Knightfail

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I agree the Talia twist was weak based on how little time she had (ironically to keep her under the radar to make it more surprising) but I remember Bob's breakdown of Nolan's style of featuring emotionally distant protagonists whose brief moments of vulnerability and passion undercut him in the end. While it could've been executed better, if there was any saga that would fit this MO, it was Batman and Talia, so it made at least some kind of sense, although casting Marion Cottilard, who played THE EXACT SAME ROLE in Inception, was a red flag that sort've spoiled the surprise for me.

DVS BSTrD:

Duffy13:

DVS BSTrD:

And I'm surprised you didn't also bring-up that whole "leap of faith" Bullshit in Batman's escape from the prison. I've said it before and I'll say it again: fear of death is not going to make a twelve year old girl jump further than a fully grown man.

It was the rope. If you get a chance, pay attention to the rope when they show people jumping, the rope goes taut just as they get close to the ledge and they fail to make it. By not using the rope and risking death you can make the jump because the rope no longer prevents you. Neither the kid nor Bruce use the rope when they succeed. That said, I noticed it the first time Bruce tried to jump and was immediately expecting him to go "oh the rope" and try again. Nope, 15 more mins of moping and waiting for a side character to explain something I thought was incredibly obvious.

Hmmm I didn't notice that. But if that's true surely someone else who missed the jump and fell back down could have said: "Next time could you leave me a little slack?" I'm not sure how the rope worked (whether it was tied to the ledge or not) but I seem to remember it did reach all the way down to the bottom from the top when they were climbing. Unless it was some kind double pulley system, I don't see how it would get so short so close to the top.

rbstewart7263:
Yeah but if you fear death.(bruce don't) you'll suspend disbelief that you can have your cake and eat it too.

But it's not even physically necessary. I was hopping for something clever like the fake-out from The Last Crusade or some ingenuity like Mulan when she retrieves the arrow. But no, only 'fear' can give you the boost you need.

The rope has to get shorter as you climb otherwise you would fall and just hit the ground if it was the same length of slack as when you started. IIRC it was an anchored pulley near the top that was holding the rope. It could be argued it's essentially a trick mechanism to give the inmates hope but restrain them with their own fears of falling and dying. Only those without fear of death can truly make the climb and jump. That all being said, waaaaayyyy too ambiguous if true.

Duffy13:

DVS BSTrD:

Duffy13:

It was the rope. If you get a chance, pay attention to the rope when they show people jumping, the rope goes taut just as they get close to the ledge and they fail to make it. By not using the rope and risking death you can make the jump because the rope no longer prevents you. Neither the kid nor Bruce use the rope when they succeed. That said, I noticed it the first time Bruce tried to jump and was immediately expecting him to go "oh the rope" and try again. Nope, 15 more mins of moping and waiting for a side character to explain something I thought was incredibly obvious.

Hmmm I didn't notice that. But if that's true surely someone else who missed the jump and fell back down could have said: "Next time could you leave me a little slack?" I'm not sure how the rope worked (whether it was tied to the ledge or not) but I seem to remember it did reach all the way down to the bottom from the top when they were climbing. Unless it was some kind double pulley system, I don't see how it would get so short so close to the top.

rbstewart7263:
Yeah but if you fear death.(bruce don't) you'll suspend disbelief that you can have your cake and eat it too.

But it's not even physically necessary. I was hopping for something clever like the fake-out from The Last Crusade or some ingenuity like Mulan when she retrieves the arrow. But no, only 'fear' can give you the boost you need.

The rope has to get shorter as you climb otherwise you would fall and just hit the ground if it was the same length of slack as when you started. IIRC it was an anchored pulley near the top that was holding the rope. It could be argued it's essentially a trick mechanism to give the inmates hope but restrain them with their own fears of falling and dying. Only those without fear of death can truly make the climb and jump. That all being said, waaaaayyyy too ambiguous if true.

I thought it was because that guy who hands them the rope at the bottom was pulling on it. It certainly lets out enough slack once they fall. That seems like a bit too tenuous a mechanism given the surroundings and why wouldn't they just hold onto the slack and try again? I mean Bruce can't have been the first one to survive the fall.

And the whole no fear of death thing is backwards. Remember Bruce DIDN'T fear death the first time he tired it. He had to embrace mortality again (i.e. stop being Batman) before he was able to escape.

First: I was under the impression he deduced that Bane was Ra's son (Incorrectly), mainly due to the fact that Bane had sent him there as a punishment. He'd even gone so far as to explain to Bruce Wayne about the place. I hardly think it's so outlandish to think that a great mind like Batman's wouldn't be able to form that simple conclusion from the following elements previously established.

Bane was excommunicated from the league of shadows.
Bane was in the pit.
Only one person ever successfully escaped the pit.

I mean if I told anyone with a functioning brain those three plot points, I'm sure they'd reach the same conclusion. Even without the aid of a hallucination.

Second: I agree with the problem with the transition of time. However I don't think it's as bad as you (and arguably many other reviewers) try and make it seem. I saw the movie, and while it wasn't spelled out for me... I instantly knew that time had lapsed. From the different setting (How decayed things looked, weather, etc.) to the characters I highly doubt someone thought during the movie Batman had crawled out of the pit... Then was just a seven minute walk away from being Batman again.

Am I the only one who enjoyed the (arguably preachy) monologues? They were delivered exquisitely and really made an impact on my experience while watching in the theater. I don't understand all the hate for them. Sure in REAL LIFE no one is going to take the time to summarize things that happened, or clarify things in long speeches... But by the same token why not be angry that Batman didn't just taze Bane? Or hell why would Batman give a gun to Miranda Tate and expect this rich girl to protect him while he fights the mega-bad guy?

I don't know, but I think that people are out to stake this one. They went in *knowing* it wouldn't be as good as TDK and are just nit-picking to try and convince themselves they were right all along.

"It feels almost gauche at this point to put out something that even looks like a "The Dark Knight Rises' Flaws" article."

Should have stopped right there.

DVS BSTrD:

Duffy13:

DVS BSTrD:

And I'm surprised you didn't also bring-up that whole "leap of faith" Bullshit in Batman's escape from the prison. I've said it before and I'll say it again: fear of death is not going to make a twelve year old girl jump further than a fully grown man.

It was the rope. If you get a chance, pay attention to the rope when they show people jumping, the rope goes taut just as they get close to the ledge and they fail to make it. By not using the rope and risking death you can make the jump because the rope no longer prevents you. Neither the kid nor Bruce use the rope when they succeed. That said, I noticed it the first time Bruce tried to jump and was immediately expecting him to go "oh the rope" and try again. Nope, 15 more mins of moping and waiting for a side character to explain something I thought was incredibly obvious.

Hmmm I didn't notice that. But if that's true surely someone else who missed the jump and fell back down could have said: "Next time could you leave me a little slack?" I'm not sure how the rope worked (whether it was tied to the ledge or not) but I seem to remember it did reach all the way down to the bottom from the top when they were climbing. Unless it was some kind double pulley system, I don't see how it would get so short so close to the top.

rbstewart7263:
Yeah but if you fear death.(bruce don't) you'll suspend disbelief that you can have your cake and eat it too.

But it's not even physically necessary. I was hopping for something clever like the fake-out from The Last Crusade or some ingenuity like Mulan when she retrieves the arrow. But no, only 'fear' can give you the boost you need.

It was the weight of the rope, not the tension. But above and beyond that minor detail, the entire sequence was like nails on a chalkboard to any actual long time Batman fans. I know Nolan tried to disassociate his films from the comics, but that was the point where his attempts just stepped so completely out of character to be painful. Absurd even within the premise of Batman.

Batman is a wall climber. Batman is one of the worlds greatest climbers. It's one of his most basic skills. There are whole issues of comics dedicated to various Robins learning to climb and learning rope work. Plus this was reinforced in BB where we watch him learn to climb and realize he will need it as part of his repertoire.

Then we stick him in a pit, lined with walls of rough uneven brick and stone. And we watch him not know how to handle it? I'm sorry but any interpretation of that character could climb out of that 1 handed, with no rope, while asleep. Batman is a free climber. Spending so much time on such a stupid character breaking story point was just awful. Everything else in the movie was between very good to absolutely fantastic. That whole sequence was Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern Bad.

The "Officer Blake is Robin" Twist and the Talia ones were once again horribly done. Anyone who knew Batman could see where it was going all to well from the first scenes with the characters. Anyone else was left scratching their heads at the end.

The Blake one is particularly annoying because of just how blatantly they hit the old school Batfans over the head with it throughout the movie. Let's see he is a cop (a more modern career path taken by Dick Grayson, the original Robin. Cop by day Nightwing by night). He is a streetwise scrappy Dickenslike orphan who grew up on the streets (see; Jason Todd, Robin II). He figured out who Batman was from meeting Bruce Wayne and just knowing, or working it out (see; Tim Drake, Robin III) all that was missing was either he was secretly a girl with a super villain father (see; Spoiler, Robin IV) or he was actually the long lost son of Bruce Wayne and Talia Al Ghul (see; Damien Wayne, Robin V). The entire character story was essentially Nerdbaiting.

Talia wasn't quite as bad, but you just knew who she was as soon as she first opened her mouth and you heard the "exotic but vague" accent.

Contrast that with the Joker and Harvey Dent from TDK. Yeah the fans knew the characters, knew them well. But still virtually everything in that movie was a surprise or a twist to them.

The point we're all missing is, and i cannot speak for everybody (especially contrarian assholes who will just disagree anyway), but while we were watching this movie? literally none of these flaws mattered. That's one of Nolan's greatest strengths as a director: his ability to sweep you along with his movies, even if they fall apart with analysis.

saintchristopher:
The point we're all missing is, and i cannot speak for everybody (especially contrarian assholes who will just disagree anyway), but while we were watching this movie? literally none of these flaws mattered. That's one of Nolan's greatest strengths as a director: his ability to sweep you along with his movies, even if they fall apart with analysis.

And they won't matter if I watch it again. It's all just nit picking small issues or saying large things, like the plot twist at the end, just didn't do much for you. There's nothing about the film that ruins it when inspected, the film is still very good. As moviebob said, "None of these things, I stress, makes the film bad in my eyes"

So I find the focus by the nerd media on nick-picking this movie very odd.

Contrast Rises' small issues with Prometheus that was just a horrible mess of plot holes, unanswered questions, characters doing things for no reason, and nothing making sense. Prometheus seemed to have more support for it's horrible abortion of a story in certain corners than Rises does.

I'm surprised the flaw that first threw me out of Gotham and back into an East Texas cinema seems to have not been discussed here yet. Now, maybe I missed some expository line of dialogue. Maybe I don't understand what a police commissioner does. It just confused the hell out of me that Gordon was in that sewer in the first place. Sure, if he happened to be on the scene, and some of his officers were in trouble, Jim Gordon would fight through hell to save them, but why in the name of Crom would the Commissioner himself respond to a call like a beat cop?
With damning, career-ending confessions still in his pocket from at least a day or two ago?
But Thou Must, Jim. The plot demands it.

I agree with you for the most part (and what little i disagreed with is mostly inconsequential points - for example, we also get told by the characters in the movie that the bomb's going off in a day or so, but that doesn't really detract from your point)

However, that bit about Robin's name being a joke? Flat-out disagree. It didn't feel like a joke to me, it felt more like a Homage and/or a hint at what's to come for Nolan's Gotham. The impression I got was that Robin becomes Gotham's next dark knight with Batman's stuff if he's ever needed again, Batman himself moves on (took him long enough) and becomes happy.

Otherwise though? Yeah, you're right

I agree with everything you said...but you didn't go into why you didn't like Catwoman being there at the end did you?

When Alfred was explaining the story about him sitting in the Cafe I knew that was how the movie was going to end. The twist with Talia Al Ghul reveal turned Bane into a pussy. I got the passage of time thing because they kept cutting back there and Morgan Freeman kept saying how long until the bomb goes off.

Regarding the passing of time, isn't there something in the Gotham update on the TV in the pit that says "Day 83" or something like that? That's how I got my first realization that a significant amount of time was passing.

And on the Talia twist - I agree that it wasn't done particularly well, but was probably structured to mirror the first movie, where her father also used deception to hide his identity throughout his scheming.

Plenty of posters have already covered Bob's misunderstanding about Wayne's first attempt to rise as apposed to his his actual rise. I do not believe that it was a mistep and in fact it's pretty typical story structure. The entire trilogy has been about 'learning to be Batman' vs 'learning to be Wayne' in various ways. His faux return was clearly that.

Anyway, in regard to the revelation of Talia and how that relates to Bane at the end, I do not think it diminishes Bane as a character at all. In fact, I felt an overwhelming sympathy for the man, and in reference to Gul's reported comment that Bane was 'just a monster', I felt that sympathy more so. Talia thus lost any sympathy she may have had with me, as despite her love for the man, in other ways she manipulates him. Bane's tears, and that he decided to go against Talia's order to keep Wayne alive for the bomb, and kill Wayne instead (perhaps for besting Bane, or for jealousy), entirely sold it for me.

Finally, sticklers for the 'Show it don't tell it' rule are misunderstanding the maxim, especially if they also praise a lack of rules in storytelling as a virtue. Like the 'Rule of Thirds' in visual art, or the countless others in other mediums, these rules are seldom designed by the artists themselves but the viewers, critics and teachers observing and making sense of the art. They are DESCRIPTIVE theories, not PRESCRIPTIVE ones.

To apply them so absolutely and contrary to that is to deny a very important point about creation: SOMETIMES THINGS WORK DESPITE FOR ALL THE WORLD APPEARING LIKE THEY SHOULDN'T.

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Artists break rules all the time, and at the level of those rules, such a thing appears a misstep. But the work itself is NOT only viewed at that level, and while dissection is a very interesting thing to do, ultimately, good critics step back and admit that the forest and not the trees is why we enjoy art in the first place. Yet the opposite is all I see Online. It's as if the Net based critical public no longer want to enjoy these stories, or that by finding the supposed holes and trip ups made by the artists, the critic somehow self validates.

It amounts to so much venom and rage, and I'm not talking about this thread. Seldom do we use the connectivity of the Online space to share our varying ideas on art in a non adversarial manner. Movies are never 'not as good as expected'; they are invariably 'overrated', and the inference by the speaker is clear. That 'Nolanite' has become a term applied so regularly in debate on this film is a telling sign. So kudos to you Bob for your cogent article, and I enjoy all of them which you write and voice. We just happen to disagree on finer points, but I certainly understand why you made yours.

It's funny how much Bob missed the point of almost all the things he's complaining about. Especially since he consistently tries to paint a picture of himself in these videos as some sort of a "better-than-you" intellectual, who has been brought here to grace us with knowledge only he could deliver.

But, as always, it's times like these that he shows his true colors. Lack of paying attention, because once he sets his mind on something, it'll be hell on earth before he changes it. Missed a point that the movie clearly makes in dialog? Doesn't matter, it sucks, I didn't get it.

I'm starting to think Movie Bob is like the attic-stuck cousin of Harry Knowles, their level of film criticism is about the same.

I did not get the Bruce Wayne faking his own death until much later, it could have been better told.

I thought it was odd that the movie spent so much time discrediting the moral speech made by Gordon about how sometimes the truth isn't enough at the end of Dark Knight. I don't think I've seen a sequel do so much to discredit its predecessor.

My disagreements with you are only small nitpicky things. Really, none these flaws kept me from really enjoying the movie, and I do realize you didn't say anything about not enjoying it, just not "falling in love" with it. There are basic structure problems, sure, but as someone who has little knowledge of the formal/technical requirements of good film construction, none of this stuff bothered me because i didn't notice any of it until I read about it in posts like yours (and the Red Letter Media guys of course).

The main things that confuses me a little is that everyone that wasn't (entirely) pleased by the film seems to compare it to The Dark Knight. Most people seem to think The Dark Knight was a better film, and I think I agree... but what TDK does better in terms of story structure is, at least for me personally, completely undercut by the massive implausibility of Joker's entire plan.

The structure of TDK is pretty airtight, linear, straightforward. But so many suspensions of disbelief have to happen in order to buy Joker's plan. The sheer complexity of it, the chance factor (such as Harvey Dent's scarring), and the numerous ways it EASILY could have completely failed - well, these put it at least on par with Rises in terms of "taking me out of the movie".

Like I said, I agree with most of this. But I think that, beyond the cliche of "nothing's perfect," this movie got more right than it got wrong, and the ambition to take a superhero movie farther than usual in terms of visceral impact and empathy for the characters (even the villains) is admirable. I like what Nolan is (or seems to be) trying to do, and it doesn't seem fair to use TDK as a yardstick with which to measure Rises - especially since the former revolved around a plan that is so convoluted and impractical.

UberNoodle:

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Very well said, as was the rest of your post. What if Shakespeare or even Tarantino had been squashed because of their "tendency to 'tell'"? An abundance of dialogue has never bothered me personally, and I think it would be a disservice NOT to do so whenever a skilled director is working with fine actors - as has been the case with the vast majority of Nolan's work. I haven't the slightest problem listening to Michael Caine or Tom Hardy deliver a hefty page of text, because they are emotionally convincing actors. Same as I don't mind something like "Inglorious Basterds", which was marketed an action-packed non-stop Nazi beat-down, and turned out to be mostly long stretches of very intense dialogue.

UberNoodle:

We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.

Very well said, as was the rest of your post. What if Shakespeare or even Tarantino had been squashed because of their "tendency to 'tell'"? An abundance of dialogue has never bothered me personally, and I think it would be a disservice NOT to do so whenever a skilled director is working with fine actors - as has been the case with the vast majority of Nolan's work. I haven't the slightest problem listening to Michael Caine or Tom Hardy deliver a hefty page of text, because they are emotionally convincing actors. Same as I don't mind something like "Inglorious Basterds", which was marketed an action-packed non-stop Nazi beat-down, and turned out to be mostly long stretches of very intense dialogue.

I know exactly what you mean by show don't tell Movie Bob. After Bane took over Gotham, I honestly had no idea how much time was left before the bomb went off at any point. It doesn't help that i'm a bad listener i guess.

Aiddon:
it's still the best movie of the summer. This is the Return of the King of superhero films as it is the ending to the best series of superhero movies EVER. Nolan broke the 3rd movie curse and has proven he's the best thing that ever happened to comic book movies. This analysis isn't really all that provocative and is merely a difference of opinion

I agree fully.
I didn't think it was as good as The Dark Knight, of course, but nothing could be.
It was the greatest it could be following that, however, and was easily well above par of most films, let alone superhero ones.

Robert B. Marks:
Well, while I can't disagree with too much of the article, I think it is worth noting that when Bruce Wayne explains a plot point to himself in the hallucination scene, he gets it wrong...

And yeah, this.
The whole point of that was so that it would lead you off by suggesting Ra's solved it for Bruce, when actually it was all in Bruce's head and he came to a conclusion all on his own. An understandable one, but obviously the wrong one.

Aye, I'm pretty much 100% with Bob on this one.

As has already been mentioned - I find the lack of venom to be quite a disappointment, and also the fact that Bane looked really mutated-muscular in the promo shot and in the movie it turned out to be just a very fit Tom Hardy. To be completely honest: Hardy blew me away as Bronson in the movie of the same name, and there his physique was plenty more impressive than the silly mask power ranger stunt he's reduced to here.

I'm really disappointed and dissatisfied with this movie, and I hate having had the feeling of having been somewhat shyamalaned by Nolan. The twists don't add much to the story, the characters remain but sketches and the over-narration by one much respected actor and some other guy in a pit were extremely below par.

This movie made me genuinely sad, and it made me miss Heath Ledger, the guy I've sworn to hate after the insanely crap A Knight's Tale. I caught myself wondering what Heath Ledger might have become once he got older. Would he be a handsome Jack Nicholson? Or a little more sane version of Mel Gibson? Alas, it won't happen. Maybe everything will soon be drowned out and forgotten in all those non-sequitur jokes of prequels, alternate reality versions, origin stories and whatever the hell serves as a valid excuse for not producing original movies these days.

Susan Arendt:
Completely disagree over the passage of time problems, but must agree that Gotham would be rather a lot dirtier after 5 months of mob rule.

Which doesn't even matter. So what if the city isn't all that dirty?

I didn't like how Bane was killed off though. He was amazing until they introduced Talia as the mastermind behind the whole plot to destroy Gotham. But it did make me feel a bit of sympathy for the guy. So I guess it's a good thing in a way because the way he was treated in the end gave him another layer as a character.

I did like how Bane's mask was basically what kept him from being more like Venom fueled Bane.

Hmmmm, even though I've been to see this film 3 times now I still didn't even notice any of those "problems" Bobby boy mentioned.

Then again I'm not a full on Batman fan and I was just out to enjoy the chaos.

Lazarus Long:
I'm surprised the flaw that first threw me out of Gotham and back into an East Texas cinema seems to have not been discussed here yet. Now, maybe I missed some expository line of dialogue. Maybe I don't understand what a police commissioner does. It just confused the hell out of me that Gordon was in that sewer in the first place. Sure, if he happened to be on the scene, and some of his officers were in trouble, Jim Gordon would fight through hell to save them, but why in the name of Crom would the Commissioner himself respond to a call like a beat cop?

I thought he responded to it because it was where that congressman was being held. That plus Jim Gordon is an old fashioned cop who likes to be on the ground.

Some people don't seem to get that Bob Loved this movie, thought it was great. You can enjoy something and still find the faults in it.

Terminator 2 was one of the best and most thoughtful Action movies done. And I fully aknowledge it's problems and plotholes.

I saw the movie on Thursday and was properly entertained and not bored a bit although the move is quite long. This is an impressive feat Mr. Nolan *clap*.

But I have to agree with the criticism. Not a bad movie but no masterpiece.

What I personally didn't liked was the whole story arc. So we have the Shadow Society (the ninjas) in part 1 and in part 3. So there is a overarching story which skips the second movie. This makes The Dark Knight a standout especially because it was the best of the bunch.

I would have preferred either a whole trilogy with the al Ghul clan or a third movie with an separate storyline.

Another point of criticism is how underwhelming the motives of the bad guys where presented. I find the whole overthrow of the established society where the poor rise against the rich really intriguing. So that Batman has to choose between fighting the poor who suffer and are morally right and restore law and order or let the rich get punished for their gluttony.

But in the end it was just a gang of thugs who bullied around and caused destructions on a massive scale.

Oh, a big plus of the movie was the absence of 3D! Man, I hate those glasses.

Did none of the people who investigated the crashed plane think that it was a bit odd that a plane had managed to travel several miles without wings or a tail?

I'm still at a total loss as to what there is to like about TDKR other than, you know, it's got Batman in it.

More nonsense. I wonder where's the article of Bob trying to explain how all the Chituauri magically died at the same time when their ship blows up.

The Plunk:
Did none of the people who investigated the crashed plane think that it was a bit odd that a plane had managed to travel several miles without wings or a tail?

The plane flew circles!

I agree with most of what is on this list.

I mean, though I really liked the twist with Talia, she didn't make a whole lot of difference. With more screentime, and more influence over Wayne's decisions, her betrayal would have made a lot more sense, and had more dramatic impact.

It was the exposition that really got to me in this film. Almost every major scene seemed to have someone explaining what is going on. it was really sloppy writing, and the information could have easily been inferred by the visuals/action.

That said, I feel like Nolan had improved in a couple of key areas:

It was nice to see Gotham during the day, and I liked the increase in scale - in previous movies, you got less sense of it being a big city, and more of it being a small district, consisting purely of dark alleyways.

Oh boy have the fist fights improved. When Bane and Batman go at it, you can see every punch connect (each one sounding like an explosion). The Batman/Bane fights are fairly crucial, so I'm pleased Nolan got it right.

I agree with the passage of time point, the previous movies occurred over (what seemed) a few days/weeks, whilst this one had the 'months' thing compressed into a few hours.. didn't really work.

I found the Robin twist to be rather exciting, as obvious as that one was :)

The explanations point is also true, but only for some cases for me. I liked the Bane battling Batman part, the constant dialogue about how weak Batman was compared to Bane was quite heart-pounding :)

The 'explanation' that got on my nerves was the scene where Catwoman was trying to locate the device that wiped her records. The antagonist in the scene was literally explaining the sole purpose of the device to her face, where she obviously knew what it was and what it would do.

"I'm after this.."
"What?? You mean THAT?"
"Yeah, tha-"
"The device that can wipe your criminal history?"
"That's the on-"
"The machine where, in the blink of an eye, all of your records are deleted in a fraction of a second??!?!?!?!?!"
"Yeah, that's the id-"
"The electronic arrangement of equipment that, when activated, allows for the user----"

You get the idea, that was kind of disappointing.

But overall, I liked the film :)

faefrost:

Batman is a wall climber. Batman is one of the worlds greatest climbers. It's one of his most basic skills. There are whole issues of comics dedicated to various Robins learning to climb and learning rope work. Plus this was reinforced in BB where we watch him learn to climb and realize he will need it as part of his repertoire.

image

He could climb the shit out of walls but yeah the whole sequence sucked for several reasons.

My questions (WITH SPOILERS):

1) How does Batman survive the fusion bomb at the end? He was shown to be in the cockpit of his plane mere seconds before detonation, and the blast radius was at least 6 miles. They said "autopilot", but I didn't see him eject in time. Also, he would then land in the icy water, in full body-armor, and either sink like a rock or freeze to death in minutes. Plus, if he swam to shore, someone would've spotted him.

2) How did Batman get INTO Gotham in the first place? He was stripped of all his gear and belongings and Gotham was entirely cut off from the rest of the world. How'd he get into the city?

3) The giant, flaming bat-signal on the bridge. Yeah, it's cool and all, but when did Bruce get the time to climb the bridge (monitored by both police and criminals) and prep it with gasoline all over... and then calmly wait at the bottom for Gordon's execution to spring the signal?

4) If the goal of the League of Shadows with Ra's Al Ghul was to eliminate the problems of Gotham by destroying the city, and 8 years later Gotham is practically crime-free, citizens are living peacefully, and Batman himself is retired, why on earth would they attack? Gotham HAD peace. They're the ones that caused all the problems.

5) If the true aim of the League, Talia, and Bane was to dupe Bruce into giving them the bomb, why did they jeopardize their plan by staging massive terrorist attacks that served no real purpose other than to get their men killed and put their plan at risk?

6) How did they know where Batman's armory was? The only ones that knew were both Bruce and Lucius Fox.

7) Batman's plane seriously was just camped out at the top of a building for nearly a year? He didn't even take it back to the cave. He just left it out in the open under a suspicious looking tarp and nobody found it?

8) It may not be a plothole, but does the movie seriously expect me to think that a 10 year old girl has the strength and will to crawl out of a hole in the ground, but none of these strong, full-grown men could do it? Or, for that matter, they couldn't just build a ladder or something out?

9) People know who Bruce Wayne is. He's a rich, famous billionaire playboy. If Bill Gates faked his death and was then spotted in public, you'd think someone would notice.

10) "You won't give up on me, will you Alfred?" "Never." -Batman Begins. Alfred totally gives up on him. Dammit, Alfred!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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