Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

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

Seen it. It's three hours of my life I won't get back.

Just seen this, liked it. Can't say i thought much of Batman Begins but the second one was good, this not as good but still quite decent.
I think its interesting that they went back to the very origin of Batman, namely the Scarlet Pimpernel. In that book the Pimpernel rescues the rich people from the wrath of the french revolution where they're being executing without trial.

After seeing the movie and having time to think about how the second coming of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the middle of the movie could be more justified or at least more tolerable.

I believe that if the movie began with Bruce Wayne having been defeated by Bane, put into the prison, and then recapping on the events that lead up to Bruce's situation (i.e. where the movie originally began), it would make a little more sense so it doesn't feel like Bruce starting over again.

People will believe at first that Bane must have taken advantage of Bruce while he was retired and later find out to not be the case and actually break his back as an homage to the comics.

I enjoyed the HELL out of this movie. I enjoyed both the comics nods and the unique quirks of the Nolanverse. I loved Selina Kyle (definitely the best MOVIE version of Catwoman ever). I had a blast watching both the action and the introspective bits. I didn't feel anvils of political messages were being dropped on my head--they were there but I didn't feel invaded by them.

But I also went in with a firm intent to set no expectations, too high or too low. I've only seen the 1st two films once, each in the theater, and wanted to let set each in their own unique spot in my memory, informing what I needed to know about this movie's backstory, but to let this movie take its own spot in my mind rather than try to shoehorn it into surpassing anything.

And I think setting up that mindset also has a lot to do with why I enjoyed the movie so much and why I did not go home nitpicking everything I DIDN'T like.

My minor quibbles are that yes, there's a bit in the middle where stuff goes on too long (that's where I took my pee break and I don't think I missed anything), and I do think the Plot Twist should have been revealed sooner because I think by getting deeper into how (spoiler) and Bane were working together and why that would have helped with both those character's development. But that's about it.

I don't agree with MovieBob's assessment. I thought this film matched or even surpassed the quality and intensity we've come to expect from the series so far. Roughly as good as The Dark Knight and definitely better than the first one. I thought Bane was an awesome supervillain and the action scenes were masterfully done. Bane's voice really sold it for me, even if I couldn't understand what the fuck he was saying sometimes.

The thing I take biggest issue with is MovieBob's assessment of Batman's character arc. He says that Bruce Wayne spends the first half of the film learning to be Batman and the second half just doing it again. That is not true at all, and I don't know how MovieBob could have made that mistake. Neither of those things are true. This film doesn't repeat itself nor does it rehash anything we have seen in previous films. Bruce spends the first half of the movie

and he spends the second half of the movie It was a very well executed arc with a lot of impact. I don't know how MovieBob arrived at his conclusions, but then again I never do. There was a lot of other good stuff he left out but I understand it would have been spoilertastic.

EDIT: By the way, I think I totally forgot about Heath Ledger and the Joker as soon as Rises picked up. It was a hanging question while we were anticipating this movie, but having seen it I can tell you no one beside MovieBob is going to be asking "OK but where's Heath Ledger?" on the way home. Yet another case of MovieBob bringing more into the theater than he takes away?

It's really annoying that Captain America and X-men: First Class get praised as nearly perfect while much better films like Dark Knight Rises get a mixed recommendation.

Short version: I saw it at a midnight opening, full price, with three friends. One friend is dyed in the wool Batman fanboy, two others are not necessarily Batman fans, but like Batman and some of the versions, I generally dislike Batman, but like some of his incarnations. All four of us are in agreement on these things: 1) 1960's Batman is fun, if campy. 2) Batman: The Animated Series was best thing ever (and the only version I actively like). 3) Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were great movies.

Three of us came out of the movie disappointed. My local theater chain does weekday, half-price showings before noon. I could have waited for a half-price midday show.

I did notice alot of the quibbles Bob had, but the majority of my issues were with the second half, namely the "lower-class revolution" and the final battle sequence.

The problem with the revolution is that there isn't one. We get a few scenes of "loot the rich people" capped with a throwaway socialist justification of (paraphrased and interpreted) "They have more money they don't deserve, so lets take it because they don't deserve it." This all ends when Bane goes to Blackgate and intones (paraphrasing and interpretation incoming) "This prison is full of mean, harsh, hardened criminals and murderers who deserve to be here. But they wouldn't be here if the laws were fair, so lets make things fair by letting them out and giving them guns." After that point, the streets are clear and pristine, completely lifeless. No looters, no vagrants, just the merc convoys and the occasional cop. And we're told the cops that had remained above ground were being hunted down, and yet these few are left to their devices when there isn't a single other living thing on the streets, at all.

As for the final battle. When the military had managed to get Special Forces on the ground to meet with the remaining police, they were ambushed and killed quickly and efficiently. Professional soldier (military or merc) quickly and efficiently. Then later, when the cops make their march on Bane, they are faced with most of the merc/convict crew, armed with body armor, military grade automatic weapons, and a few of the Tumblers, while the cops had, at best, law enforcement issue vests, handguns, and the occasional shotgun. Plus, they made their march over open ground, with no cover, and no tactic other than Zerg Rush. And despite superior numbers the cops weren't completely mowed down by massed automatic weapons fire? This is age-old, a smaller, better equipped force defeating a numerically superior but worse equipped force. Its practically US military modus operandi, and in a lot cases it works.

And then there's the Bat. Despite its unrealistic design, for all intents and purposes, it functions like a military-grade helicopter. Okay, yes, I can suspend my disbelief for this thing, to an extent. But it has no autopilot, something that even functioning military prototypes have. And then it pulls an "outrun the heatseeking missiles" routine followed by turning them back on the shooter, and then I go cross-eyed. Simply, helicopters are not that fast (I could say similar about the speed required to get rid of the bomb within the time limit), and surface-to-air missiles are not that slow.

Why do I have problem? Because for all of Nolan's directorial flourishes, as well as the unrealistic things that appear, one thing Nolan had otherwise remained consistent with within his works have been deference to the technology and hardware and how it can possibly/actually/realistically function. The Tumbler can exist and function as shown/advertised, so can the Pod, except for maybe the spinning wheels bit. Even the Inception Dream Machine, while not real, was said to be operating under very specific, very reasonable (potentially realistic) set of guidelnes. The Bat can't.

And seriously, the Pod's guns are more powerful than the Bat's? Are those little .50 Caliber barrels shooting grenades or something?

I won't try to top nadesico33's post, as I generally agree with it, but I'm the only person in the known world who seemingly hated the Catwoman character:

I did like the movie, though. The opening was spectacular. The logistics of the city being under lockdown was a little weird and underdone and why on Earth

, but dammit, I love Marion Cotillard.

Everyone I know, including myself, loved it. It has flaws, but ultimately it will go down in history with a good name. This video is a great example of why i generally don't watch Movie Bob.

I have to disagree with bob, I thought this was the best superhero film ever made.
Sure parts of it are clunky, nothing is perfect.

But I just avoided all the hype, watched no trailers and judged the movie for what it was by itself.

And I loved every second of it.

Price0331:

Jaeke:
Just saw the movie.

Not watching MovieBob anymore.

I totally agree with you. He's a hack compared to the guys over at redlettermedia. I have stopped watching him since his Captain America review, where it was obvious that his love for the source material really puts some thick rose-tinted glasses in front of his face. I also can't stand the amount of people who respond .2 seconds after this video is posted saying "called it" and "won't see it now". Really, you should do yourselves a favor and see it in the theaters while you can. He's a hack, with hack opinions.

Thank you for being one of the few reasonable souls in the thread.

OT: Seriously people. Go see this damn movie. Nearly everything MB said about this movie is just scrubbed down by his "I read comic books when I was a kid and got picked on so I'm hip" attitude.

Bane is menacing to a point where he makes Joker look like a pussy (but yes Heath Ledger still acts circles around anyone in any of the 3 movies). It's pacing is fine other than the first few opening scenes when Batman is in "retirement", the last hour, and I do mean hour, is suspensful non-stop action.
The plot twists are incredibly well-done and mind-blowing(except for the last one, :P)


The references and call-outs to the comic books are outstanding and memorable.
This movie is solid, in terms of how well a movie is done it's slightly lacking compared to The Dark Knight but it's definitely far better than Batman Begins, and it's my favorite out of the trilogy.

Go see it.

Just saw it, and for once you mirror my thoughts perfectly. They would've had to be both more ambitious and insanely lucky to top the previous two so it's like they didn't try for that.

Great movie with both a villain and a plot arc (No Man's Land) I've wanted to see for quite a while, just not up to the calibre of its magnificent predecessors. Two 'risings' of the Bat do indeed make it cluttered, though to be fair Bruce didn't waste much time getting back into the swing of things the first time. He could've started up again any time but didn't to preserve the peace. Save for the lack of fitness that cements his downfall in round one against Bane it was like he'd never left. That's the problem when a character is virtually defined by the arcing plot they're in, not by their own merits. You have to bring that entire arc along with them, even if it doesn't quite fit.

Loved all the cameos anyway, though I felt some of the flashbacks were clumsily inserted. I'm also pleased to see they didn't go too overboard with the very current-events political slant Nolan had chosen for the brain food, even if it ended up lacking in that department compared to the previous ones as a result. Better that than preaching to the choir.

As fitting a cap as could be expected to a trilogy born from the seed of one of my top 3 favourites. I hope it manages to hit 1 billion regardless, as all the main cast are seriously talented people and deserve acclaim.

Just watched the movie, discussed it with my friend, then watched your review out of curiosity.
Gotta say, you pretty much describe my experience of the movie, so I actually don't have to add anything about this.

I think, you made a great review, not realy doing spoilers, but describing the movie in a good manner, pointing out it's pros and cons with proper arguments, that's how it gotta be. Maybe even a bit to rational, becoming kinda dry.
Another thing is, when I read some of the comments, where people just say "i don't like those reviews, i don't even like Movie-Bob, because, i just don't", well, i don't see the point: if you don't like it, don't watch it and don't comment about it, but if you have to, do it with some proper arguments, otherwise it's just plain brainless ranting, not giving anything. Try some good criticism yourself and explain what you don't like, why and how it could be done better. I see some resemblence to Movie-Bobs reviews of other movies, like Scre-4-m, where Bob just did the same, but i think got over it and tries harder now.

This movie is just another lamb to the slaughter for the internet. All the opinions and critiques of it you will read and hear are just that. The average movie goer thinks less about structure and plot devices then say the problems in a contemporary american democracy, and if not for people like movie Bob helping all the hipsters have clever banter to help drive their point of something not being good they would most likely revert to pointing out something superficial and calling it stupid. After the Dark Knight (even more so than Batman Begins) it brought Batman into this over whelming spot in popular american culture, add an untimely death to an actor that commanded the entire movie and yeah of course it became an instant hit. But as we all know when something hits that sort of critical mass the hate brigade will soon follow. Movie Bob made a lot of good points both to the films service and disservice, but of course no one pays attention to the good because the bad is so much more fun i guess. I wanted the movie to be better but i don't feel robbed of my $12 well not as much as i did when i saw the Avengers, mostly because to me (not a comic book guy) Ironman and Batman are for all intent and purpose the same character, rich guys using their money, power and international companies to build crazy weaponry and so on to fight crime. Sure I am generalizing, but as i see it pretty much dead on. Almost forgot the most important thing, go see it its pretty good and the big action can make up for the rest if you are REALLY paying that much attention. And if you live in an area like myself where we have seen 100 degree weather for like the last 2 weeks that 3hrs will not seem long enough.

Saw it. Not perfect. Still good.

Well, I just saw the movie and I loved it.
I loved the avengers, but this movie is better, by far. Better plot, better characters, better score, better cinematography, better everything. And if moviebob couldn't follow the plot at times, didn't get the Lazarus Pit and misunderstood the first return of the bat in comparison to the actual "rise", then I guess there is no helping him.

He sits in his bubble of comic-geek superiority and there is no changing that.

If you haven't already seen this movie, then go see it and do not let MovieBob's opinion become your own. Form your own opinion and then watch his review again. I for one found, that MovieBob's reviews are not to be trusted, but I enjoy them, so I watch them for the entertainment value.

Spoiler Warning: Plot points and developments.

Just saw the movie. Wow, what a remarkably terrible film. What a load of nonsense. Even the action sequences were crap, leaving the film without even so much as a Rule Of Cool defense.

Oh and Nolan, here's a tip: the problem with paying a thousand extras to put on police uniforms and run down a street is that it looks like you paid a thousand guys to dress up as policemen and run down a street.

Oh and another tip: fire your brother.

I loved it. Tom Hardy's Bane is one of my favourite villains in cinematic history. I am a big Batman fan but, I have to say that, I much prefer the Nolanverse to the comics.

I loved the message, I loved the acting, I loved the hero, I loved the villain, I loved the script, I loved the themes, I loved the ending.

Their have only been four films that have ever made in me cry (not including the Futurama episode with Fry's dog); Black Book, The Mist, Downfall and The Dark Knight Rises.

fubaring0:
Anne Hathaway was awful they shot around the fact she couldn't do any fighting at all and she is very inconsistent. Over all entertaining but not as good as Dark Knight but not as bad as Return of the Jedi. Also batman didn't rise in the middle he came back for a selfish reasons.

Rise =/= Not coming back for selfish reasons.

Anne Hathaway played Catwoman well; they shot around her because Catwoman isn't a brawler, she uses her athletic skill to go in for sneak attacks. I don't see how she is inconsistent unless you're talking about the character, in which case; you didn't realise that she was playing pretend most of the time.

Calibanbutcher:
Well, I just saw the movie and I loved it.
I loved the avengers, but this movie is better, by far. Better plot, better characters, better score, better cinematography, better everything. And if moviebob couldn't follow the plot at times, didn't get the Lazarus Pit and misunderstood the first return of the bat in comparison to the actual "rise", then I guess there is no helping him.

He sits in his bubble of comic-geek superiority and there is no changing that.

If you haven't already seen this movie, then go see it and do not let MovieBob's opinion become your own. Form your own opinion and then watch his review again. I for one found, that MovieBob's reviews are not to be trusted, but I enjoy them, so I watch them for the entertainment value.

Spoiler Warning: Plot points and developments.

Well said. I went into the film thinking that I was going to be disappointed and, for this reason, I praise Moviebob for making it far more enjoyable because my entertainment was mixed in with pleasant surprise.

The film does not pull the 'learning to be Batman' arc again because he didn't learn to be Batman the first time; he simply assumed that he was still Batman and was defeated as a result.

Also since I assumed that the comic book minutiae inspired twist was going to be 'stupid', I took the 'giant alligator bait' and completely forgot about Talia; making the revelation that much sweeter.

Right-wing columnist claims Batman is "my kind of hero"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/batman-is-my-kind-of-hero/story-e6frfifx-1226435126399

Isn't this version of the story based on the Frank Miller version from the 90s?

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.

Seen it yesterday. It's a great movie. I agree with Bob that it's not as good as the previous two but I think it's because of the villain. I couldn't take Bane very seriously. He's good, but not as good as Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker. But the movie feels a lot more mature than previous two for some reason.

The biggest flaw for me is the fact that they never even mentioned The Joker. Every other character from previous two movies was there. Just mentioning The Joker would have been enough to make this feel like a real continuation of the previous movie. Instead, it is the continuation of Batman Begins. And it makes The Dark Knight, which is the best one in the trilogy, seem kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I did not appreciate that.

Great but flawed, terrific ending though. And definitely the best trilogy ever made. Especially since I thought that some asshole spoiled the ending for me. Turns out it was just a successful troll. That alone made the movie great for me because the ending is exactly what I didn't expect it to be.

Also, in my opinion it's better than The Avengers. Avengers is an adrenaline pumping joy ride, but ultimately it didn't leave me fulfilled with anything meaningful. As awesome as it is, it is just a popcorn sci-fi action flick. I prefer a more serious movie. I prefer Batman over any Marvel character anyway, and I love what Nolan did with this universe and how he ended it.

Tim Chuma:
Right-wing columnist claims Batman is "my kind of hero"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/batman-is-my-kind-of-hero/story-e6frfifx-1226435126399

Isn't this version of the story based on the Frank Miller version from the 90s?

It actually more began with the dynamic created between Batman and Superman with the John Byrne Superman reboot in the 1980's. Miller just picked up from that. Basically Batman essentially is a Conservative Republican. He is an entrepreneur and a business owner. His entire underlying philosophy is one of personal responsibility and personal initiative. Pure self reliance.

Whereas Superman is the text book "east coast intelligentsia liberal democrat". He is a member of the left leaning news media. The entire underlying philosophy is that he is this supremely powerful entity that is there to save and protect us, and do for us.

At their core Batman and Superman are the opposing sides of the argument of self reliance vs protection from above.

Of course all of this just makes the comments by the Conservative talk radio nitwits, about how TDKR was going to be used to support Obama because the main villain was "Bane" which sounds like "Bain" to be so much more absurd, bizarre and ill informed.

DC actually has a long history of actually giving some real world political views to their main characters and playing off them to drive some really good stories. Going back to the truly classic Brave and the Bold Green Lantern/Green Arrow stories from the 70's. With Hal Jorden being the more right wing military pilot and Oliver Queen being the more 60's liberal radical (think OWS by todays standards) with a bit of Libertarian ism thrown in.

Woah people are being heavily critical of this movie!

It's like Bob said, it wasn't first class, but it was pretty good! Yes it was overlong, but that made it feel epic! And yes there were some character issues, but they weren't nearly as glaring as people are making out! I thought Bane was a very effective villain, I was surprised that they didn't go with a more well known Batman villain but then if you were going to do that you'd have the joker wouldn't you?! And I'm really surprised that everyone is calling the plot twist predictable, I didn't see it coming! Is that because I haven't read the comics or because I didn't pay attention in the last 2 movies?!

Freeze would have been the more obvious choice. As he is both vastly more identifiable as a batman villan than Bane, and his story is more tailor made to the Nolan ethos. Considering that they ended up making Banes motivations very similar to freezes anyways, i feel like freeze would have been a much better fit for the film.

The biggest issue i had with bane, he was never explored the way that Joker was. Even though the joker didn't really have any concrete motivation for why he was the way that he was, by the end of the movie we had understood the charecter. Bane on the other hand we are explictly told why he's doing what he does, and it just feels hollow and insincere. I think a big part of it has to do with the ridiculous mask. No disrespect to Tom Hardy, but he is not a good enough actor to sell the character with nothing more than his eyes and physicality. He never gave a sense of depth or even menace. He was kind of just, there.

MovieBob:
The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Cheesebob:
Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

ZippyDSMlee:
Well at least they tried.

Andy of Comix Inc:
I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

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.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

Nautical Honors Society:

MovieBob:
The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Cheesebob:
Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

ZippyDSMlee:
Well at least they tried.

Andy of Comix Inc:
I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

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.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

Mmmmm we judged it based on the issues the film had and general fiction of the batman universe. It was more or less good but still flawed.

ZippyDSMlee:

Nautical Honors Society:

MovieBob:
The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Cheesebob:
Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

ZippyDSMlee:
Well at least they tried.

Andy of Comix Inc:
I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

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.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

Mmmmm we judged it based on the issues the film had and general fiction of the batman universe. It was more or less good but still flawed.

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.[/quote]

This is going to be TL:DR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><

ZippyDSMlee:

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

This is going to be TL:DR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><[/quote]

Yeah sorry I stopped after "4 types of Entertainment watches"

Sorry, but there is only 1 type. You.

People get what they get out of what they watch, sometimes they want lulz, sometimes they want something more.

Humanity and our perception of art in entertainment is to varied to be classified.

Nautical Honors Society:

ZippyDSMlee:

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

This is going to be TL:DR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><

Yeah sorry I stopped after "4 types of Entertainment watches"

Sorry, but there is only 1 type. You.

People get what they get out of what they watch, sometimes they want lulz, sometimes they want something more.

Humanity and our perception of art in entertainment is to varied to be classified.[/quote]

Oh most of you don't care about quality depth anymore, its rather sad. :P
LOL

I did put in TL:DR, even I don't what the frak I was going on about :P

Well, they had to make something to end the trilogy, and now they have.

I agree with Movie Bob.

This was a B+ at best and what really killed it for me was Bane as a villain was underwhelming and the climatic fight between him and Batman, even more so. It's worth seeing but feel they could've gotten a better plot out of another villain. Say The Penguin, The Riddler, or Black Mask.

Nautical Honors Society:
DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

I especially liked the bit where Batman picked up a glowing science-fiction atom bomb in his cheesy science-fiction helicopter. Man that was so deep, I was like, "this totally symbolizes Batman picking up a MacGuffin with a convenient helicopter that Morgan Freeman made for some reason."

...seriously, no, this film is 3 and a half stars at best. Avengers was crisp, colourful, fun, but it was straightforward. The Dark Knight Rises was contrived - but worst of all, it was haphazardly paced; it was waaay too big for one movie. If it was two films glued together, I would have been all over it. But it wasn't. It swapped out peaceful Gotham for post-apocalyptic Gotham over the course of maybe ten minutes. It's... bafflingly awful.

The film was not bad. It was really well-made. But it really did feel like it took the same step backwards that The Dark Knight took backwards. Dark Knight was a suspenseful, realistic crime drama which explored the depths of human depravity and insanity, and how far you have to push a man before they go over whatever the "edge" is. Rises is about a man in a mask blowing up a city with a glowing bomb and then Batman comes and shoots him with missiles out of his crazy helicopter thing. Which I definitely appreciate! Don't get me wrong! But how anyone can call this deep - how anyone can argue this has "substance" - is beyond me. It has good dialog and it's acted well. It's directed and staged and filmed perfectly. But as far as the story goes... just no.

Andy of Comix Inc:

Nautical Honors Society:
DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

I especially liked the bit where Batman picked up a glowing science-fiction atom bomb in his cheesy science-fiction helicopter. Man that was so deep, I was like, "this totally symbolizes Batman picking up a MacGuffin with a convenient helicopter that Morgan Freeman made for some reason."

...seriously, no, this film is 3 and a half stars at best. Avengers was crisp, colourful, fun, but it was straightforward. The Dark Knight Rises was contrived - but worst of all, it was haphazardly paced; it was waaay too big for one movie. If it was two films glued together, I would have been all over it. But it wasn't. It swapped out peaceful Gotham for post-apocalyptic Gotham over the course of maybe ten minutes. It's... bafflingly awful.

The film was not bad. It was really well-made. But it really did feel like it took the same step backwards that The Dark Knight took backwards. Dark Knight was a suspenseful, realistic crime drama which explored the depths of human depravity and insanity, and how far you have to push a man before they go over whatever the "edge" is. Rises is about a man in a mask blowing up a city with a glowing bomb and then Batman comes and shoots him with missiles out of his crazy helicopter thing. Which I definitely appreciate! Don't get me wrong! But how anyone can call this deep - how anyone can argue this has "substance" - is beyond me. It has good dialog and it's acted well. It's directed and staged and filmed perfectly. But as far as the story goes... just no.

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.

 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
Registered for a free account here