Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

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

I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

I thought the movie was awesome. I loved how much the stakes were raised, I liked the new villain aside from his motivations which made little sense, I didn't think Catwoman was all that interesting (well acted but too much of her was predictable) and I didn't think the structure sucked.

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.

YodaUnleashed:
In fact, the only third film in a trilogy that I can think of that is better than the first two films is Lord of the Rings ROTK, but that film was made at the same time as the other two with only one extra year of production so it is unsurprsing that the quality was not only consistent but ever rising with each films release.

Then again, that was a direct adaptation.

Father Time:
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

I thought the movie was awesome. I loved how much the stakes were raised, I liked the new villain aside from his motivations which made little sense, I didn't think Catwoman was all that interesting (well acted but too much of her was predictable) and I didn't think the structure sucked.

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.

I decided to delay watching Bob's review until I saw the movie. When the ending credits rolled, I thought: that was one awesome movie, but I see why Bob might not like it. And then I saw him criticize it for the exact things I thought he would. Still an awesome movie.

Zing:
I think it would have been foolish of anyone to expect this to live up to or exceed The Dark Knight. It was never going to happen. This is the unfortunate stigma that TDKR has to live with. This is pretty much what I expected and I'm definitely still going to see it. If only because I have a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

It is unfortunate to hear that Bane doesn't work, If they had modeled Bane better, more after the comics, then I think it would be a much better movie. Villains are what makes Batman, clearly this is why Begins/TDK worked so much better, Hardy's Bane has no chance when stacked against Ledger's Joker and Neeson's Ra's al Ghul.

I think the Riddler would have been a much better villain...and JGL would have nailed the shit out of Edward Nigma.

Yeah, that was my favorite rumor about this movie's villain: Johnny Depp as the Riddler. As for Bane, he's supposed to be famous, in the comics and cartoons, for his brawn and brains, and it appears Nolan's playing up the latter for this revolutionary/anarchist angle. You see the episode of Young Justice where the team goes to Santa Prisca to investigate a fight between Kobra and Bane's Venom operation? He was cool in that one.

endtherapture:

Ramzal:
Nolan's Batman is -very- willing to kill someone, and that's not something Batman will do.

Hang on what...

Did you see Batman Begins? He tried his hardest NOT to kill anyone in that film, it's why he didn't join the League of Shadows and why the conflict of the film happened...because Batman couldn't take a life.

It's also why the big conflict in TDK happens - he's unwilling just to kill Joker. And there's that scene at the end in the building where he's taking down all the thugs and SWAT Officers WITHOUT killing them. The big thing at the end is that the Joker won because Batman BROKE his one rule to save Gordon's kid from Two-face.

It's also why he didn't just snipe Bane or something in this last one - because he doesn't kill, Catwoman even says something about this and Batman makes a point of kicking her gun away from her.

It's a lot better than Burton's stupid version of Batman who just exploded and killed bad guys like nobodies business.

I don't think you've actually watched the films.

I didn't see the films? That hilarious. You be hilarious. Nice assumptions there by the way, can you look at a few lotto tickets from me since clearly you are all knowing and omnipotent? Not omnipotent? Nor clairvoyant? Then don't make assumptions about what someone has seen or done.

In Batman begins, he is responsible for Ra's Al Ghul's death. -Directly- to a point where he did in fact allow it to happen. Batman's character very rarely would leave someone to die unless they really reeally need to go. We're talking Darkseid level of bad here, and Ra's is no where near that.

In Dark Knight, it's clear that he's tempted to kill Joker but doesn't. That's fine. But the fact that he killed Two-Face was out of character. And this movie, where again--the willing for some killing side of him pops up again with the final conflict (Not going into further detail because it's spoiling.)

Where did Tim Burton come from in this conversation? I've said nothing about Tim Burton's Batman. I've seen the movies and the only thing I like about them is that he uses his brain, unlike Nolan's Batman. I still don't like his willingness to end lives in those movies as well, as it is out of character.

And if anything, you've proved my point as far as the killing in the movies go as you mentioned what he did in Dark Knight. Killing to save a child is still killing, regardless of the reasoning. And Batman doesn't -do- that. The last time he was willing to actually kill someone canon wise was Darksied, and he was using a GUN of all things to do it.

My biggest point is that if you're going to use a character, USE that character. Sure, tweet a few things about him, but if there is anything that Batman is against it's killing people or leaving people to die when he knows he can save them. Don't believe me? If you watched "Under the Red Hood." you would know what I mean. The fact that he left Ra's to die but saved Joker is a big and gigantic contradiction and still out of character.

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

This is spot on mate, critics often praise movies that I come out of thinking "Well I could have done something better over the past 2 hours"
Then they say movies like DKR are "disappointing" which is just a load of bollocks, the movie met, and exceeded my expectations, I loved it. I didn't think there were any problems with pacing or story as I was engaged in the movie.

The problem with critics is exactly that, they are critics, not viewers. I have never agreed with Moviebob, nor have I agreed with Yahtzee. A critic does not review, they look for problems and flaws.

people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

Moviebob, what the fuck? What the hell would this movie need to have done other than have a attendant jerk you off through it to make you say anything other than "didn't have Heath Ledger: was SHITE".

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.

HotFezz8:
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

Moviebob, what the fuck? What the hell would this movie need to have done other than have a attendant jerk you off through it to make you say anything other than "didn't have Heath Ledger: was SHITE".

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.

But he liked the movie...he even recommended that everyone go see it. He was just critiquing the problems(I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if he's on the money), which is what a reviewer is suppose to do.

I love this movie. Love it. Even the silly parts. It is awesome.

I rarely agree with Bob though. If he truly loves something I'd probably do well to avoid it like the plague.

Given that I'm one of the few people in the world that didn't actually like the first two very much, I was actually surprised with just how MUCH I liked this latest installment.

Much better than the previous ones.

Edit:

And I still prefer Jack Nicholson as the Joker.

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.

Try page 3 or 4 rather than skipping along and missing it. It has been mentioned.

Also it happened in Aurora not Denver

I disagree with the notion that there is no message or thesis about Batman in this movie other than the OWS-esque theme; the latter is Selina's theme, but it becomes clear pretty quickly that it's not a central idea to the movie. Nor were there two "back to Batman" phases in the movie, but only the one, which spans the entire film.

As I saw it, the movie showed two things. It shows a terrorist (i.e. Bane) able to control fear about as well as anyone in the Batman universe, and able to do it in a way that can't be contested by force (this is probably the most political the movie gets). And then it shows a Batman who had learned a little too well to control fear within himself, to the point where he didn't recognize that fear is as crucial to being a good hero as it can be a weakness. He approaches his first encounter with Bane with the ideology that all he has to do to win is conquer his fear of dying to take away Bane's power over him, and learns the hard way that it's a lot more complicated than that. The ideology causes him to embrace a too-Nilistic interpretation of "Batman is a symbol," which doesn't allow him to play to his strengths, because he believes it's alright to give his life to the cause, because Batman can be anyone (which completely zaps all motivation to actually keep his life as a high-priority in a fight, which becomes his downfall in that first one). He has to learn not to suppress or control his fear of death, but learn how to embrace and harness that fear to fuel his strengths, which allows him to finally defeat Bane in their second encounter. These two fights were easily the most emotionally-charged fights in the entire trilogy.

I thought the pacing was fine; it moved faster and had more urgency than Batman Begins, and I felt like whereas The Dark Knight went too fast at times, to the point where plot points were rushed over and therefore didn't have emotional weight, this movie finally found a good middle-ground between the two. I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I went into this movie thinking I was going to hate it (Bane of all villains? Anne Hathaway as Catwoman?), but I think it was the one that finally hit its stride in the series.

Dr. Dan Challis:
I find the criticisms of the structure and pacing extremely odd; despite its length Rises is easily the fastest moving of the trilogy, and the one with the strongest story arc. The construction of Rises' script has a definite edge over Dark Knight's, even if the end product isn't quite as good because it lacks...dead horse alert...a villain as flamboyant and entertaining as Heath Ledger's Joker. Dark Knight crescendos at the 90 minute mark and spends the second half of the film trying to regain the momentum it's lost. The material with Harvey and (especially) the ferries rigged to explode just isn't as compelling as the beginning with the Joker and the mob. Ledger pretty much carried the entire last hour of DK on his shoulders. That he pulled it off more than justified his Oscar win. Bane's plot, on the other hand, lends Rises a lot more narrative thrust and does a nice job of tying into plotlines established in Batman Begins in satisfying, if not unexpected, ways.

I agree 100% with this.

Lethos:
I just got back from seeing it.

I.Fucking.Loved.It.

I seriously believed it topped the Dark Knight. It's that good.

Edit: What's with all the people on first page going "called it!" Most of them haven't seen the film. Why so desperate to try and be right?

I just got back from seeing it myself and I absolutely feel the same way, it was f**king bad ass and easily tops the Dark Knight for me. Its been awhile since I walked out of a movie in complete awe but I have to hand it to Nolan and his team, they know how to make some amazing movies.

Me and my girlfriend both watched the review after seeing the film, and agreed with the 'Heath Ledger shaped hole' comment, but also found Bane to be the perfect villain for the plot of the film. He showed Batman that he wasn't as invincible as he believed he was, and that he could be beaten physically, which no one had managed to do. If Joker were in this film (undeniably, it would have been amazing for Joker to come back but Heath Ledger cannot be replaced) I wouldn't have complained, but for the storyline of this film, Bane was more suited as he destroyed Batman in ways that Joker never could (in a physical sense).

Anne Hathaway was a great Catwoman right from the first 5 minutes. Sexy, clever, witty, flexible...everything you need from a Catwoman.

However, I don't think she gave the best performance of the film - Michael Caine did.

Also, does anyone else see how much alike Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Heath Ledger are?

And when they talk about 'giant alligators in the sewers' I immediately thought of Killer Croc.

Ramzal:

Where did Tim Burton come from in this conversation? I've said nothing about Tim Burton's Batman. I've seen the movies and the only thing I like about them is that he uses his brain, unlike Nolan's Batman. I still don't like his willingness to end lives in those movies as well, as it is out of character.

Burton's Batman was awful. He never used his brain at all. Nolan's Batman goes around investigating, setting up crime scenes, being a detetive. Burton's Batman just beat people up.

jaketaz:

I agree. And it's not Nolan's job to satisfy all the desires of every Batman fan, it's his job to challenge us as viewers, if not to challenge his fellow filmmakers! I had tears in my eyes at the end, which rarely happens to me in a movie period, much less a superhero one.

Aside from visceral, emotional, reaction what part of this film do you think challenged any viewer or any other filmmaker? There was nothing in the movie that forced anyone in the audience to rethink *anything*. Batman is good, Bane is evil, big character twist that everyone who knows the comics saw coming and everyone who doesn't is saying "what the fuck?"

None of the character arcs are particularly deep. Joseph Gordon-Levitt probably gets the most screen time, but the "good cop on the straight and narrow who realizes that he can't work within the rules that protect bad guys" is the same arc of (a) half of all cop movies, and (b) the entire second movie for Commissioner Gordon.

The income inequality/social upheaval stuff could have been interesting if we hadn't already known Bane was evil and lying, so it comes across as Nolan slapping the audience in the face with "see, social upheaval is bad, now wait to be saved by your liege lord." There was no way to take the "taking Gotham back for its citizens" stuff as being real because we as the audience already know that it's a lie.

Nolan could have challenged us by making us question Batman's motivations. But because we know that the bad guy is irredeemably bad, Batman just gets to be an all-around hero.

The ending *could* have been challenging, if he hadn't immediately retracted any impact from Batman's heroic acts by immediately giving a bright happy ending for everyone involved.

This idea that complaints about how someone didn't enjoy the movie should be silenced because the movie was meant to "challenge filmmakers" only works if Nolan tried something experimental. At least then this could have been seen as an attempt at something bigger, which can be lauded whether it succeeded or failed.

But he didn't. The movie doesn't take any chances on difficult questions or choices. All the major character changes are well within what the audience would expect, and none of them raise any difficult questions for the audience.

minuialear:

I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I'd have agreed with that except for two things, spoilered for other people:

1.

2.

I liked the movie, but I think we can admit that for all of the praise Nolan has gotten for being the first person to make "serious" superhero movies, or how fantastic his "gritty" reboot was, that TDKR is simply not the stuff of cinematic history.

anian:
So basically "this is a review of a movie you can't even see yet and I can't say my opinion on it without spoiling things"

...well this video is skipped, not the first time.

Agreed. I skipped watching this review as well. Not because I didn't want to hear Bob go on about it; but because I knew a movie this heavy cannot be discussed without some level of spoilers. Seriously, what could have been one of the most gripping moments in the movie, the ground collapsing during the football game, was so overplayed in the trailers and the commercials, that it rendered it little more than a set piece moment, instead of the iconic scene is could and should have been.

We of the Batman Fan Club knew right from the beginning that Bane was likely to break Batman/Bruce Wayne's back. Other than being able to juice up with the venom, the only other franchise-wide notable event concerning Bane in the comics is when he broke Batman's back. But, I WILL say that this movie treated the Bane character a hell of a lot better than they did in Batman & Robin. (Bat Credit Card) *trollface*

In the comics, Bane is actually as genius-level intelligent as they make him out to be in the movie. However, the League of Shadows connection was thrown in completely for plot convenience. That being said, about 50 minutes in, I pegged the "foreign accent" chick as Talia. I also pegged Lewitt as having some level of connection to being either Robin and/or Nightwing.

Finally; Bob, I DID have the Man of Steel/Superman trailer for my viewing, and I can tell you, it was a complete throwaway. I was more hyped to see The Hobbit trailer again; this time with more footage tossed in. It just sucks that we're getting it in two pieces, instead of in one go.

jaketaz:

I agree. And it's not Nolan's job to satisfy all the desires of every Batman fan, it's his job to challenge us as viewers, if not to challenge his fellow filmmakers! I had tears in my eyes at the end, which rarely happens to me in a movie period, much less a superhero one.

And I'm going to tell you the truth: both times Batman fights Bane, it's fucking cool. There's nothing "underwhelming" about it as MovieBob said. I found the general tone of a lot of this review unappreciative and hypocritical. It seemed like he didn't appreciate Nolan's efforts to make a superhero movie that's actually important people beyond comic fans, and that will have an impact beyond its box-office draw. MovieBob also knocks this movie for not really being "about much of anything", even though he was fine with the much simpler message of The Avengers.

It is about something. It's about Batman saving Gotham, and that simplistic plot is done in the most heart-and-gut-wrenching manner that has ever been attempted by any filmmaker.

At the end of the day, this is what The Avengers was: a popcorn flick. Comfort food. A blockbuster and nothing more. A GOOD blockbuster, but not anything evocative like Lord of the Rings, the Godfather, Schindler's List, etc. You walk out of it saying "I had fun and was entertained.", not "I feel like something touched my soul and mind". The latter is what Nolan's films are.

My personal thoughts: this is the best movie I've seen since Inception. It's not quite as good as Dark Knight but the difference is literally a paper-thin margin. If Dark Knight was the Godfather of superhero movies, then Rises is the Return of the King. It's a perfect capstone to the greatest comic/superhero trilogy ever and I wait with bated breath to see what Nolan does in the future as he has pretty much cemented himself as the new Spielberg (as well as the god-emperor of superhero films). It's the best movie of the summer and maybe of the year. Everyone is great in their parts even if there isn't an incredible standout like the Joker (which was a one-in-a-million thing) and the narrative is a rollercoaster that brings you down and lifts you up and has a TON of fanboy moments.

Father Time:
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

I thought the movie was awesome. I loved how much the stakes were raised, I liked the new villain aside from his motivations which made little sense, I didn't think Catwoman was all that interesting (well acted but too much of her was predictable) and I didn't think the structure sucked.

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.

HotFezz8:
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

Moviebob, what the fuck? What the hell would this movie need to have done other than have a attendant jerk you off through it to make you say anything other than "didn't have Heath Ledger: was SHITE".

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.

Mr.Pandah:
I'm just gonna call bullshit on this. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it had terrible pacing issues like MovieBob thought it did and the fact that it had two "rising" points didn't detract from it at all. Batman thought he was hot shit who could just get back into the game but then got his ass beat and proceeded to truly "Rise" up. Simple. I don't know, I thought the movie worked, and I thought it worked really well.

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

So yeah, thought the movie was good, not great. I didn't personally enjoyed it but saw where others could. So, do I deserve to be mocked at now?

xaszatm:

Father Time:
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

I thought the movie was awesome. I loved how much the stakes were raised, I liked the new villain aside from his motivations which made little sense, I didn't think Catwoman was all that interesting (well acted but too much of her was predictable) and I didn't think the structure sucked.

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.

HotFezz8:
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

Moviebob, what the fuck? What the hell would this movie need to have done other than have a attendant jerk you off through it to make you say anything other than "didn't have Heath Ledger: was SHITE".

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.

Mr.Pandah:
I'm just gonna call bullshit on this. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it had terrible pacing issues like MovieBob thought it did and the fact that it had two "rising" points didn't detract from it at all. Batman thought he was hot shit who could just get back into the game but then got his ass beat and proceeded to truly "Rise" up. Simple. I don't know, I thought the movie worked, and I thought it worked really well.

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

So yeah, thought the movie was good, not great. I didn't personally enjoyed it but saw where others could. So, do I deserve to be mocked at now?

I'm not mocking bob, nor will I mock you. I don't agree with his points levied against the film. I never said he thought the film was bad. I said he thought it had pacing issues bad enough for him to comment about them. That's where I disagree with him. Simple as that.

Mayor spoiling done here


Conclusion, I find the same things as you bob. It's a good movie but not a good ending or a worthy ending of the first 2.

xaszatm:

Father Time:
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

I thought the movie was awesome. I loved how much the stakes were raised, I liked the new villain aside from his motivations which made little sense, I didn't think Catwoman was all that interesting (well acted but too much of her was predictable) and I didn't think the structure sucked.

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.

HotFezz8:
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

Moviebob, what the fuck? What the hell would this movie need to have done other than have a attendant jerk you off through it to make you say anything other than "didn't have Heath Ledger: was SHITE".

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.

Mr.Pandah:
I'm just gonna call bullshit on this. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it had terrible pacing issues like MovieBob thought it did and the fact that it had two "rising" points didn't detract from it at all. Batman thought he was hot shit who could just get back into the game but then got his ass beat and proceeded to truly "Rise" up. Simple. I don't know, I thought the movie worked, and I thought it worked really well.

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

So yeah, thought the movie was good, not great. I didn't personally enjoyed it but saw where others could. So, do I deserve to be mocked at now?

Bob said the film was good but not great and I think that's selling it short.

Also I don't know why Bob thinks Catwoman was so great. I didn't think it was interesting.

I'm just saying I have a different opinion not saying that Bob sucks or anything.

Seldon2639:

minuialear:

I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I'd have agreed with that except for two things, spoilered for other people:

1.

2.

I liked the movie, but I think we can admit that for all of the praise Nolan has gotten for being the first person to make "serious" superhero movies, or how fantastic his "gritty" reboot was, that TDKR is simply not the stuff of cinematic history.

For 1:

For 2

"Cinematic history" is a vague category so I won't touch that; I'd say it's definitely a contender for best of the trilogy though (can't say for sure until I've seen it a couple more times).

TDKR was a great ending to the trilogy, sure there were a few things that didn't work, but it was still really good.

Darth_Payn:

Tono Makt:
Worse than the Avengers? Nah, can't be worse than the Avengers; that movie was just terrible. Most disappointing movie of 2012 so far. Suppose I'll see in a week or two.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Ya know, I thought that people got warnings on these forums for calling other people trolls. I know I sure did, when I called out someone`s trolling. (Maybe they had to whine to the Moderators that someone was being mean to them for it to be done, hrm.)

The Avengers was a terribly disappointing movie, and I just don't see where so many fanboys are squee'ing themselves over it. Take out the Hulk`s fighting at the end, take out Black Widow's short "interrogation" scene, and the movie is terrible. It starts off with a rather boring sequence, the recruitment scenes (aside from Widow's interrogation scene) are barely meh with a healthy dose of "This is stupid even for a comic book movie." (see: Thor vs Iron Man vs Captain America on the mountain top.) Then once the team is "assembled" it turns into the Bruce and Tony Banter Show, where Thor, Cap, Widow and Fury are left with barely anything to say, and what they do say is rather anemic at best. Next up is a somewhat interesting fight on the Helicarrier before the only parts of the movie that are in any way worthy of a portion of the praise people have heaped onto it, which are the scenes where the Hulk is fighting the Chitauri giant flying bone things, the Hulk fighting the CGFBT's with Thor, and the Hulk fighting Loki.

Those scenes made the movie worth the price of admission, but take away those scenes and we'd be moaning about the Avengers being about as good as Green Lantern.

Just out of curiosity, what was the line lifted from 'Kingdom Come'? because that's easily my favorite graphic novel out there, and I'm surprised I would miss a nod to it. Any help on this one?

Bob,

I really have enjoyed most of your video's, but it's at this movie that I feel I can no longer watch your reviews. There are several really good reasons I feel this way.

The first thing? It's purely sociological that you find The Dark Knight the best movie in the series. Heather Ledger died when this film was being cut, and somehow that suddenly makes his character so much more important. Unfortunately, it was strictly interesting because Heath Ledger died and did try so hard to bring the character to life. In my opinion he was absolutely a throw away villain and they didn't really play out the effect that the Joker's plans had on Bruce Wayne until Rises. Alot of it was unsaid, but showed in several scenes. Had Ledger survived, that may have changed thing's and it's evident that certain parts of the film probably could have been cut away, or added to.

Let's cut to the chase. >>THE DARK KNIGHT WAS NOT BETTER THAN RISES.<< I honestly don't believe The Dark Knight even comes close to Rises. The Dark Knight didn't have the emotional effect that The Dark Knight Rises had. I don't recall looking around the theater three quarters of the way through TDK and finding almost the entire auditorium in tears because the content was so real, and touched everyone in some way. I found it incredible that as we all walked away we admitted to each other we never expected that out of a Batman movie. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that good, but it certainly wasn't Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. Sorry Moviebob, there was alot of subtext there, and you failed to notice it.

The truth is, Bruce Wayne had people in his life that knew he deserved better, that he shouldn't have been doomed to spend his entire life chained to a cause that was never going to be fulfilled. Not only that, but those same people were willing give their lives to see him accomplish an impossible task.

In the end, it's wrapped up beautifully, and it was worth the tears I shed to see the man walk away with some dignity, and I don't know about anybody else but I definitely paid good money to sit there and watch Batman get his ass kicked and then make a comeback. The only portion of Bob's review I agree with at all is the fact that the first 30 minutes were sort of needlessly drawn out. Outside of that, I was thrilled, and this will be a Day 1 BD purchase. Sorry, but this is better than BB AND TDK.

I'm surprised Bob didn't bring up A Tale of Two Cities during the review. Huh. Gordon even reads from it.

TDKR did what what would happen from a great conclusion to the trilogy, a lot of people ending up emotional near the end. Whenever Alfred spoke to Bruce, tears welled up.

Saying this movie has no depth is a bit overboard. Begins was fear, TDK was chaos, and now TDKR is about pain which is pretty much from Nolan's mouth. This is the most I've disagreed with Bob on a review since Sucker Punch, and I wasn't enlightened like I would from a constructive negative assessment of a movie.

With comic book movies, it's best to take Bob's critiques with a grain of salt what with this over-bashing of Amazing Spiderman that felt more forced hate-mongering and deep-seated than I'd expect from his reviews. I didn't even see that movie but I could tell Bob had a chip on his shoulder.

Not as good as Avengers, c'mon. Get real. That movie is as shallow and bubble-gum as the one on the back of my shoe. There were no stakes in that movie, I didn't care for any of those superheroes' fates, it had awful pacing with that tragically bad opening sequence and then the excessive immersion-breaking amount of CGI in the last action setpiece removed any investment I had in the film-making. I applaud the technical feat of wrangling up all the Marvel franchises together, but as a film it just does not hold up.

Didn't Bob previously say that there would never be another Batman and Robin? Does it seem more likely now?

I disagree with everything, this was the best batman in the trilogy

While i do feel it had pacing issues, let be honest, this was a three hour movie, and its obvious they will probably release a directors cut adding probably another half hour.

Secondly, Bane was pulled off perfectly, so was cat woman, but then again they didnt need to be perfect with the comic books because the Nolan movies are a totally separate entity to any other batman story.
The action was amazing
the acting was down right heart string pulling
the ending was perfectly satisfying
the set pieces were the best ive ever seen
and i just fucking loved this movie, i have almost no citicisms outside of a longer version like a directors cut, but i consider that a compliment because it makes you want more.
Yes the second batman movie was fucking perfect, the first was the best origin story ever put to film, and this one is, in my opinion, the best in the series.

and what you said about structure...pfft. we've had 2 movies of set up, and this movie did not have faulty structure. it was made exactly like a batman story and no person was wasted.

And what you said about his first return being nearly pointless...thats the point, his second rise is the only rise, its the time he finally learned what he he was told and came to a realization that became his 'rise'

Go see this movie. i fucking rocks.

My friend and I saw this last night and I'm glad I didn't go see it on my own as I would have walked out (and he said the same thing to me). I consider myself as having a relatively high tolerance for a slow build in films (sat through 2001 and enjoyed it) but the first act dragged like crazy and at no point was I able to really care about any of the characters. Thankfully the referential act 2 and the fantastic act 3 made up for it but barely.

xaszatm:

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

Zing:
But he liked the movie...he even recommended that everyone go see it. He was just critiquing the problems(I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if he's on the money), which is what a reviewer is suppose to do.

to both of you: yes, he said go see it. He then spent the next 5 minutes constantly saying it was a complete let down. MovieBob can be quoted as "this is coming off much more negatively than i would want". MovieBob did not enjoy this movie. He listed all it's faults, he didn't like the overall quality, and in the end it was the most grating "people should see this" that could be ripped from him.

at the end of the day i don't know what MovieBob expected, (I doubt he could tell me that in any detail), but this wasn't it, and even though it was a great movie, far deeper than the avengers, becuase it didn't conform to whatever mystical goals MovieBob expected it to reach, he spent 90% of his review slagging it off.

I personally loved Bane. He is probably now one of my favorite all time movie villains.

What is the classic line that Bob speaks upon from kingdom come?

This is the review I've read so far that best matches my feelings about TDKR (although I would argue that the running time makes it even harder to forgive the myriad flaws).

I'd like to defend Bob. I don't agree with many of his opinions, but I always respect them. He is a student of film, forever willing to refer to cultural history to back up his points. It's disappointing to see some people attacking his ability as a critic just because he's constructed an argument contrary to their own.

 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