land, far from the broils of real life. The name is well-chosen indeed.

I watched it last time at the premiere and I found it dragged. I wasn't really sure if it was a legitimate problem that I had with the movie though or if I was just burnt out because I saw it as the culmination of a Nolan Batman movie marathon that had seen me in the theater for a full 5 hours or so already, so this is a nice confirmation.
My problem with the movie is that I just wasn't a great Batman story to me, and there are just some story elements that grate on me in any medium, and those elements kept coming up again and again. For example Catwoman, Anne Hathaway was great, and she played the role really well, but I find that almost by necessity, when she shows in a story Batman becomes a massive sucker since she has to have someone to mess with as a femme fatale. I still like it, but it feels she puts one over on Batman a lot. And her motivation, which I won't spoil, felt generally boring and cliche to me.
I agree with Bob on the structure making no sense, and that was actually one of the worries I had going in, since it seemed like it would, and indeed it turned out to be, really weird to have Batman come back twice in one story.
I actually liked Tom Hardy as Bane, he wasn't the best part of the movie, and honestly the whole "people's revolution" thing that the movie had going felt really uninspired and boring to me.
The late game twist was good, but the problem I had with it was it meant that it was just another thing that Batman had missed. In this movie Batman isn't just fallible, he's a bit of a putz, not only is there surprisingly little Batman in this movie, but when he does appear he keeps getting his ass handed to him.
And while I liked Joseph-Gordon Levitt's character, I felt like I didn't like him nearly as much as Christopher Nolan did. The character seriously hijacks huge parts of the movie, and while that's not necessarily bad, I was there to see Batman, not some generic cop. And the early revelation he makes to Bruce felt forced.
Furthermore, I found the ending to be [b]incredibly[/]b cheesy. Just shockingly cheesy, especially coming from Christopher Nolan. It was really two incredible cheesy ending one after the other, and while the comic fan in me kind of loved the second one, it was still goofy as hell and first one felt very out of place and just strange.
I don't want to seem like a party pooper, and I genuinely liked big parts of the movie, but it's just that there were things that I disliked and they're more prominent in my mind right now, maybe in a few days I'll have processed the movie more fully and start of see some underlying themes and so on, but right now I have to agree with Bob that it was good, but not great.

Bob calls the movie good although not as good as the two others, but despite ranking The Dark Knight as one of his all time favorite super hero movies, he's automatically biased.

I could understand people's complaints with him were he spewing venom much like in his Spider-Man review because emotional responses, but do you really think Bob went into the movie wanting to dislike it? Hell, I've been lukewarm about the movie just because I never thought a sequel was all that necessary, and while I haven't seen the movie yet, I know of a few people who had a good deal of similar impressions who have seen it.

While he cites it as not being better than The Avengers, he has stated prior that he wasn't sure if The Avengers was just as good as The Dark Knight. They are apples and oranges, and hell, Bob said the same himself on his blog. He said himself in the past that The Amazing Spider-Man shouldn't be faring against TDKR either. But if there's one thing they're similar in, it's setting benchmarks. Both of those movies were "new". For many, it's hard to be excited when it's hard to improve on a new benchmark, and both the former two movies did that where-as Rises seemingly plays with the tools it knew how to handle to different effects and results. A lot of people seem to find it better, but some don't.

Sure, you may disagree with his criticisms, but they're by and large still criticisms that aren't only prevalent in this particular review, and if you're so quick as to shit on his view of a movie by calling this particular review of him biased, that makes you kind of a hypocrite. The movie is probably going to rake in a fortune in the box office and is generally well received, so why worry about a few 8.5s? It's far more interesting to discuss a movie's flaws than it is talking about everything that was 10/10 awesome all the way through would watch again.

Saw it , although it felt unnecessary long in some parts overall I thought they did a good job. Like Bob said the action and acting was great and while the story took it's sweet time getting to it's peak like a roller coaster moving very slowly to it's highest point once it got there it became awesome. I will say that less Batman more Bruce has one major benefit to it, less sore-throat voices for us to endure. Seriously that thing was making the audience crack up in places where nothing remotely funny was going on.

As for the inevitable vs Avengers topic they felt like almost totally different movies genres to me, like the Avengers had a much more funny and friendly feel to it while Dark Knight Rises was definitely more dark, gritty and more thinking to it.

While I enjoyed the Avengers more, saying that would be like going to a book store and picking out 2 books in different sections and then asking which one's better. All that said definitely worth the watch.

Or you can wait for the eventual DVD, which isn't a bad idea because I would've killed for some subtitles at certain times.

I don't often disagree with Bob, well, not terribly often at any rate, but I do disagree with Bob here.
I thought it was a great film, it did not quite reach the height of the previous entry, yes, but it wasn't off by any significant degree. It tied together thematic elements, plot elements, from the previous two films in a neat little bundle. It added something of its own touch too.
Call me a cynic, but I had no great love for The Avengers, it was the usual superhero fluff that put me off superhero comics. It was good for what it was, but I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a far superior film.
I think this trilogy will resonate with people for some time to come, it ended on high, as far as I'm concerned.
I just hope this discussion doesn't turn to the usual vehement bile. Whether you agree with Bob or not his opinion is as valid as any.

I jut saw this last night, and I thought it was fantastic. I thought that it was a great ending to the series. I didn't think it was a good as The Dark Knight, but I still thought it was amazing. Additionally, I actually thought Tom Hardy's Bane was kick-ass! I thought he was a great character.

Well, Bob, your showing may not have had the Superman trailer, but at least it didn't have real fucking bullets.

NicolasMarinus:
And here I was thinking they wouldn't put up the review because of what happened in Denver. Or that at least someone would mention it in the comments.

Nope, we're all snuggly safe here in Escapist-land, far from the broils of real life. The name is well-chosen indeed.

The review went up before the shooting.

This is the only review of Bob's I've ever watched that I came away from simply saying '...you're absolutely wrong.' I just saw the midnight showing and don't agree with anything mentioned in this video. This review was so off annoying my boyfriend asked me to turn if off around the four-minute mark, but I insisted we watch the rest of it because it was almost over and I (usually) respect Bob's opinion on movies.

Everything Bane does is more intense than the Joker. The stakes are higher, the action is more intense and the Joker as portrayed by Heath ledger could never orchestrate a plot as complicated and well-planned as. The Joker in the Dark Knight employed nothing but greedy, insane psychopaths that were nothing but idiotic, brainwashed or blackmailed bodies to be disposed of in his name.

The plot of The Dark Knight is laughable when you place it anywhere near the smallest of candles. You can't take anything the Joker does seriously when you seriously take into consideration how even the smallest parts of his schemes could go awry at any moment. He needed so much to go coincidentally right (the smallest instance being Harvey Dent's coin flips at any point after being hospitalized) at such precise moments that, and in such small amounts of time, that it's a joke that he accomplished anything. And even buying into that, the most devastating outcome he could have accomplished is that a couple boats get blown up, some cops get killed and he gets away.

Heath Ledger did an amazing job as the Joker, but due to his death and the time the movie has had to saturate popular opinion it feels that people have romanticized his role to a point where no other performance even has the right to compare, whether it's genuinely better or not. Sure, maybe Bane can't pull off the charismatic insanity Ledger had, but his character doesn't lend itself to that. He isn't fun because simply because he's insane, he's engaging as a powerful, terrifying mastermind in a way the Joker characteristically never could be. His plan, recruited help and fail-safes make more sense and are far better thought out, as is the plausibility of him reaching any later stage of his efforts. By the time of his defeat, luck seems to be more on Batman's side than his, which is the complete opposite of the Joker's.

As for the pacing I didn't see any problem in it. The movie only skips over segments of time that are unnecessary to the audience, keeping the film from being six hours or so long, with plenty enough narrative to keep the viewer constantly aware of what's happening and engaged in the plot. As for the action, I don't know what Bob wanted. The fistfighting scenes were wonderfully executed, plenty stylish and brutal. Was he expecting Star Wars III level flipping and jumping around? I can't even tell what he wanted there.

All the supporting characters in the movie only made the whole package better, not take away from the main protagonist. The reinvented backstories are no more bothersome than the reimagining of Heath Ledger's Joker (come on, the guy could wash off his makeup for Christ's sake). And Batman not constantly being Batman successfully showed the character being more human than machine, with his breakdown, rediscovery in himself and ending being consistent to the story the director had in store, versus just being another terminator that can do no wrong.

By the end credits I felt they -had- successfully surpassed The Dark Knight with the weight of the plot, personal evolution of the characters and brought a satisfactory (if possibly temporary) end to the series. Everything done was consistent, exciting fantastically produced.

So far everything I've read or heard here to the contrary has only come off as unsupported whining. I expected far more from Bob.

Sai Marston:

Everything Bane does is more intense than the Joker....
The plot of The Dark Knight is laughable when you place it anywhere near the smallest of candles. ....
Heath Ledger did an amazing job as the Joker, but due to his death and the time the movie has had to saturate popular opinion it feels that people have romanticized his role...
By the end credits I felt they -had- successfully surpassed The Dark Knight

DK is one of the most re-watchable movies of which I can think. Ledger is incredible in the role, so, Kudos. I agree with you in that you do have to suspend disbelief a lot more in DK than DKR. How hard would it be to get all that gas into a hospital in broad daylight?

But I thought it more fun than DKR. That isn't to write that any fan of Nolan's or Batman should miss this. Don't. It was fantastic. Something I thought Bob got wicked wrong though:

I don't know if I'll watch DKR repeatedly as I did with DK, but I'll get the Bluray. It was not a half ass 3rd movie cash in. The stakes are higher and you buy them. But it is also the darkest, most oppressive of the 3 Nolan Batman. I don't think you can even compare it to Batman Begins so I won't try. Just see it.

I agree with everything Movie Bob (particularly the structural issues) EXCEPT...

Anne Hathaway. I thought her performance was horrible. It was just Anne Hathaway being Anne Hathaway. At points she kind of hit the character, but mostly it didn't seem like she was acting at all, just reading the script. Pretty much every time she was on screen took me out of the movie. But Joseph Gordon-Levitt, bless his soul, was there to counter act her horribleness with his brilliance.

Oh gee the little bitch , bitched .

I often find myself wondering if Movie Bob and I saw the same movie, our takes are so different. But this time, I agree with him completely. He articulated everything I was thinking as I walked out of the theater.

There was so much wonderful stuff in this movie, it's a shame that it wasn't equal to the sum of it's parts. Characters, performances, the story were gold. But it really falls flat. Especially the fact that Batman is never BATMAN in this movie. He's a glorified helicopter pilot. But except for a montage (A MONTAGE!), he never does anything particularly Batmany.

Then there's the whole theme of the movie. This was so heavy handed in the first two, and yet just destroyed in this one. Was it about pain? Faith in humanity? Stuff? Any message they seem to be building to gets undercut and the climax is completely meaningless.

Sad.

Bane is just not an interesting character to have in a Batman movie. I think the best villains are those that can fight Batman on a more mental level. After playing the Arkham Asylum/City games you make even the crazy characters more realistic and able to fit in the Nolan universe.

I've read a lot of the posts and it seems like this might be turning into a pied piper routine. I love movie bob and his criticisms but as a film enthusiast/student/maker/actor I will say take what he says with a grain of salt. I personally didn't get any of what he was saying from it. I had a captivating experience even in a full cinema of douchebags. It's fantastic and it's scope just expands, I thought it was really good, I enjoyed it more than the second one and for me it never bogged down because all the threads of the movie tied together very nicely in my viewing. I think it's important to watch the movie as a viewer and not a critic because what good is criticism if you're just going to shit all over something that's not even bad.

Oh look MovieBob is trying to be edgy and smart.

Too bad he's just coming off as hipster and overly-analytical.
Worse than Batman Begins? Please, it BUILDS off Batman Begins and is probably as good as the Dark Knight and in someways better. The only thing that really carried TDK was Heath Ledger's legendary performance. The movie was incredible and probably one of Nolan's best, definitely better than Inception.

Its grand, complex, and interesting. It makes you care about Gotham more than any other Batman film, and is a commentary on social norms and protest. The suspense is thrilling, the music is fantastic, this is a GREAT movie. It has very deep themes too, though to not spoil anything will leave that discussion for another time. It has a decent amount of surprise, and a thrilling climax with a good amount of fan service. After the tension cools, I think people will remember this trilogy quite fondly, probably more so than Lord of The Rings.

Nfritzappa:
The only thing that really carried TDK was Heath Ledger's legendary performance. ... It makes you care about Gotham more than any other Batman film, and is a commentary on social norms and protest. The suspense is thrilling, the music is fantastic...I think people will remember this trilogy quite fondly, probably more so than Lord of The Rings.

I watch the 2 Batman movies a LOT more then my copies of Lords. Just a fantastic trilogy.

I do have to write that DK was, in its own right, a fantastic success. Ledger is terrific. The whole movie works for me.

Another quibble with Movie Bob:

Don't know what the hell Bob is thinking again. The Joker not being in the movie is no cloud over the story anywhere except in his own head. The movie rolls along just fine without the inclusion of his character.

The 8 year gap? Brilliant. It's thematically sound, it puts the characters in interesting, challenging places and is a terrific point to start building the final, almost mythic last battle.

Structural problems? Again, no idea what the hell is going on here. It's structurally just as good and just as confused as TDK was. Nolan likes to fill his stories with EVERYTHING, and the second act takes a bit to get started, but other than that everything works fantastically. Would I have liked another half hour to focus on the last third? Absolutely, but that's mostly because everything else that there was, was already so good.

All in all, best Batman film so far. An incredible work of fiction and a stunning conclusion to the trilogy.

Milanezi:

arc1991:
Oooh forgot to mention, we will see more Batman films, maybe not in this trilogy, but remember we have the Justice League Films coming in 2014/2015

I dread that soooooo much. Remember that Justice League "movie" that already exists? Look for it, it's so awful everyone should see it. It works kinda like a reality show (YES, you read it right), and I remember and overweight Flash in the most piss-poor imitation of costume discussing "Big Brother style" (the reality show) about how cool it is to be part of Justice League... So-Sad...
Obviously this Justice League would a big production and all but... I don't like the way it works in the comics already, plus the DC movie that really worked so far was Nolan's Batman, and I dare say Tim Burton's version was pretty fun, but that's all.
Well I didn't expect The Avengers to amount to anything good, and it was pretty entertaining, so I hope I'm wrong, on the other hand, I always expect some good out of the X-Men movies, and although they were all fun, they were also frustrating... Geez there's sooooo untaped potential for a good X-Men movie..

I didn't actually mind the Green Lanturn, but then again thats one of the only hero's i don;t know much about.

Unfortunatly it means we will see ANOTHER Superman film, we will see Wonderwomen no doubt and we will see The Flash (who i don't think as of yet has had his own film) And i saw it in my local CEX store, put it straight back down :')

I haven't agreed with Bob on much lately, but this review is pretty spot on, imo.

I actually commented to my friends after the film that it felt like Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the main character. By contrast Mathew Modine's character was completely pointless and just served to needlessly pad the run time.

The "twist" will be obvious to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the Batman universe.

And, while I like the overall narrative, I feel it had to take some extra steps in order to avoid the Joker evolution of the last movie. That, I think, is a contributing factor to the 2 stories being mashed together.

I enjoyed it, but it wasn't amazing.

oh man i really really liked this one :) of course it can match expectations but in my opinion it was a great movie...
catwoman is done great, said twist caught me with my pants down (not literaly you pervs!) and i really liked the new bane...
and yes it feels like two movies (or at least two parts) smooshed into one but i can handle that...
oh and not enogh alfred!!! not nearly enogh!!!

It was better than The Avengers.

I think I enjoyed it more than The Dark Knight, enough comic book stuff with enough gritty realism stuff.

An amazing film. I dont see how it can be worse than the cliched, rushed, popcorn fest that was The Avengers. This had substance and meaning. The Avengers was good for laughs and not much else.

I am in awe of this trilogy. It should be watched as a trilogy instead of one film.

Either way, it's brilliant, best ending to a trilogy ever.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

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
Register for a free account here