Knightfail

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Fappy:
It wasn't a perfect movie, but I think it's a worthy ending to the trilogy.

SPOILER ALERT: can't be assed to add several spoiler tags to certain sections.

this seems to sum up my feelings on it completely. i had a few niggling doubts, but overall i still loved the film. personally i liked how it was a total contrast to the dark knight in some aspects in regards to the villans (the joker used subterfuge and guerrilla tactics while the gotham police and batman were the powerhouses, yet in DKR bane and his men become in control and the police have to sneak around).

my main gripe was with bane though. don't get me wrong, i thought he was brilliant, and tom hardy was fantastic playing him, but the insta-death thing pissed me off, he deserved a better send off than that. the problem was in creating bane's new image as the sidekick, he suddenly became less important and we were expected to stop caring about him...

but i digress, i really liked the film and the ending satisfied me overall

I've said it before. Every movie has plot holes. Godfather, Star Wars, Avengers; it doesn't matter. Every story has holes because no author is omnipotent. The measure of a movie's worth is in its ability to make you forget the plot holes, and on that front the Dark Knight Rises succeeded for a lot of people.

I think DKR tried for a more complicated presentation, and while that certainly did come up short in some areas, I'll never fault a filmmaker for trying.

Does nobody else have issue with having all the policemen escape from their 5-month long confinement looking no worse for wear than they day they were trapped?
-And how they then proceeded to charge 3 of those light tank vehicles and Bane's mob armed with assault rifles... And all the police had was small-arms guns.
-And then they proceeded to get into a huge, melee brawl instead of actually using their weapons.

WhiteTigerShiro:
I understand the symbolism that he let everyone think Batman is dead so that he can quit for good

No he didn't, that's why he led John Blake to the Batcave. That's why the bat signal is rebuilt so people will know Batman actually survived it (they just won't know it's a different Batman)

But Alfred? We SEE how badly he was torn-up by Bruce's (not Batman's) death; yet when he learns that all that grieving that he went through was for nothing... he just smiles?

Remember the speech Alfred gave where he says that's exactly what he wanted to happen? He was happy the grief was for nothing because he discovered Bruce was finally doing exactly what Alfred hoped he would. (He even said in that speech that in his dream he and Bruce wouldn't even say a word to each other)

Even worse is the lie that was told to the audience. A great ending where he chooses to sacrifice himself to save the lives of millions, and that entire dramatic moment was ruined by Nolan waving the Deus Ex Machina wand and having some nameless engineer at WyaneCorp tell us that the auto-pilot was working just fine...

Only thing I didn't like about the ending was showing us that Bruce was still alive rather than implying. The autopilot thing was Luscious' hint that Batman was still alive, the Bat signal was Gordon's and the cave was Blake's. The autopilot thing wasn't supposed to be saying "Batman's still alive" to the audience, that was just a part of the explanation to us.

... It's also a bit lightweight that the one thing holding Batman back from jumping out of The Pit was his... rope... >.>

Symbolism maybe, but weak.

Tayh:
Does nobody else have issue with having all the policemen escape from their 5-month long confinement looking no worse for wear than they day they were trapped?
-And how they then proceeded to charge 3 of those light tank vehicles and Bane's mob armed with assault rifles... And all the police had was small-arms guns.
-And then they proceeded to get into a huge, melee brawl instead of actually using their weapons.

I AM SO SICK OF OBLIGATORY BIG ARMY BATTLES WITH CHARGING FORCES AND HYSTERICALLY CHANTING WOMEN IN THE BACKGROUND

It was applicable in Troy and LOTR. It is not applicable in Batman Rises... And it was really not terribly necessary in Gangs of New York either.

I really, REALLY hated how they threw out all the motivations at the very end in favor of a twist.

They had all these ideas about anarchy and lower class revolution floating about. it was the core of bane's motivation and they just decided to say " fuck it" and scrapped it in favor of trying to make the series lore feel deeper by tying it needlessly together.

I completely disagree with the passage of time stuff. I think they showed it quite well. Bruce looks significantly more weathered. I don't think the Robbin twist was really meant to be a twist. They were just confirming what the audience was already guessing.

The Talia twist surprised me and helped give a much more human view to Bane. I actually sympathized with him a bit after that. Bruce living his life and fulfilling Alfred's fantasy was just icing on the cake for me.

Another thing. Many people didn't like Bane's death but I actually enjoyed it. Not because of the one liner that came after but the fact that he was built up the entire movie as this unbeatable tank but then it shows that he really is just human.

Tirunus:

They had all these ideas about anarchy and lower class revolution floating about. it was the core of bane's motivation and they just decided to say " fuck it" and scrapped it in favor of trying to make the series lore feel deeper by tying it needlessly together.

Did you even watch the movie? That wasn't Bane's motivation at all... He used those ideas as propaganda to tear the city apart. He just wanted Gotham to be destroyed because he believed the corruption was too deep. These are the same ideals carried by the rest of the League of Shadows.

I didn't have a problem with most of the plot holes raised here. All of batman's questionable feats I answered with; because he's the goddamn batman.
However, one thing that gnaws at my appreciation for this movie is why the nuclear blast doesn't send a tsunami straight for Gotham.
If someone could settle that for me I would be most grateful.

Gunnyboy:
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 Chitauri are established (without a word of dialogue, incidentally) as being both bio-mechanical in nature both by their basic design and by their interactions with eachother and the surrounding area: Portions of their "armor" are hooked-in to pre-set spaces on their physical bodies, they manipulate their weapons and vehicles partially by inserting their limbs into them (we also see that they are "hooked up" to their aerial "bikes" by cords similar to the Na'Vi when Black Widow severs one.) They are also "connected" to the huge whale-monster guys for transport, and when one of them crashes through the train station it's "death" is signaled by it's eyeball "shorting out" with electricity and exploding like blown fuse.

Given all that, plus the fact that they generally behave like "hive" creatures (re: drones driven by a central intelligence, hence why they make such a great rent-an-army) it's not too far of a reach that when said central controlling intelligence is destroyed/cut-off their function (and possibly power-source?) ceases.

You know, there's that one thing that bothers me. So.. here be Spoilers:

Am i the only one who thinks that it wasn't actually Nolans intention to let Batman survive at the end but rather that he was pressured by the studio into doing so? I mean, that rather awkward foreshadowing at the beginning, the fact that we are given no explanation of how he survived the explosion... i don't know, something about it seems off.

I found a lot of the twists predictable, but mostly because they were ripped straight out of the comics verbatim - the Talia twist in particular was telegraphed way too early on for me.

MovieBob is really set on trying to convince people a good movie is bad once again -.-

I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!

HitcH55:
I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!

You obviously give a toss about Bob's thoughts on the film... enough to listen to his opinion, read his follow-up, and post your response and opinion here on the thread.

Besides, this may come as a supreme shock to you, but Christopher Nolan is actually not a perfect film director and Dark Knight Rises was not, in fact, a perfect film. I love Nolan's films, I love his Batman films, and I even enjoyed Dark Knight Rises, but a week after seeing it and I have a laundry list of plotholes, implausibilities, characters behaving out-of-character, and narrative impossibilities. The film is good, yes, but it is far from a perfect film. It's actually a mess of a film that has enough talent backing it up to surpass it's huge problems to end up being enjoyable, but that does not mean the problems don't exist.

And the logic that a bad film negates years of prior work means nothing. Directors like Nolan aren't god-like. They're human. They make mistakes. All the great directors of film have their ups and downs, no matter how many great films they've done.

Director Neill Blomkamp was nominated for Best Picture on his very first movie. I don't see what the number of films means for anything. Spielberg's first major motion picture was the enduring JAWS and George Lucas directed Star Wars and then nothing else for 30 years while Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola made "Jack". The quality of their work has varied widely from film to film, crew to crew.

Ultimately, it doesn't make someone a "dumbass" to question the dumb logic of a dumb, if entertaining, movie. And trust me, Dark Knight Rises is just as dumb as the Transformers movie plots are, even if they're a bit more professional about it. The more I think about Dark Knight Rises, the more plotholes and inconsistencies pop up. If anything, I'd say the "dumbasses" are the people so close-minded in their worship of Nolan and his "genius" that they refuse to acknowledge any problems that exist in any of his films, such as Dark Knight Rises.

Dark Knight Rises is still a good film. It is. But it has its problems, BIG ones, and plugging your ears and drowning out the complaints with cries of "Nolan is a genius" doesn't make those problems go away.

I do feel that MovieBob misses the point of TDKR, even though I am a huge fan of all of his critiques. I can understand where he's coming from, and this film is very unpolished in its length, plot, and structure. However, even with all of it's complications, it worked for me. It's kind of rare for a film, with bunch of problems which would nag the most critical or intelligent of film goers, would work despite these problems in the eyes of someone like me. Yes, it does things which Nolan should have maybe second guessed, but it still works, and more effectively than the most nagging of critics realize.

Just to clarify the whole pit escape thing. The reason why others didn't escape is because that damn rope was preventing them from leaping far enough, and it was necessary to discard the rope in order to make that leap. There's a chance you could die, but unless you get rid of the safety harness, you'll never escape. It's logical to me, and I think that the purpose of this method was to show that in a situation like this, it is pure will and not safety precautions which enable escape. It definitely makes Batman more badass by proving himself as the second person ever to really escape that pit (though his badassness does get ruined when Talia stabs him after his temporary defeat of Bain).

I've noticed that fans complained about Talia's motives being petty and flimsy. At first glance, she seems more irrational than the Joker, by claiming that she wants to destroy Gotham to make ammends with her father after his death. Learning that she was the whole brains behind the operation, with an equally capable and intelligent steroid pumper as her lackey, she's scarier and colder than Ra'as Al Ghul, Bain, and even the Joker combined. She was inaccurate when she claimed Bruce "murdered" her father. She's got her facts wrong, or maybe she's deliberately loose on her facts. Bruce first saved her father's life after destroying the League's temple, then when they fought each other again, he merely abandoned Ra'as to safe himself on a train that was on collision course. From I understand, Ra'as seemed prepared to die, even though Bruce didn't directly kill him, Ra'as wanted him to kill him, that way Bruce would learn to be unmerciful to his emenies and succeed as a worthy heir to the leader of the League of Shadows.

Considering these bits from the first movie, I'm guessing that either Talia's warped interpretation of the facts and her movtivations are the result of some heavy duty father-daughter issues (as well as from the fact that she was born in hell on earth), or because she's just messing with Bruce's head. Think of it. She's the only woman Bruce is seen having sex with in the entire trilogy, he gains her trust, is given his company, and after he recovers from a broken back and defeats Bain she stabs him right in the abdomen. I think that Talia wanted to twist the knife deeper into his conscience by reminding him of his betrayal of Ra'as and the League, laced with the fact that her childhood was more traumatizing than his. I think her reasons for breaking Bruce and destroying Gotham are deliberate bullshit. She was indocrinated under the League of Shadows to kill traitors and destroy cities which they don't like. Her daughter-father falling out explanation feels rather like a subtle ode to the Joker's inconsistent explanation for how he got his scars. You don't buy it, and there's probably much more to the story than you're led to believe, or that the story is much simpler than previously thought.

I do think that it would have been smarter for Talia to recruit Bruce back to the League, after proving his escape from the pit and defeating Bain, rather than wound him again and discard him as worthless. I mean, the relationship between Talia and Bruce in the comics was much more complex, that you would expect her feelings for Bruce to be mixed in the film rather than purely black and white.

Even if Ra'as and Talia appear to have died in their films, what if they didn't die? What if they are just monitoring Bruce's progress after being defeated by him, and still considering him to be a part of the League? Remember, that Bruce and Talia had sex. What if she is alive, and bearing his child, who becomes the murderous Robin in BATMAN AND SON? I wish.

This film provokes a lot of questions in me, and it makes wonder where all the other BATMAN crazies are waiting for while the Joker, Scarecrow, Bane, and the League of Shadows are screwing up Gotham.

Tayh:
Does nobody else have issue with having all the policemen escape from their 5-month long confinement looking no worse for wear than they day they were trapped?
-And how they then proceeded to charge 3 of those light tank vehicles and Bane's mob armed with assault rifles... And all the police had was small-arms guns.
-And then they proceeded to get into a huge, melee brawl instead of actually using their weapons.

When I saw the difference in firepower I thought "they're gonna get smoked, why are they charging?" Upon reflection I think that's the only way they could have a chance; close the distance render the increased firepower moot, and overwhelm them with your numbers.

The only moments out of those that really annoyed me much were the twist demoting Bane from main villain to glorified henchman in favor of the one lady being the big bad all along and the loss of the sense of time with the 5 months Wayne had spent in that pit.

Although that first one is only because I loved so much of what the movie did with Bane in the first place.

Still a great movie though. I still put Dark Knight and Avengers ahead of Rises, but not by much. I will watch all of them plenty more times.

SonicWaffle:
What I found particularly odd was that Bane never used venom to enhance himself or any of that, when that's pretty much the central aspect of the character; his power, his weak nature that drives him to "prove" himself by beating Batman, his battles with addiction, all of it.

I've heard claims that it wouldn't fit in Nolan's more realistic adaptation, but why not? Venom isn't magical in nature, it's not an alien substance or the jizz of a dead Lovecraftian god. It's just a chemical compound with some funky properties, much like Scarecrow's fear gas in the first movie. How does that break the gritty realism angle?

Also, it would have given us a way more awesome third act if they'd switched the venom story around (in the comics, Batman became an addict first to enhance his power, and then broke the addiction when he realised what it was doing to him) to Batman powering-up on the stuff in order to defeat Bane, and then the whole learning-to-be-Batman-again angle could have worked the second time as him weaning himself off an addictive and dangerous drug. Then you could make Talia more impressive as a last-act twist villain, with some plotline about how she'd engineered the whole thing somehow.

It kind of acted reverse in the movie. When venom (pain killer) was in his body he was strong and smart. When his mask was damaged he was super strong (smashing the pillar and Bat) but not very clear minded. Small set of scenes Ill admit.

Trishbot:
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!

1) Movie magic, I guess. It's possible that he ejected while still in Gotham. There was plenty of cover for him to do so. Auto poilot would have done the rest.

2) He was trained by the League of Shadows and was already shown have been quite proficient before Gul found him. I don't think it's too hard to imagine how he good back into the city. He is Batman after all, suit or no suit.

3) Movie magic, yet again. But during the night, he may have had a chance to do it. Otherwise, it's not plot essential and I'm willing to just accept it as movie magic.

4) Talia was doing it to avenge her father. She was no longer part of the League anyway. Her goal was the complete her father's plan, even it was irrational. Obviously punishing Wayne was a big part of that.

5) Their attack on the stock exchange was the collapse Wayne Enterprises. The land developer character helped make that possible. Talia was undercover, so he was not aware that he'd already been double crossed when she stepped in to take over the company. He thought he was going to get the company. It was only going to happen if the shareholders and board demanded the change. The only real 'terror' attack was part of the master plan which would have climaxed with the bomb. The relative insanity of that master plan is fully in keeping with the superhero genre.

6) In Dark Knight a member of the staff at Wayne Enterprises worked out that 'RnD' was producing the same weapons and devices that Batman uses. He was never dealt with, but perhaps he is part of the reason Talia knew where the armoury was. The armoury was below the Wayne building however, am I right? Putting two and two together wouldn't have been impossible.

Also, this is effectively the League of Shadows, so I expect that they have the means to track Wayne or Fox's movements, or the movements of various parts shipments and so on. Honestly, there are many ways they could have found the armoury, and none of them are exciting to watch outside a detective movie.

Finally, the film was from Wayne's POV so in order to show the process of finding the armoury, it would have reveal the enemy and remove the surprise. Bane or Talia could have laughed maniacally and told Wayne how they located the armoury, but it was clear that they in fact DID find it, so why would Wayne ask?

8) Talia escape the pit because she didn't fear death. That's the core of it. She was prepared to commit to her escape completely because she was not affraid of losing her life. The other inmates were not so, which is why they used the rope. However, the rope was probably what truly held them back from making that jump. Consider the leap of faith required to climb that high (falling from even half way would be fatal) and then making the jump. Such a test is exactly something the League would appreciate. Regardless, the whole concept is a poetic one and not intended for such a mechanical analysis.

9) Well, many people claimed that Elvis Presley didn't really die, and how does society and media treat those people? That's what would happen to anybody claiming to have seen Wayne. The man died somehow, probably in the terrorist attack, and he his grave is there for all to see. There'd be all manner of tributes and monuments made for the months to come. Biographies, television specials. The whole world would be well and truly sold on his death. Imagine if you saw Steve Jobs tomorrow at a cafe. Who would believe you?

And if you are talking about the end restaurant epilogue, bear in mind they were in a foreign county and to be honest, Wayne was well known for sure, but not a media personality. He was a household name, perhaps, but not a household face. And arguably, France (that was were the end scene was, right?) has its own billionaires, who are still alive and not bankrupt.

10) Alfred didn't give up on Wayne. Wayne kicked him out. Alfred sacrificed his friendship with Wayne so as to try to save him from his pain. That's not giving up. That's beautiful. Wayne eventually realised that, thankfully.

Awexsome:
The only moments out of those that really annoyed me much were the twist demoting Bane from main villain to glorified henchman in favor of the one lady being the big bad all along and the loss of the sense of time with the 5 months Wayne had spent in that pit.

Although that first one is only because I loved so much of what the movie did with Bane in the first place.

Still a great movie though. I still put Dark Knight and Avengers ahead of Rises, but not by much. I will watch all of them plenty more times.

The revelation at the end was beautiful. It showed Bane as a human being who loved this woman, as a surrogate father to her, as a friend, possibly he loved her more than that. He was doing all this for her, yet when she told him NOT to kill Wayne, he disobeys. Why? Was it jealousy? Revenge? Anger? TO say that he was reduced to a 'glorified henchman' is an overly mechanistic and cynical interpretation of a revelation which made the man suddenly sympathetic and human. There was even an element of the sinister, as certainly, Talia was manipulating the man's love and devotion for her.

The thing that's bothered me since I saw the movie is that the whole Batman arc is a ripoff of Rocky III (the Mr. T one).
* Aging warrior confronts dangerous new nemesis after a long hiatus
* Trounced with ease
* Recovers and trains for a new bout in a filthy pit (boxing gym)
* Handily defeats nemesis

The only thing that was missing was the prison doctor saying "eye of the tiger, man".

The pacing felt very quick. I'll wait for a director'c cut on dvd.

Twist no.1: I wasn't suprise by the Talia twist. I was just suprised by the fact that Marion Cotillard didn't finish has a love interest in a movie.
Twist no.2: That was a joke?

Trishbot:

HitcH55:
I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!

You obviously give a toss about Bob's thoughts on the film... enough to listen to his opinion, read his follow-up, and post your response and opinion here on the thread.

Besides, this may come as a supreme shock to you, but Christopher Nolan is actually not a perfect film director and Dark Knight Rises was not, in fact, a perfect film. I love Nolan's films, I love his Batman films, and I even enjoyed Dark Knight Rises, but a week after seeing it and I have a laundry list of plotholes, implausibilities, characters behaving out-of-character, and narrative impossibilities. The film is good, yes, but it is far from a perfect film. It's actually a mess of a film that has enough talent backing it up to surpass it's huge problems to end up being enjoyable, but that does not mean the problems don't exist.

And the logic that a bad film negates years of prior work means nothing. Directors like Nolan aren't god-like. They're human. They make mistakes. All the great directors of film have their ups and downs, no matter how many great films they've done.

Director Neill Blomkamp was nominated for Best Picture on his very first movie. I don't see what the number of films means for anything. Spielberg's first major motion picture was the enduring JAWS and George Lucas directed Star Wars and then nothing else for 30 years while Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola made "Jack". The quality of their work has varied widely from film to film, crew to crew.

Ultimately, it doesn't make someone a "dumbass" to question the dumb logic of a dumb, if entertaining, movie. And trust me, Dark Knight Rises is just as dumb as the Transformers movie plots are, even if they're a bit more professional about it. The more I think about Dark Knight Rises, the more plotholes and inconsistencies pop up. If anything, I'd say the "dumbasses" are the people so close-minded in their worship of Nolan and his "genius" that they refuse to acknowledge any problems that exist in any of his films, such as Dark Knight Rises.

Dark Knight Rises is still a good film. It is. But it has its problems, BIG ones, and plugging your ears and drowning out the complaints with cries of "Nolan is a genius" doesn't make those problems go away.

Ive never heard of this bob guy before, i was jut clicking through the site. TBH I gave up trying to read your response, I gave it a curious glance and saw you started whistling dixie about jaws or some shit (Way over-rated film).

Yawn

spwatkins:
The thing that's bothered me since I saw the movie is that the whole Batman arc is a ripoff of Rocky III (the Mr. T one).
* Aging warrior confronts dangerous new nemesis after a long hiatus
* Trounced with ease
* Recovers and trains for a new bout in a filthy pit (boxing gym)
* Handily defeats nemesis

The only thing that was missing was the prison doctor saying "eye of the tiger, man".

and i am sure that this novel concept was first explored in rocky III.

i really liked bane and hated the twist that made him a henchman. and i also saw the twist coming from a mile away because of the whole child of ras's al ghul thing but i thought that bane masterminded the destruction was gotham as a gift to her but making him just a henchman is just dumb

Yup, agreed.
Also, on the ending part where we see Bats and Cats at the café.
I interpreted it as something symbolic: Batman's found his peace, in a manner of speaking (he seems rather okay with getting annihilated at the end). And Alfred realises this, which is visualized by that quite ambiguous little scene.

Also, I still really liked the movie. Probably because I expected to get something completely shitty. Ah, the wonder of low expectations.

Dashiva:
I found a lot of the twists predictable, but mostly because they were ripped straight out of the comics verbatim - the Talia twist in particular was telegraphed way too early on for me.

Nah! Let's just say that it is quite apparent from the beginning and the ending that Chris Nolan read Miller's "The Dar Knight Returns". This movie ended almost exactly where Millers book did. Batman having killed off not Batman, but Bruce Wayne, and assembling his forces in the shadows.

Combine Rustler:
Yup, agreed.
Also, on the ending part where we see Bats and Cats at the café.
I interpreted it as something symbolic: Batman's found his peace, in a manner of speaking (he seems rather okay with getting annihilated at the end). And Alfred realises this, which is visualized by that quite ambiguous little scene.

Also, I still really liked the movie. Probably because I expected to get something completely shitty. Ah, the wonder of low expectations.

Sounds like you're taking a Yahtzee approach to movies.

Dashiva:

Combine Rustler:
Yup, agreed.
Also, on the ending part where we see Bats and Cats at the café.
I interpreted it as something symbolic: Batman's found his peace, in a manner of speaking (he seems rather okay with getting annihilated at the end). And Alfred realises this, which is visualized by that quite ambiguous little scene.

Also, I still really liked the movie. Probably because I expected to get something completely shitty. Ah, the wonder of low expectations.

Sounds like you're taking a Yahtzee approach to movies.

I don't really think Yahtzee would do what he does if he had super low expectations for everything.
Also, just realised what the autopilot bit meant and it means that goddamn Batman might still be alive after all. Shit.
Well, whatevs.

There were so many missed opportunities with TDKR.

The reveal of Harvey Dent's true actions as Two-Face was so weak and ineffective, when The Dark Knight spent an entire movie making a big deal about how important Harvey's reputation was to the city. If anything, Bane could have used that before he took over the city to instill distrust in the government, making his takeover that much easier.

When Bane talks about "giving the city back to the people", there could have been a poignant reflection about choice and moral responsibility, which could have echoed the ferry sequence in The Dark Knight. If the people couldn't trust their government, and they couldn't trust Batman, they would have to trust each other, or eat each other alive.

For a movie titled "The Dark Knight Rises" he never really rises at all. He goes from a idolized avenger at the end of Batman Begins, to a villanous vigilante at the end of The Dark Knight, and then, rather than rising to a point at or above his simple hero identity and becoming a symbol (which mind you has been the glue and major theme of the entire trilogy), he simply disappears. WEAK.

Regardless of how well it was executed, it was just awkward and missed many opportunities to shine in the same regard as The Dark Knight.

UberNoodle:
1) Movie magic, I guess. It's possible that he ejected while still in Gotham. There was plenty of cover for him to do so. Auto poilot would have done the rest.

2) He was trained by the League of Shadows and was already shown have been quite proficient before Gul found him. I don't think it's too hard to imagine how he good back into the city. He is Batman after all, suit or no suit.

3) Movie magic, yet again. But during the night, he may have had a chance to do it. Otherwise, it's not plot essential and I'm willing to just accept it as movie magic.

4) Talia was doing it to avenge her father. She was no longer part of the League anyway. Her goal was the complete her father's plan, even it was irrational. Obviously punishing Wayne was a big part of that.

5) Their attack on the stock exchange was the collapse Wayne Enterprises. The land developer character helped make that possible. Talia was undercover, so he was not aware that he'd already been double crossed when she stepped in to take over the company. He thought he was going to get the company. It was only going to happen if the shareholders and board demanded the change. The only real 'terror' attack was part of the master plan which would have climaxed with the bomb. The relative insanity of that master plan is fully in keeping with the superhero genre.

6) In Dark Knight a member of the staff at Wayne Enterprises worked out that 'RnD' was producing the same weapons and devices that Batman uses. He was never dealt with, but perhaps he is part of the reason Talia knew where the armoury was. The armoury was below the Wayne building however, am I right? Putting two and two together wouldn't have been impossible.

Also, this is effectively the League of Shadows, so I expect that they have the means to track Wayne or Fox's movements, or the movements of various parts shipments and so on. Honestly, there are many ways they could have found the armoury, and none of them are exciting to watch outside a detective movie.

Finally, the film was from Wayne's POV so in order to show the process of finding the armoury, it would have reveal the enemy and remove the surprise. Bane or Talia could have laughed maniacally and told Wayne how they located the armoury, but it was clear that they in fact DID find it, so why would Wayne ask?

8) Talia escape the pit because she didn't fear death. That's the core of it. She was prepared to commit to her escape completely because she was not affraid of losing her life. The other inmates were not so, which is why they used the rope. However, the rope was probably what truly held them back from making that jump. Consider the leap of faith required to climb that high (falling from even half way would be fatal) and then making the jump. Such a test is exactly something the League would appreciate. Regardless, the whole concept is a poetic one and not intended for such a mechanical analysis.

9) Well, many people claimed that Elvis Presley didn't really die, and how does society and media treat those people? That's what would happen to anybody claiming to have seen Wayne. The man died somehow, probably in the terrorist attack, and he his grave is there for all to see. There'd be all manner of tributes and monuments made for the months to come. Biographies, television specials. The whole world would be well and truly sold on his death. Imagine if you saw Steve Jobs tomorrow at a cafe. Who would believe you?

And if you are talking about the end restaurant epilogue, bear in mind they were in a foreign county and to be honest, Wayne was well known for sure, but not a media personality. He was a household name, perhaps, but not a household face. And arguably, France (that was were the end scene was, right?) has its own billionaires, who are still alive and not bankrupt.

10) Alfred didn't give up on Wayne. Wayne kicked him out. Alfred sacrificed his friendship with Wayne so as to try to save him from his pain. That's not giving up. That's beautiful. Wayne eventually realised that, thankfully.

1, 2, 3) I agree. The only answer is "because he's the goddamn Batman". Deception, stealth, theatricality are all traits that we innately link with Batman, regardless of how plausible they actually are.

4) With all the tedious verbal exposition going on, don't you think they could have made this a bigger point? Talia's motivation seems half-hearted at best.

5) I don't buy the "because its a superhero movie" crap. The whole revelation of Nolan's movies is that he foregoes the classic evil-for-evil's-sake, impossibly planned and executed insanity schemes for a more gritty, plausible reality. To place the major conflict and plot device squarely in this defense is ludicrous, because Nolan's Batman has specifically removed these instances from the franchise up to this point.

6) First of all, Lucius specifically states in The Dark Knight Rises that he removed R&D and all of Batman's gear from records after the near-blackmail of Bruce. And if the League of Shadows were to receive this information, wouldn't it create a radical dramatic irony to watch Bane and the League burrow beneath Wayne's feet unbeknownst to him? Rather than a simple "OMG! They found Batman's stash!".

7) Yeah this is pretty dumb. I mean he obviously had room for it in the Bat Cave. Why put it on a building in plain sight?

8) I get that the rope is a metaphor for hope and fear, but it was cheesy and rehashed ideas that were well-covered in Batman Begins.

9)Ducard and Falconi both mention that Bruce would have to go "1000 miles away just to meet someone who didn't know your name" in Batman Begins, implying that escaping his own celebrity would not be easy. yet he sits in a restaurant after his "death" and no one bats an eyelash?

10) Regardless of whether Alfred gave up on Wayne (note: he did), the "reunion of Aflred and Wayne was underwhelming to say the least.

Trishbot:
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.

Minor issue, but one that is valid nonetheless. Had this movie been a stronger movie then this point would be overlooked and handwaved as "He's Batman." In this movie, there needed to be something other than "Autopilot" to help explain this. Even if was something like an eject button for the Batsuit. (which isn't to say that an eject button for the batsuit is a good idea, just one that would help stall the problem of swimming in the full batsuit.)

Trishbot:
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?

This is a fairly minor quibble, which I don't think really needs to be explained. There's ice connecting the island to the mainland, which is good enough for a character like Batman.

Trishbot:
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?

A minor quibble, though it does have more validity to it than the question about how Batman got back into Gotham. I'm willing to let it go, but I wouldn't be adverse to a bit of an explanation.

Trishbot:
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.

My take on that issue is that the League of Shadows is not connected to this directly. The destruction of Gotham is a way for Talia to avenge and honour her father, and is no longer a direct action taken by the League of Shadows.

Trishbot:
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?

This question can't be answered to any decent degree. My take on it is that Talia staged those attacks via Bane as part of her plan to break Batman.

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

This issue is somewhat answered in the movie; Bane, via Daggett, has access to a great deal of blueprints for much of Gotham. He has also been a member of the Board of Governors for an unknown length of time, and has plans to take it over via stock and other legal ways. It is a small leap to him finding out about Lucius Fox's old job, seeing odd things on blueprints (for example, having far too much of a foundation for what the building needs in one location. Or that there are power lines running through an area marked "Boiler Room" or some such.) then putting two and two together.

Trishbot:
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?

That was rather silly, I agree whole heartedly.

Trishbot:
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?

Another decent question. The entire aspect of the cops underground for 4 months drove me nuts and I decided not to suspend my disbelief around it.

Trishbot:
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.

Not necessarily. Also, they were far from Gotham at the time - somewhere in Europe, I believe. It is well within the realm of believably that Bruce Wayne could walk around in public without being recognized in Europe. I would imagine that if he was to simply dress like a normal guy and walk around Gotham, most people wouldn't put two and two together; much of what goes into our recognizing someone is them acting in a manner we expect them to act. Bruce Wayne getting out of a Porche and going into a 5 star restaurant is going to make people go "Bruce Wayne!". Bruce Wayne driving a used Honda Civic into a McDonalds drivethru and ordering a Big Mac meal with a coupon isn't going to make people think of Bruce Wayne.

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

I took that as Tough Love from Alfred, but I think it was done very poorly. I had to actually sit back and think about what I thought Nolan was trying to do, and decided that it was supposed to be tough love. But I understand why it is seen as Alfred giving up on him - and I could be wrong with my interpretation. It could be Alfred giving up on Bruce.

All in all, I'm vastly amused that Bob was so gung ho on the Avengers and so down on TDKR. But I guess it comes down to expectations; we expected that the Avengers was going to screw it up, and it didn't. Ergo it is a great movie. We expected that TDKR was going to be a great movie, and it wasn't. Ergo it is a bad movie. TDKR is a meal from a Steakhouse, but the meat is overcooked, the potato was too small, the steaksauce was ketchup and the waiter was unprofessional. The Avengers was a Double Quarter Pounder meal from McDonalds that lived up to the standards of McDonalds.

I'd still rather eat the meal at the steakhouse than a meal from McDonalds.

I would add that it was too easy to predict. And suffered from overdramatizing at the end. Did Gordon really need to drop the jamming device? It adds nothing to the movie, because we know that that thing has to go in there. There is nothing else that they have done that could prevent the bomb from blowing up, it's unecessary and doesn't increase the drama because the drama can't go any higher at that point.

Batman kinda killed a dude too...... the one driving the truck.

There was no development of Catwoman and Batman as lovers, feel like it would have been better for them just to be partners in crime-fighting.

Alfred doesn't really feel like Batman Alfred. + Bruce Wayne is dead, a disguise Batman uses.

EDIT: And how does Wayne get past the: You are broken, don't go skydiving. And even if that is "He's Batman", how does punching vertebrate back into a spine work? And what happened to his limp in prison?

The thing about The Dark Knight Rises is that it's a movie that upon a second viewing... makes more sense than the first.

Take that "passage of time" deal. The movie is CONSTANTLY telling you and showing you how much time has passed. At one point the season changes to reflect this. At another Bruce is watching the television in his prison and it shows how many days have passed. Gordon and company are ALWAYS talking about how much time has passed and how much more time they have until the bomb goes off.

And one thing I HAVE to point out that is also overlooked. Bruce Wayne used a cane at the start of the movie, but did everyone suddenly forget when he put that brace on halfway through so that he wouldn't actually NEED said Cane?

The other thing that is actually quite well explained (at least a second time through) is how the villains are usually ahead of the others. This is because when you view a second time knowing Miranda is really Talia... you start to notice a few things. Such as the fact that EVERY time Gordon and company hatch a plan... she happens to be in the area. She's not always actively talking, but she IS actively listening--she's in frame, listening to the plans and everything. How does Gordon find himself before the sentencing with Crane? Because Talia leads him to the wrong truck to track. How do Bane's men know that Blake is helping cops out of the underground? Because they were discussing this plan in front of Talia who could've easily given the order to stop him. The second time you see this it's a whole lot easier because when you know the twist with Talia it's actually obvious to see the, "How are they always one step ahead?" The reason it's not noticeable the first time is because when the reveal is made you don't always think BACK to the scenes where the bad guys were one step ahead.

Even with Selina Kyle certain things are clear. She's hired at the beginning to nab Bruce's fingerprints by the same guys who paid Bane and gave him everything he wanted. How easily could it have been for them to also utilize Selina since she's already kind of working for them?

But one thing I do think people are getting wrong. The Dark Knight doesn't rise twice in this film. He only rises once. The beginning of that rise is when Bruce finally climbs out of the pit. The "rise" being referred to is the rise of a legend. Certainly Batman has "fallen" at the end of The Dark Knight but you seem to think that the rise is his return and that his second rise is climbing out of the pit. But there aren't two rises. When Batman returns he hasn't been "broken" yet. Thus the turning point that makes him strive to rise in the first place. He hasn't just fallen--he's been broken. He has to rise from that. And when he climbs out of the pit this is what begins the Legend that the movie ends on. When Batman returns to Gotham and that symbol appears on the skyscraper to let Gotham know he's back and he's ready to fight for them THAT'S the rise.

And of course... Bruce hearing about the child of Ra's Al Ghul. It's important to understand that Bruce actually DOES deduce this for himself. The hallucination is there to emphasize a fear that Bruce has. The fear that he won't be able to save Gotham. No one at any point mentions the NAME of Ra's Al Ghul's child throughout the entire story. Bruce clearly puts it together for himself and just assumes that everyone is referring to Ra's Al Ghul because they keep talking about a child that climbed out of the pit. Bruce deduces it must be Bane because Bane isn't in the pit. Remember, Bruce doesn't know that Ra's came back and saved Bane until he is stabbed by Talia. He is only left to assume that the child of Ra's Al Ghul climbed out of the pit but no one mentions it was a girl (they don't even refer to the sex of the child). Thus, Bruce just assume it was Bane.

Lastly, I don't think the Robin bit was actually a joke. I think that was just an Easter Egg. I don't know anyone who really saw it as a joke, so to speak, or even laughed so much as they saw it as a clever reference. A sort of bone to fans, if you will. But it didn't come off like a joke to me. I don't now anyone who, ya know, laughed or thought it was funny. They did that sort of gasp when they realize they understand something that others may not. Like they're in on some big secret.

But the big thing here is that you say "The Dark Knight," was mostly free of this stuff. Uh, no it wasn't. In fact, The Dark Knight suffers from some of the same problems. Including the, "How is the Joker always one step ahead?" And it ESPECIALLY suffers from the, "We need to explain everything." In The Dark Knight Rises we understand Natalia overhears a LOT of things and can easily foil things. We don't always know how The Joker can, however. For instance... WHEN does he have time to rig the ferries and HOW is he able to do it without ANYONE in the entire city noticing? How does Batman find Harvey Dent at the end of the movie? Or even how does he find Harvey Dent when he's threatening Thomas Schiff? The movie never really explains. Or how about when Batman leaps after Rachel from the pent house and just leaves The Joker up there will all those guests--including Harvey Dent who is hidden away (but we don't know where)? The movie just cuts away to the next scene but we're just made to assume things are okay. And perhaps the most mind bending of all is when The Joker is finally caught. For a guy who doesn't have a plan it's pretty odd that he plans his capture and escape with the man who knows all about the mobs bank accounts. Even Gordon remarks, "The Joker planned to be caught!" He not only has to know that Harvey Dent isn't really Batman, but also know that Batman will actually come to try and save him. Then he has to know he'll be caught whilst also putting a cell phone in a henchmen and knowing that he'll have to detonate it. And he seems to know he can detonate it without killing himself... but will kill everyone else. Likewise, that interrogation room scene... it's unclear how Batman actually gets in there. He's just, ya know, there. And it's unclear how Gordon knows he's in there. Does Batman just wait in the interrogation room? It's not that any of this isn't planned or anything, it's that you have to really suspend your disbelief and accept A LOT of coincidences and things falling into place for some of The Dark Knight's biggest action moments to really work.

Also, Batman somehow rigs that sonar in a strangely short amount of time while also somehow knowing that everyone must've gotten a new phone in Gotham or something so that the technology could be used. Technology that Lucius Fox developed but manages to be in every other phone in Gotham.

And let's not forget, The Dark Knight also does quite a bit of explaining as well. For instance, The Joker is pretty much explained to us three times. Alfred explains that some people just like to watch the world burn, The Joker explains he's a dog chasing cars and Dent explains that the Joker is just a dog off his leash. They all amount to the same explanation, but we hear it three times total. The Dark Knight literally has to explain the philosophy of the villain to the audience--and they do it more than once. Even Alfred has to explain to Batman what the sacrifice of being Batman is... meaning that even in The Dark Knight Bruce STILL has to learn what being Batman is about. Hell, Gordon even explains at the very end WHY the movie is called The Dark Knight. Ya know, in case it wasn't obvious.

I just don't understand why in Rises it's suddenly something to take note of but in The Dark Knight it was all ingenious plotting. And keep in mind I actually like The Dark Knight slightly more... I just can't understand why THOSE things were suddenly not a big deal. The overt explaining of plot points in The Dark Knight doesn't suddenly not exist. And while The Dark Knight Rises explains a lot... so did Batman Begins (the ENTIRE plot is literally spelled out for the audience--especially during the moment where the train is heading to Wayne Tower where Ra's Al Ghul's plot is explained... twice within ten minutes). So I can't say the problems WEREN'T there for The Dark Knight. Perhaps better plotted but they were most certainly not non-existent.

And I liked all three movies a great deal, mind you. But here's what I think actually happened when it came to The Dark Knight Rises. See, when The Dark Knight was hitting theaters there were no per-conceived expectations about it. Certainly Batman Begins had a core audience at that point, but no ones expectations of The Dark Knight were exactly increased BECAUSE of Batman Begins. Thus when it came out and became a phenomenon... it was actually a surprise. A HUGE surprise. It went on to make more money than anyone predicted it would make and went on to be labeled the greatest super hero movie of all time. It then went on to be called The Greatest Film of All Time by people... who actually seemed to mean it. Thus, expectations for the third film were through the roof and I don't think some people could possibly have their expectations met in any way. This is because The Dark Knight Rises is being compared to The Dark Knight instead of being allowed to stand on its own. So people are harder here because they expect the same kind of phenomenon they got from The Dark Knight... and it just wasn't going to happen. I mean, how do you follow up what is said to be, ahem, "The Greatest Comic Book Movie of all time?" You kinda... can't. At least not with something BETTER.

No, it doesn't appear MovieBob Hated it. It just appears he had nitpicks based on incredibly high expectations. I don't see much issue with that. Doesn't mean I agree or that it isn't worth discussing, though. But I DO think that a second viewing of the movie really helps some moments because you realize just how easy it is to miss certain things. Or how some things actually make more sense upon knowing just what will happen. It gives you a chance to focus on other moments.

 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