Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
The Dark Knight Rises

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

Watch Video
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I think the problem is less that they don't stack up well when compared, and more that they can't be compared. Dark Knight Rises is almost noir-lite; a gritty, muddy, dark and morally grey film, while Avengers snaps, crackles, and pops with colour, fun, humour and variety. There is no comparison! And Dark Knight Rises just could not live up to that. Not that it was trying, but I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.
 

GrimTuesday

New member
May 21, 2009
2,493
0
0
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Apr 28, 2020
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
I didn't expect it to top The Dark Knight but I did expect it to be better than Batman Begins. But of course, this is Bob's opinion not mine. I'll decide how good I think it is when I see it.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
We all knew it was impossible for it to live up to expectations. Maybe if they'd used the Riddler and Catwoman as antagonists... but Bane just doesn't come off as a top-tier Batman villain. Bottom line, they were never going to top Heath Ledger as the Joker.
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
I think it would have been foolish of anyone to expect this to live up to or exceed The Dark Knight. It was never going to happen. This is the unfortunate stigma that TDKR has to live with. This is pretty much what I expected and I'm definitely still going to see it. If only because I have a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

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

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

Cheesebob

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,445
0
0
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
 

Deverfro

New member
Aug 2, 2009
315
0
0
It sounds interesting that he doesn't spend much time as Bat-Man, personally I always found him to be the least interesting parts of the movies, but I still like Bruce Wayne. Still it does sound like its a fun movie, and after all the pressure thats on this film, thats a pretty good result.

Plus as a very petty victory, yay Avengers topped it! :p (Thats actually something that I think was a little odd in the trailers, I kinda assumed that avengers was the most anticipated film of the year, just because its taken 5 films to get there.)
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
This is why I was more excited for The Avengers as there I was expecting something new (being something of a high budget experiment). In this case is was a typical example of interest (or lack of) with trilogies. Funnily enough this happens with video games most of the time but it basically goes like this:

First: What a surprise, that was good!
Second: Even better, this series is really good.
Third: I already know it's good so I can't get pumped any longer.

I'll be seeing this film tomorrow, mid day (less people hopefully) and I'll most likely enjoy it. Anne Hathaway despite the praise is my most critical point of interest being a legitimate Catwoman fan.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
"Poorly paced"

Like all of them? With Batman Begins, I swear I accidentally skipped parts at the beginning because of it's pacing.

Thing I've noticed about Nolan, he sometimes has a hard time with pacing and making things over complicated as you mentioned. I thought Inception was good, but it was needlessly complicated, spending waaaaaay too much time explaining things. He also has a tendency to make things longer than they have too. I felt that Dark Knight dragged on a tad too long and could have done with being maybe 30 minutes shorter.

On that note, I'll be seeing this movie at midnight tonight. Not because I'm a Batman fan, because I'm definitely not, but so that:

1. The end of the trilogy
2. My criticism can be justified, because I hate it when people will rag on something they've never seen.

Edit: Now that I've actually seen it, all I have to say is disappointing. Again, it's poorly paced and etc like Bob said, I also found it to be way too long and needlessly complicated again. I was bored most of the movie. Bane's voice comes off as just obnoxious, and the character as a whole and the rest of the film is just predictable.

Before the film came out I told everyone at work what my predictions were for the formula for the movie.

Brood, villain doing something, brood, villain doing more of something, Brood, fight villain and
get caught
brood, final showdown. And that's basically how it went down.
They keep going on about how Bane is the child of Ras Al Gul. My first reaction was "Uh...didn't he have a daughter named Talia?". Wouldn't you know it, it turns out she was behind it the whole time and they used Bane as a decoy. Predictable.

On it's own, I would have to say that it's not that good a movie. Taking it into consideration that it's the final part of a trilogy, it's decent.
 
Mar 7, 2012
283
0
0
I haven't even seen the movie, but I pretty much expected what you said and I agree they probably should have stopped at the second one.

The Dark Knight was SO good and honestly, I actually planned not to see it SPECIFICALLY because it was so good. There was no way they could follow up on it.

On another note, Escape to the Movies a day early? This is a treat. Thank you Movie Bob.
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
Worse than the Avengers? Nah, can't be worse than the Avengers; that movie was just terrible. Most disappointing movie of 2012 so far. Suppose I'll see in a week or two.
 

anian

New member
Sep 10, 2008
288
0
0
So basically "this is a review of a movie you can't even see yet and I can't say my opinion on it without spoiling things"

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

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
I liked Avengers and all but it was in no way as good as everyone says. It was a good 7.5/10 area movie and realistically for what it is, it is nearly impossible to be better than that. With so many characters nobody can really get any focus and therefore grow as a character. The story was also incredibly straight forward with no really surprises or shock. The reason I say all this is mostly because I have a hard time seeing batman as worse than avengers but still a great movie that was only a bit of a let down. If it is as good as Avengers sure that is cool. If it is better I can see it happening. If it is worse however I have a hard time imagining it not getting flaming terrible reviews all over the place as it would be much more noticeable in this movie than the Avengers.

I dunno I guess I will see for myself later this week I really cannot judge anything till I have seen it and dissected it shot by shot for myself.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Yeah, this review, beat for beat, is exactly what I expected it to be from moment one.

Now the movie, on the other hand, I shall see for myself this Sunday and judge from there.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
Dude... you got to give this eqaution a name, its that good.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6003-Untangling-Spider-Man

Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Victor Zsasz would be a cool villain, especially since he had a cameo in Batman Begins.


Anyways, with this trilogy ending, does this mean that Warner Brothers will finally greenlight Paul Dini's Batman Beyond script?
 

DemBones

New member
Apr 20, 2012
19
0
0
I haven't watched the review yet, I'll save it for tomorrow after I've seen the movie.

But speaking of that, shouldn't this review have been posted tomorrow?
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
I despise MovieBob. I hate him a video game critic, have no respect for him as a film critic, and loathe him as a person. But Sucker Punch was a decent movie. Monumentally depressing, devoid of character development, but a good movie.

captcha: SKYNET WATCHES...

...what the... fuck...
 

Right Hook

New member
May 29, 2011
947
0
0
I'm actually kinda relieved, if Nolan had tried to top the Dark Knight we may have been left with something horrible. While I'm upset that we don't get the no holds barred, blow the doors off film of the decade, at least we'll get a decent movie that can gracefully put this trilogy to rest. We all knew deep down that DK was always going to be the best, Rises wouldn't live up to it, even if it was better we still would have wanted more.

I'm just glad that it is good and that's enough for me.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Q
MovieBob said:
The Dark Knight Rises

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

Watch Video
Question Moviebob: When did you become a member of the Boston Online Film Critics Association? Also what kind of responsibilities does that entitle? Do you get to participate in voting for say award shows or be invited to attend said award shows?
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
I am disappoint. But not surprise.
Odd that despite giving her cat ears, they don't call her Catwoman.

Also, I think my captcha wants to eat some ice cream; unfortunately, it has no spoon.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Interesting that they dont call her cat woman

Hoorah for having 2 ending tidbits for us again.
 

xplosive59

New member
Jul 20, 2009
969
0
0
I didn't like The Avengers, and this apparently isn't as good according to Bob so that means this is most likely gonna be very disappointing for me. Luckily I don't get hyped up over films anymore so this is no big deal and will still go see it without high expectations.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I have to agree with the "it probably shouldn't be compared to The Avengers anyway" crowd. Despite both movies originating in the word of comic books, they really are totally different types of films. The Avengers was very well crafted popcorn fun. DKR, and the rest of the trilogy, aren't really about popcorn fun at all. Note that I'm not saying DKR is a great movie or that it is or isn't better than either it's preceding titles or The Avengers, it's just that it was never trying to be the same sort of movie that Avengers is/was. I would think a comic book junkie like Bob would have made note of that given that he, probably more than most people, likely knows that just because something is in comic book form doesn't mean everything in that form is the same.

Anyway, solid review. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie myself probably next weekend.

Oh, and as to the pacing, that's been a consistent problem in the series if not to all of Nolan's work. I just recently rewatched Begins and was brought back to how poorly constructed the movie is in terms of it's pacing. It's also the reason why I haven't gone back to Dark Knight despite really liking the movie on my initial viewing. I absolutely loved the constituent parts but just don't have any desire to sit through it again because of how it's put together.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I was not expecting TDKR to beat TDK, but it good to know it still a good movie on it own. I will be seeing this on Friday.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
I actually thought Anne Hathaway was pretty flat as Catwoman. There isn't a lot of good character development for her and it really showed. Also a lot of things flat out didn't make sense.

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
Her personality clearly changes between different scenes, she's made to be a nice robin hood type character at some points yet is blatantly selfish, then apparently admits her love to batman who she also hardly knows then goes to live a life of luxury somewhere else, it really didn't work for me.

Also... the perception of time was all funky, in what we are going to assume is not within american borders is some sort of hole in the ground prison with ropes hanging from the roof... and people have to rock climb out... why not just use the ropes? Is it a trust system....? Also Bane practically teleports from Gotham to said location and back again.... how the... is it meant to be a metaphorical hole or something? I get that all this time was meant to have passed but it was hard to pick it up just from watching the movie apart from quick references to the timer of the bomb... which just doesn't work showing time through some arbitrary timer is weird, also, the whole police trapped but living underground thing whaaa? Then there was the usual... this city is isolated and the people will decide what happens... get a new trick! It was already done in Batman begins and Dark Knight, it's just the fusion of the two ideas and they don't gel together great especially because Bane just hangs out in a city he knows is going to explode...

Then there was the Bane's love as a motivation... WTF it took him from having a little credibility to just being a ridiculous love struck puppy... Taking away his motivation as a wanna-be leader of the League of Shadows.

So much of this didn't work.
END SPOLIERS
 

The Last Nomad

Lost in Ethiopia
Oct 28, 2009
1,426
0
0
I have had a feeling for a while now that this would be a huge flop. Commercially and critically. The recent Marvel films have taken the grit out of comic book films and put the fun back in. That's the main reason I had, Batman's dark tone just doesn't fit in anymore.

And I didn't think this film even needed to exist and from what I heard about it (and I tried to avoid everything I could, which was hard) it just didn't seem like it was going to be a good story. They really fucked up by not continuing on the story from the Dark Knight, instead of that 8 year gap.

It really had too much riding on it and I am disappointed to have been right it seems. But I'll have to wait to see it before I really call anything, but I'm not going to bother going to the cinema to see it.
 

Frank_Sinatra_

Digs Giant Robots
Dec 30, 2008
2,306
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Hush [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Hush]. He's a great character for Batman, but seeing as he would have had to been worked in Batman Begins I guess he wouldn't be a good choice. Hugo Strange [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Hugo_Strange] would have been interesting, or if Nolan wanted to do interesting shifts of reality in a pseudo mode of Inception he could have used The Mad Hatter [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/The_Mad_Hatter]. Personally I don't think Deadshot or Zasz would have really worked well, but that's just me.
Now since Bane "may have or have not" have had connections with the League of Assassins from the first movie, why not ditch Bane and go for Talia al Ghul instead? Shit, she was a serious pain in both Batman and Bruce Wayne's life for a while there. Maybe she would have fared better as a central villain, or as a secondary like Two Face was in The Dark Knight.

Hey Bob, if you read this, can I get your thoughts on it?
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6003-Untangling-Spider-Man
You seem to misunderstand me. I mean Spider-Man as in Spider-Man, the film. Not The Amazing Spider-Man, which is a different film. It's okay. It's an easy mistake to make. Except one proves my point and the other exasperates it...
 

ManupBatman

New member
Jun 23, 2011
91
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Black Mask could work, or a Red Hood character. Riddler was the obvious choice that I still think would of been interesting to go with. The Penguin as more of a concept than the cartoon version.

Though none really match up to the Joker. The only character I can think of that can really REALLY disarm the Batman is a character that appears in Kevin Smith's "Widening Gyre". But that's a little to ethnocentric.
 

The Last Nomad

Lost in Ethiopia
Oct 28, 2009
1,426
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Hush [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Hush]. He's a great character for Batman, but seeing as he would have had to been worked in Batman Begins I guess he wouldn't be a good choice. Hugo Strange [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Hugo_Strange] would have been interesting, or if Nolan wanted to do interesting shifts of reality in a pseudo mode of Inception he could have used The Mad Hatter [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/The_Mad_Hatter]. Personally I don't think Deadshot or Zasz would have really worked well, but that's just me.
Now since Bane "may have or have not" have had connections with the League of Assassins from the first movie, why not ditch Band and go for Talia al Ghul instead? Shit, she was a serious pain in both Batman and Bruce Wayne's life for a while there. Maybe she would have fared better as a central villain, or as a secondary like Two Face was in The Dark Knight.

Hey Bob, if you read this, can I get your thoughts on it?
I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

And instead of Talia al Ghul, they should have brought back Raas al Ghul(is that how it's spelt?) like there was rumours about for so long, he's immortal in the comics anyway. But maybe that was a bit far-fetched to the Nolan films, and it would have tied the film to Batman Begins instead of being the stand alone film that it is.
[alot of speculation in this post as I haven't seen the film, maybe Raas is in it, Bob did mention special Cameos did he not?]
 

Frank_Sinatra_

Digs Giant Robots
Dec 30, 2008
2,306
0
0
The Last Nomad said:
I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

And instead of Talia al Ghul, they should have brought back Raas al Ghul(is that how it's spelt?) like there was rumours about for so long, he's immortal in the comics anyway. But maybe that was a bit far-fetched to the Nolan films, and it would have tied the film to Batman Begins instead of being the stand alone film that it is.
[alot of speculation in this post as I haven't seen the film, maybe Raas is in it, Bob did mention special Cameos did he not?]
Ra's al Ghul. It's a weird name.

He actually isn't "immortal." He has to be put in a Lazarus Pit to be brought back to life and when someone does that to you, you lose more and more of your mind. Plus this Ra's was in more of an Asian area where the Ra's from the comics is from the Middle East where most of the pits are located.

I don't want to spoil for you with your speculation, so keep speculating.

(side note: Jesus Christ I'm a Batman nerd.)
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
GrimTuesday said:
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.
The problem is that after the performance that Ledger gave as Joker - the most iconic of the Batman villains - NOTHING they did could possibly stand up to The Dark Knight.

As for my thoughts, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the trailer clips I've seen I was wondering if at any point Bane juices up with the Titan crap and goes all Hulk on Batman, evidently that never happens and the only real similarity to Bane in the movie and the comics is the name and the mask. That's a bit disappointing, but then again this trilogy has been going for "realism", so I guess having a hulked-out super-freak for a villain doesn't really jive with what they're going for.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Thanks for the spoiler warning synopsis at the beginning - a straightforward brief assessment of how you felt about the movie. I sometimes avoid reviews for movies I KNOW I'm going to see anyways because I don't want my opinion to be shaped by what other people's opinions are, not necessarily because I'd find out that character X actually has a penis or some surprise or another.

I suspected from the get go that this one was going to have all of the problems of the first two movies in the series (and then some), but I wouldn't really care that much considering how much I enjoyed both of them. I do hope Nolan steers away from blockbusters pretty soon because it's starting to feel like all the Nolan Batmans and Inception are fairly similar creatures.

I'll be sure to watch the rest of this tomorrow.
 

The Last Nomad

Lost in Ethiopia
Oct 28, 2009
1,426
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
The Last Nomad said:
I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

And instead of Talia al Ghul, they should have brought back Raas al Ghul(is that how it's spelt?) like there was rumours about for so long, he's immortal in the comics anyway. But maybe that was a bit far-fetched to the Nolan films, and it would have tied the film to Batman Begins instead of being the stand alone film that it is.
[alot of speculation in this post as I haven't seen the film, maybe Raas is in it, Bob did mention special Cameos did he not?]
Ra's al Ghul. It's a weird name.

He actually isn't "immortal." He has to be put in a Lazarus Pit to be brought back to life and when someone does that to you, you lose more and more of your mind. Plus this Ra's was in more of an Asian area where the Ra's from the comics is from the Middle East where most of the pits are located.

I don't want to spoil for you with your speculation, so keep speculating.


(side note: Jesus Christ I'm a Batman nerd.)
Aye, Ra's. I could have looked it up I suppose. I remember seeing rumors about something that resembled the Lazarus pit(s) was seen on the set. Or to be more precise, a pit with a large green covering, which could have been used as a green screen to add cool effects, and I assume a Lazarus Pit would look fairly fucking strange.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
RJ 17 said:
GrimTuesday said:
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.
The problem is that after the performance that Ledger gave as Joker - the most iconic of the Batman villains - NOTHING they did could possibly stand up to The Dark Knight.

As for my thoughts, I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the trailer clips I've seen I was wondering if at any point Bane juices up with the Titan crap and goes all Hulk on Batman, evidently that never happens and the only real similarity to Bane in the movie and the comics is the name and the mask. That's a bit disappointing, but then again this trilogy has been going for "realism", so I guess having a hulked-out super-freak for a villain doesn't really jive with what they're going for.
Aye, the only connection is that he breaks batmans back apparently, and has a bit of a mask.
That, and instead of Venom/Titan/whatever, he just has an old injury that is constantly treated with a steady supply of painkillers through his mask, yawn.

captcha: no holds barred. Haha!
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Soviet Heavy said:
Andy of Comix Inc said:
Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6003-Untangling-Spider-Man
You seem to misunderstand me. I mean Spider-Man as in Spider-Man, the film. Not The Amazing Spider-Man, which is a different film. It's okay. It's an easy mistake to make. Except one proves my point and the other exasperates it...
Exacerbate, not exasperate. Though exacerbation can lead to exasperation.
/Grammar Nazi.
 

SovietSecrets

iDrink, iSmoke, iPill
Nov 16, 2008
3,975
0
0
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
Fantastic. Your equation will be useful for centuries to come.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
I would have picked Red Hood or Hush to be the trilogy concluding villain. Although I will concede that neither would have made much sense in the context of this particular storyline. (Both of those characters have strong ties to Batman and adding them without any previous buildup would be a major asspull). Which leaves Riddler, I guess, but he's not really...epic material, I don't think.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Was I the only one hoping Gordon Levit to end-up becoming Nightwing?
I think Bane was probably supposed to be in this movie originally as Joker's mercenary or something but then they had to bump him up to main villain.
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
He DID say it was good though.
And as for totally loves it: I think The Grey would be a much better example. He never said Sucker-Punch was the year's first great movie.
XP
The Last Nomad said:
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Hush [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Hush]. He's a great character for Batman, but seeing as he would have had to been worked in Batman Begins I guess he wouldn't be a good choice. Hugo Strange [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Hugo_Strange] would have been interesting, or if Nolan wanted to do interesting shifts of reality in a pseudo mode of Inception he could have used The Mad Hatter [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/The_Mad_Hatter]. Personally I don't think Deadshot or Zasz would have really worked well, but that's just me.
Now since Bane "may have or have not" have had connections with the League of Assassins from the first movie, why not ditch Bane and go for Talia al Ghul instead? Shit, she was a serious pain in both Batman and Bruce Wayne's life for a while there. Maybe she would have fared better as a central villain, or as a secondary like Two Face was in The Dark Knight.

Hey Bob, if you read this, can I get your thoughts on it?
I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.
That...
...
...
...

Sounds AWSOME! Still woulda preferred Riddler or Doctor Freeze if they couldn't bring back you-know-who.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
I'm one of the people that thought The Dark Knight was just okay, so I'll probably be fine with the fact that this one is, too.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in watching Batman growl at people and Bruce Wayne be an angsty prick when the aforementioned isn't happening, nor does the overall premise look particularly interesting, so I'll probably skip it anyway.
 

Siberian Relic

New member
Jan 15, 2010
190
0
0
Despite its accolades and overall quality, I've felt 'The Dark Knight' actually moved away from a more ingrained comic book sort of movie. Perhaps a better way to put that is: 'Batman Begins' looked and felt more about Batman, while 'The Dark Knight' looked and felt more about a city with a caped crusader.

I'm thinking the main problem (because no film is perfect) with 'The Dark Knight Rises' is that, according to Nolan, it's a "war film"--in my opinion, his necessary step forward as a filmmaker first and a Batman helmer second. Batman has become an increasingly rare sight in the movies, and the action has been nudged further and further into daylight. I like that Nolan sorta addressed the "if Batman comes out at night, why don't the crims attack during the day?" question some of us have had, but, like I said, it pulls the emphasis away from Batman, methinks.

Not as good as 'Batman Begins'? I can accept that; that's still my favorite Nolan Batfilm thus far.

Not as good as 'The Dark Knight'? I don't think too many people expected it to reach that height; that was a box office lightning storm no one could have predicted.

Not as good as 'The Avengers'? That coming from Bob, I don't buy it for one second.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
Hit the nail on the head for me Moviebob!

I thought almost exactly the same after seeing it. Except for Anne Hathaway's part...I've never really liked her and I thought her acting seemed forced and tried to 'steal the spotlight' from other actors in the movie.

Too many new characters to develop, not enough Batman, a twist that (to me) felt like a 'twist for the sake of a twist' thing (I never read the comic books) and seemed unnecessary etc. all the other stuff you mentioned I agree with.

Overall good not great. It's not as good as Dark Knight or The Avengers and I believe will be over-hyped and over-rated to the same extent that Inception is/was.
 

notimeforlulz

New member
Mar 18, 2011
183
0
0
Pleas pleas please don't have spoilers, usually I'd watch the spoilers anyway, but this time I don't want to, and I would like to watch the entire episode...

And watching....

mild spoiler warning immediately, fuck.

Are you serious? I have to stop watching 1 minute in....
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
No plans on seeing it. Sorry, but the movies really did nothing for me. I found them all to be poorly paced and too long.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
On the one hand, sad that they couldn't quite live up to the last one.

On the other, never really expected it too and, let's be honest, I'm not sure 'Not quite as good as The Dark Knight' really counts as a criticism. That's like saying Jesus curing the lame wasn't quite as good as Moses parting the Red Sea. It's inevitable that movies in a trilogy will be compared to one another, but had this movie not been the sequel the TDK I think the love would still be flowing in abundance.
 

Phlakes

+15 Dagger of Socks
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
0
notimeforlulz said:
Pleas pleas please don't have spoilers, usually I'd watch the spoilers anyway, but this time I don't want to, and I would like to watch the entire episode...

And watching....

mild spoiler warning immediately, fuck.

Are you serious? I have to stop watching 1 minute in....
I don't buy the "I can't review it without saying what happens" for a second, I've read half a dozen reviews by now and none of them had a single spoiler.

And this one isn't mild.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
Wait, wait wait wait wait.....
You thought Inception had a narrative rhythm
Action sequence, exposition dump, the same exposition dump again, the same exposition dump for a third time (except this time Ellen Page is saying it for no adequately explained reason) another action sequence and then we're on to the next trilogy of the same fucking exposition dump again until you find out Cobb accidentally killed his wife, then another action sequence then more exposition dumps...
That's rhythm? I'm calling your criticism credentials in to question Bob.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
GrimTuesday said:
Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.
I dunno, it sounds like it lives up to the previous two movies to me.

In that I find the previous two movies to be grossly overrated for being average action flicks.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,746
371
88
Country
USA
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
There was talk of a Johnny Depp Riddler and a Phillip Seymour Hoffman Penguin. Sorry if I'd been Ninjad.

EDIT: And this, "I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production." The Last Nomad.
 

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Maybe he doesn't count as A List, but I'm gonna say who I've been saying I'd love to see since Begins.

Maxie Zeus.

I think he would have been a GREAT addition to the Nolan perspective of more realistic, less kooky villains. A fellow billionaire with serious delusions and grandeur.
 

Psykoma

New member
Nov 29, 2010
481
0
0
Phlakes said:
notimeforlulz said:
Pleas pleas please don't have spoilers, usually I'd watch the spoilers anyway, but this time I don't want to, and I would like to watch the entire episode...

And watching....

mild spoiler warning immediately, fuck.

Are you serious? I have to stop watching 1 minute in....
I don't buy the "I can't review it without saying what happens" for a second, I've read half a dozen reviews by now and none of them had a single spoiler.

And this one isn't mild.
Do you mean the one that comes up about mid-way through the review?
I didn't really think that was a spoiler, unless you thought they would bring Bane into the movie franchise and NOT do the ONE thing to batman that he's almost universally known for
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Thanks for the spoiler free, mini review, before the theme song!

I suspected as much. Doesn't sound worth my money in a theater. I'll wait till I can buy it from my home.
 

Brad Gardner

New member
Jun 5, 2012
37
0
0
I didn't like the last one for a lot of reasons, and I doubt I'll like this one. If I wanted politics mixed into fiction I'd watch msnbc or foxnews. So I'm going to pass.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Just off the top of my head?

Black Mask - especially the second version where the director of Arkham goes nuts and becomes the villain. Lots to play with there.

Calender Man - The Long Halloween, just a perfect hunt the serial killer type theme.

Harley Quinn - Yeah she is the Jokers Girldfriend and colorful. But there is once again a nice darkness in her story as the Psychiatrist who goes nuts that has a lot to play with. Plus while being a relative newcomer to the bat universe she is well known and wildly popular. Especially among the female fans.

Hugo Strange - another shrink gone crazy (Batman seems to have a lot of those.) Possibly the coolest name out there.

Red Hood - OK this one is hard to do without having a Robin in place so to speak.
 

Ultramatic

New member
Jan 12, 2010
48
0
0
I saw this movie two nights ago, opening night in Australia. My impressions were that it was a better film than The Dark Knight, purely because not one actor carried the film as much as Heath Ledger did. It felt more like a solid movie.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
I didn't even care enough about Batman Begins to watch it. I might skip this one had I not have free tickets. That my mom won. On a supermarket.

Comic book movies!
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
i have to agree. the movie is good but not as good as the previous 2. had a good time watching it and i sure will get it on dvd once its out.
but i just think that catwomans character wasnt really explained well. also have admit that it does have some weird moments in it. i dint really understand how this new cop (forgot his name now) knew who batman was. he sounded like he knew who he was when he was talking to bruce.
maybe i missed something that i dint understand this part but thats how it felt to me.

anyway, good movie, worth watching, has a satisfactory ending.
 

shadowmagus

New member
Feb 2, 2011
435
0
0
SamStar42 said:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.
Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
Exacerbate, not exasperate. Though exacerbation can lead to exasperation.
/Grammar Nazi.
Oh. *coughs, embarrassed*

Though that's not a grammar problem, I just used the wrong word. Exacerbate. Exasperate. ...you know that's a pretty easy mistake to make...! I am Australian, I struggle to remember what words mean 'n shit. Plus, I have a tendency to throw out words I've never used before and just perchance getting them 100% right, both contextually and in definition. 99% of the time it works (I consult the dictionary afterwards, not beforehand, and usually call myself a genius when I'm right. Feels good, man).
 

SamStar42

New member
Oct 16, 2009
132
0
0
shadowmagus said:
SamStar42 said:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.
Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.
I've read about eight reviews. NONE OF WHICH stated that.

It's a dickmove. It might not be seen as a massive shock, but when he says 'i have to explain the plot' I didn't think he'd fucking go that far, considering that again, NO OTHER REVIEW has had to say that. Bob has pissed me off before but this is a new level.
 

TheOneBearded

New member
Oct 31, 2011
316
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
If Nolan could have worked in Owlman (somehow), that would have made for an awesome movie. Who else could go toe to toe with the Bat other than his evil counterpart? Don't know who would play him, though.
 

Kimarous

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,011
0
0
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have low expectations. As soon as I heard Bane say in the trailers "I'm Gotham's reckoning," my heart sank. The big bad of this movie... is nothing more than a rehash of the first film's big bad. It's pretty bad when you already feel like you've seen a movie just by watching a trailer. Being more open and aggressive instead of being quiet and subversive doesn't make your "destroy Gotham because it sucks" plan any less "been there, done that." I don't know much about Bane beyond his Venom enhancement and "breaking the Bat", but is this really the only thing they could do with the guy? Look, I know you want to redeem his goon status from "Batman and Robin", but I'd rather see a different villain take the forefront if it meant a more original plot. Take Hush, for example... a threat more to his Bruce Wayne persona, prompting his Batman identity to take action. Or maybe something with Hugo Strange. *sigh* Again, haven't seen the film yet, but given preliminary impressions, I think I'll pass on viewing it in theatres.
 

McMarbles

New member
May 7, 2009
1,566
0
0
Y'know, I don't remember the Joker being in "The Dark Knight". I remember this unpleasant hobo in bad clown makeup who kept showing up and stealing screen time from the truly interesting villain, Two-Face.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Are we still getting something tomorrow like we did when Bob posted his Spider-man review early?

Hope so!
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Kimarous said:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have low expectations. As soon as I heard Bane say in the trailers "I'm Gotham's reckoning," my heart sank. The big bad of this movie... is nothing more than a rehash of the first film's big bad. It's pretty bad when you already feel like you've seen a movie just by watching a trailer. Being more open and aggressive instead of being quiet and subversive doesn't make your "destroy Gotham because it sucks" plan any less "been there, done that." I don't know much about Bane beyond his Venom enhancement and "breaking the Bat", but is this really the only thing they could do with the guy? Look, I know you want to redeem his goon status from "Batman and Robin", but I'd rather see a different villain take the forefront if it meant a more original plot. Take Hush, for example... a threat more to his Bruce Wayne persona, prompting his Batman identity to take action. Or maybe something with Hugo Strange. *sigh* Again, haven't seen the film yet, but given preliminary impressions, I think I'll pass on viewing it in theatres.
With regards to the 'Gotham's Reckoning' thing there's a reason for it both in the plot for this movie and in the context of the entire trilogy. From the outside perspective, in the first movie we've had scarecrow and the league of shadows trying to destroy Gotham and giving batman his origin story. In the second we've had the joker trying to destroy batman with an all out war between cops and organised crime as a backdrop. There's not all that much left for Bane to have a go at given how few things Bruce Wayne gives a crap about.

As for the plot reason, go watch the movie. It'll either satisfy you or it won't. (No spoilers) I found it to be a very interesting evil scheme but the motivation for the whole thing was a bit lacking.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
I would have picked Red Hood or Hush to be the trilogy concluding villain. Although I will concede that neither would have made much sense in the context of this particular storyline. (Both of those characters have strong ties to Batman and adding them without any previous buildup would be a major asspull). Which leaves Riddler, I guess, but he's not really...epic material, I don't think.
Isn't the Red Hood the flip-side universe version of the Joker?
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
SamStar42 said:
shadowmagus said:
SamStar42 said:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.
Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.
I've read about eight reviews. NONE OF WHICH stated that.

It's a dickmove. It might not be seen as a massive shock, but when he says 'i have to explain the plot' I didn't think he'd fucking go that far, considering that again, NO OTHER REVIEW has had to say that. Bob has pissed me off before but this is a new level.
I can understand completely why you'd be pissed off but you must remember, Bob's audience-on this site at least comprise mostly of people who know the significance of Bane within the comics. Hell, chances are that most people were expecting that to happen in some way anyway. If you've seen the trailers and know the comic book lore then it's hardly a surprise.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
misterprickly said:
Kopikatsu said:
I would have picked Red Hood or Hush to be the trilogy concluding villain. Although I will concede that neither would have made much sense in the context of this particular storyline. (Both of those characters have strong ties to Batman and adding them without any previous buildup would be a major asspull). Which leaves Riddler, I guess, but he's not really...epic material, I don't think.
Isn't the Red Hood the flip-side universe version of the Joker?
Not even flip side, Red Hood WAS the Joker before he became the Joker. Although with so many different continuities and whatnot, I'm sure I'm wrong in one universe or another...
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Avengers and Batman. Apples and oranges, man. Apples and oranges. I believe Vince Mancini over at Filmdrunk put it best in his Avengers review.
The biggest difference between this and something like the Dark Knight is that where Chris Nolan is concerned with redefining genre (and can border on overly self-serious), Joss Whedon writes gushy love letters to genre (and can border on overly kitschy).
Considering this movie *gasp* changes things from the original comics, it's no surprise Bob elevates Avengers above it.

I haven't seen it for myself, but I stopped taking Bob's word on anything since Sucker Punch.

As for villains, I sent a treatment over to WB for the third movie before DK came out with Mr. Freeze out on his typical vendetta mission against the CEO of his former company. The twist was Freeze formerly worked with Alfred in a mercenary group (along with Fox), and the company he was working for was a subsidiary for Wayne Corp. Alfred and Fox left to protect the Wayne family, fearing Freeze's retribution. Alfred was to look after them at home, and Fox would watch him at work.

Freeze may not have been much in the comics before the animated series, but Dini definitely turned him into a real complex villain on par with the Joker. Freeze definitely could've stacked up beyond Riddler, and deserves better than Schwarzenegger's pun machine from Schumacher
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
misterprickly said:
Kopikatsu said:
I would have picked Red Hood or Hush to be the trilogy concluding villain. Although I will concede that neither would have made much sense in the context of this particular storyline. (Both of those characters have strong ties to Batman and adding them without any previous buildup would be a major asspull). Which leaves Riddler, I guess, but he's not really...epic material, I don't think.
Isn't the Red Hood the flip-side universe version of the Joker?
As was mentioned, Joker was Red Hood before being knocked into the vat of chemicals that 'turned' him into the Joker. Later, Jason Todd (The second Robin, who was killed by Joker but later resurrected) took up the mantel of Red Hood and went around murdering criminals. He tried to shut down Black Mask's operation (By this point, Black Mask more or less controlled Gotham's underground), and would kill anyone indiscriminately, even the police.

He was eventually beaten by the Bat family and became a member of the Outlaws.
 

Varya

Elvish Ambassador
Nov 23, 2009
457
0
0
Bige1516 said:
I was not expecting TDKR to beat TDK, but it good to know it still a good movie on it own. I will be seeing this on Friday.
that's flawed logic. Movie Bob loved the Avengers, so he's saying it's not as good as his favorite movie of the year, you really can't say yo'll hate it because of that.
Yes, it's a superhero movie, but apart from that, the Avengers movies and the Batman movies are different in every single way.
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
the death of Batman made me cry till the end credits, I was like "no Batman, no!" I wonder why Nolan set Batman up to be Jesus in this film?
 

thereverend7

New member
Aug 13, 2010
224
0
0
This is about what I expected from Bob. I would have been shocked if he thought it was better then TDK.

So good, but not what you were expecting? my expectations are lower then yours (i.e. im not a movie critic) so I'm still definitely going to see this. But this was a good, balanced review, didn't feel preachy like other comic book related stuff can sometimes.
 

jackinmydaniels

New member
Jul 12, 2012
194
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
I despise MovieBob. I hate him a video game critic, have no respect for him as a film critic, and loathe him as a person. But Sucker Punch was a decent movie. Monumentally depressing, devoid of character development, but a good movie.

captcha: SKYNET WATCHES...

...what the... fuck...
^ This, I can't fucking stand Moviebob or anything he does, but I did enjoy Suckerpunch, if only because it was something interesting to look at.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
Don't just take one reviewer's opinion guys. There are many more. It has 80% average on Metacritic right now so read some other reviews and then decide if you want to see it.
 

Sexy Devil

New member
Jul 12, 2010
701
0
0
Spoilered the big stuff in this post, not really any spoiler in my opinion are in the open but still if you want to know nothing about the movie then look away.

Just on the Bruce learning to be Batman again in the second act, can I just say I don't think that's what was happening. He fully admitted that he was completely prepared to die in the battle for Gotham while in that pit, but it never even occurred to him that he could die any other way until what's his face pointed it out. Seems more like the pit was doing double duty of reminding him that Batman wasn't just a thing about thrill seeking, and that he has an identity beyond Batman, which he had clearly forgotten in this movie. He got invested in the idea that he is Batman, when it was meant to be an incorruptible symbol and the pit set him straight. Hence why ENDING SPOILERS
He ran away with Selina after the bomb detonated, with John taking up the mantle.

So in my opinion it wasn't an unnecessary retreading of ground.

I disagree with the Bane stuff, the Selina romance, etc but really I doubt anyone cares about me arguing characterisation. I will say that the twist gave Bane's character all kinds of levels of depth (though I thought he was good before it).

Honestly I thought it was the best of the trilogy. Everything about it was just holy shit, they actually topped TDK to me. But to each their own, at least you weren't trying to hate it. Personally I held back the overpowering urge to piss just so I wouldn't miss a moment and I did it with a smile.

Also the Cillian Murphy cameo was nothing but awesome.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
I think we are all echoing the same thing, it will probably be a pretty decent film, and we will probably enjoy it just fine. However, no Batman film will ever come close to matching the sheer awesomeness of "The Dark Night"
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
jackinmydaniels said:
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D
I despise MovieBob. I hate him a video game critic, have no respect for him as a film critic, and loathe him as a person. But Sucker Punch was a decent movie. Monumentally depressing, devoid of character development, but a good movie.

captcha: SKYNET WATCHES...

...what the... fuck...
^ This, I can't fucking stand Moviebob or anything he does, but I did enjoy Suckerpunch, if only because it was something interesting to look at.
Three things:

1- Bob is in no way a "video game critic", his knowledge of video games is so puny and biased in favor of the very small selection of Nintendo games he does play that calling him one is an insult to actual video game reviewers who do it for a living.

2- I'm surprised people keep going back to the Sucker Punch review to show how questionable Bobs taste in movies are, i mean it really wasnt that great a movie but the real evidence of this is that Bob like that train wreck of a blacksploitation movie RedTails.

3- People really should take this review with as much salt as they can find. its been said before and i'll say it again; Bob is a biased fanboy. As soon as he said it wasnt as good as The Avengers i knew what was coming, in fact go back and watch the other stuff he's done where he's talked about this movie and you'd have known what his opinion was going to be ages ago. The review was as good as written long before he even saw the movie, "Not as good as The Avengers" was always going to be the outcome.
 

Shocksplicer

New member
Apr 10, 2011
891
0
0
What's that? Moviebob didn't like it? I'll just go ahead and assume that it's utterly fantastic then.

Because, you know, fuck Moviebob.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
The Last Nomad said:
I heard that Robin Williams was in consideration for the role of Hugo Strange early on in production.

And instead of Talia al Ghul, they should have brought back Raas al Ghul(is that how it's spelt?) like there was rumours about for so long, he's immortal in the comics anyway. But maybe that was a bit far-fetched to the Nolan films, and it would have tied the film to Batman Begins instead of being the stand alone film that it is.
[alot of speculation in this post as I haven't seen the film, maybe Raas is in it, Bob did mention special Cameos did he not?]
Ra's al Ghul. It's a weird name.

He actually isn't "immortal." He has to be put in a Lazarus Pit to be brought back to life and when someone does that to you, you lose more and more of your mind. Plus this Ra's was in more of an Asian area where the Ra's from the comics is from the Middle East where most of the pits are located.

I don't want to spoil for you with your speculation, so keep speculating.

(side note: Jesus Christ I'm a Batman nerd.)
You say that like you're ashamed of it. This is the internet. Be proud of your Batman knowledge!
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
OH NO Bob didn't think Rises was as good as Begins! Which is not surprising AT ALL the only reason he didn't rate it at Green Lantern/Amazing Spiderman level is that everyone would no it's just his bias.


This review is BULLSHIT pandering.
 

godofslack

New member
May 8, 2011
150
0
0
I mean the mild spoiler Bob isn't surprising in the slightest. It's Bane's only notable action, he broke the bat. Having Bane not break the Batman is like not having an insane joker, it's who he is. I would of preferred other villains namely Poison Ivy and Mister Freeze, mostly because they aren't one trick ponies, but alas no luck.
 

mattttherman3

New member
Dec 16, 2008
3,105
0
0
Superman trailer was weird, it had the song that played during the scene following Gandalfs death in Fellowship. WEIRD.

I thought the movie was great, and I won 20 bucks because my friend bet me that Bane would break Batman's back at the END of the movie. lololololololol
 

Ftaghn To You Too

New member
Nov 25, 2009
489
0
0
DKR was much better Than the Dark Knight, which is saying something considering I love me some Dark Knight. I saw none of the flaws that Bob did, really. In fact, the mid-movie event that he claimed to break the flow was one of the best things they could have done. The rise is to become to Bat again. The second is to become more than the Bat, which is what this movie was about.

I think Bob's fanboy is showing.
 

CharlesA

New member
Nov 8, 2009
28
0
0
I'd written a whole thing on how dumb it was to compare it to Avengers, but then I got tired. Dark Night Rises is a really great movie, watch it with love. If you go in expecting to be disappointed, you probably are going to find things to disappoint you. Most of the time you get what you're looking for. Watching the review after the film, I feel like Bob basically set himself up to distrust the movie, maybe not to get burnt? I don't know. It is the best movie I've seen this year.
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
Huh, I didn't think it he would've been retired since the end of Dark Knight, I mean the ending made it seem like the big lesson was that it was his responsibility to continue being Batman despite being an unpopular figure, but I guess hero Gotham deserved but the one needed right now was more literal than I though.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Bob's crazy. He harped on Spider-man for days, and it was better than this by leaps and bounds.

This movie was boring. The plot was absurd. I mean it was absolute nonsense. There was like, fifteen minutes of Batman in it, the sound was so bad that it was difficult to understand some of the characters, and the political messages were about as subtle as getting kicked in the groin by a racehorse.

This really didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. It felt like what would pass as a decent 80's sci-fi movie except for the weird B story about the rich crime fighting guy.

I'm just curious about why such boring movie, featuring so little Batman, with such a bizarre plot that, as Bob says, doesn't work, still nets a positive review while another with fewer problems and without the crazy three-hour hero-free run time is the subject of Bob's scorn for days.

Sure, we like Christopher Nolan, but he blundered hard here.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
OH NO Bob didn't think Rises was as good as Begins! Which is not surprising AT ALL the only reason he didn't rate it at Green Lantern/Amazing Spiderman level is that everyone would no it's just his bias.


This review is BULLSHIT pandering.
Yea man, I agree. Maybe after all the flak he got for his Spider-man review, he is playing it safe by taking a neutral stance on this one.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
I enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as the Dark Knight, mainly because it lacked the "chaotic (insane) evil" that the Joker brought, but it still managed to keep the noir-style-ish theme-ing going throughout the movie.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
You didn't miss much in the Superman trailer, Bob. There wasn't much to miss. Also, I'm so proud of you for not actually spoiling any of the twists this time! That had to be hard for you, for as much as you like telling us everything. Though, the mixed review definitely has it's claims. The movie was great in places, and sloppy in others. The sense of flow is like water turn to pudding to ice to water again--all over the place, inconsistent, and doesn't help you in the slightest. But, it is great where it's great, though.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I thought the movie was fantastic. I just came from the midnight showing and I was blown away.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Bob isn't what The Escapist needs, but what The Escapist deserves.

Evil Smurf said:
the death of Batman made me cry till the end credits, I was like "no Batman, no!" I wonder why Nolan set Batman up to be Jesus in this film?
How the fuck do you survive a nuclear blast like that? And furthermore, wouldn't the radiation effectively poison the water? And I love how when the "real" villain is revealed, and then she dies in the truck, the camera turns to Gordon/Batman/Catwoman looking at her, as if to reflect my feelings of "seriously, what the fuck" for how out of fucking nowhere that shoddy excuse of a "plot twist" was to begin with.
I had hoped that not only would the police step in to take back the city, but the citizens of Gotham, as if to absolutely solidify Batman's last line to the Joker "...that it's full of people ready to believe in good", giving a message that it's up to everyone in the city of Gotham to shape it, that the entire city has become as willing to fight for Gotham as Batman is. Not only would Batman rise, but the city of Gotham would rise as well, which in my opinion would've felt intensely satisfying, given the stakes. Instead I got almost no glimpses of the citizenry's reaction, other than shutting themselves in.

Damn shame, really.
 

Dylalanine

New member
Jul 17, 2012
5
0
0
Disagree. Completely disagree. This was a fantastic movie and I enjoyed it much more than the Dark Knight and the comic book-cheesy Avengers. The Avengers was much less substantive a movie than this one and even its sincere Iron Man character arc was trumped in DK Rises.

Bruce needing to relearn how to be Batman twice? Necessary--the first time he was much too atrophied and mediocre. He had to rise (yes, pun intended) to a massive challenge.

And additionally, the dearth of Joker's mention? The Joker's chaotic, devil-may-care Modus Operandi didn't have the same drive and focus as Bane's terrifying "Sympathy for Osama" ploy for Gotham's reckoning. I didn't miss Joker.

This was a satisfying end to the new Batman trilogy. I was on my seat's edge the entire movie.
 

Denizen

New member
Jan 29, 2010
259
0
0
Just came back from seeing it. I think this was a really well put together review by moviebob and although I agreed on most points, I have a few disagreements but they are very minor. I can see where moviebob is coming from on them.

I'll leave out all the rest and just go to this one:

I totally was ok with batman having his "second" rising because to me it felt like he had come out of hiding too soon and wasn't ready or even prepared (his batman trademarked preparedness wasn't there to save him) for something we saw he couldn't handle. Even Alfred was furious that he had done something so stupid leaving Bane to get away.

Bane doing what he does best was explained later by what we find out was the purpose of his mask. He even says in the beginning of the movie that something like, "No one would take me seriously until I started to wear this." Turns out it was a twist on his source of strength

As a general thing for the rest of the movie in respect to the previous two, definitely a great film and stands on its own. I was worried that it had too much to up against but by the time it was over, I was not only impressed but greatly relieved. The film has a satisfying ending and is far from how The Dark Knight was and thankfully so. If it was too close to the previous one, it would've been a passive form of self-defeat. Instead it took a different direction in how Batman can save Gotham by him not being the only one to help. Isn't that the whole concept behind the Bat-Family? "I'm beginning to think he is more of an enterprise than a single individual" (something like that).

I gotta mention that my favorite part of the movie was how everything tied together so well. This movie showed how they had planned this all out from the start with callbacks and even interesting visually-symbolic callbacks to the previous movies. Some so subtle that they flat out showed one, I even heard someone go, "ah," when it happened.

Highly recommend it to anyone and everyone. It's not a letdown, it strives to do different things from the previous one with new conflicts and obstacles and succeeds.

Impending backlash on his recovery in the middle of the film. You know everyone who wants nitpick will use that and keep going back to that as their only ammunition.

Who else wouldn't mind a Nightwing movie? That ending had my friends realizing this might be our only chance for that.
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
Bob, I respect the hell out of you, don't get me wrong, I think you're an intelligent guy and I usually agree whole heartedly with your reviews.

But today, sir, you're wrong. You are simply wrong. The Dark Knight Rises was a brilliant film. Brilliant. And I want everyone to know you would be doing yourself an extreme disservice by taking this reviewer's word and having jaded expectations about the finale. Thematically, this movie is one of the richest I've ever encountered; the pacing is fine after about the first 20 mins, and the acting is truly phenomenal. There were so many twists and turns...my god, no movie has had me experience brick shitting emotional amazement like this movie (the ending is fucking golden). My friends and I literally spent an hour at the cinema after the film ended just talking about how well it was executed.

Seriously. There are few movies, hell, few works of media in general that have inflicted such a violently astounded reaction in me. Go see this movie. It is absolutely amazing.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,224
0
0
Brad Shepard said:
You mean: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492 ? I don't know if it'll affect the sales, but there will surely be speculations connecting what's just happened to the plot of the movie(s).
 

Brad Shepard

New member
Sep 9, 2009
4,393
0
0
MrCalavera said:
Brad Shepard said:
You mean: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492 ? I don't know if it'll affect the sales, but there will surely be speculations connecting what's just happened to the plot of the movie(s).
They are talking about a shootout scene.
 

OniaPL

New member
Nov 9, 2010
1,057
0
0
Brad Shepard said:
Anyone think the sales of this movie will go down now because of the Aurora shooting?
Possibly. I mean, the movie had to be a really huge disappointment if he went that far.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Farther than stars said:
We all knew it was impossible for it to live up to expectations. Maybe if they'd used the Riddler and Catwoman as antagonists... but Bane just doesn't come off as a top-tier Batman villain. Bottom line, they were never going to top Heath Ledger as the Joker.
They could of topped it with Johnny Depp being the Riddler, that would of been epic, but we all know Bane is never the brains behind what goes on, he is the muscle, or at least should be :p

But meh, they tried something new, didn't work, it happens! At least bob said the film was at least good.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Oooh forgot to mention, we will see more Batman films, maybe not in this trilogy, but remember we have the Justice League Films coming in 2014/2015
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Poison Ivy maybe, and as i and others have stated, A Johnny Depp Riddler would of been epic.

Clayface maybe, but i don't think he fits with Nolan's style in these films.

Penguin could of been awesome. But meh, We are stuck with Bane, here is hoping that in the enxt set of films, we see Killer Croc.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
Worst. Superman. Trailer. EVER.

Seriously bob, you didn't miss much, just watch the first 40 minutes of Batman Begins and you'll catch the gist of the trailer.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Alright. I need to carefully navigate around this post to where I won't get banned.

Let's see what I can do.

Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations? What movie did you watch here?

This movie legitimately blows Batman Begins out of the water. In ever way, shape, and form.

I personally thought it was better than the The Dark Knight, seeing as how Ledger's rendition of the Joker pretty much was the thing that pushed that movie from "good" to "great". But getting a second opinion on it (might wanna try that someday, you could sure as hell use it), they were either unsure, or still insisted that the previous film was a bit better.

This is the ending that the series deserved. It was almost too much to hope for, but it did it. I went in with high expectations, and I came out more than satisfied.

As well as every single other person in that theater, who genuinely cared enough about the movie to buy tickets to the midnight launch. It's now Avengers or Batman, just as there was Trekkies vs. Star Wars.
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Farther than stars said:
We all knew it was impossible for it to live up to expectations. Maybe if they'd used the Riddler and Catwoman as antagonists... but Bane just doesn't come off as a top-tier Batman villain. Bottom line, they were never going to top Heath Ledger as the Joker.
Once you get past the weird and shocking voice that they had to re-dub, it's pretty impressive how well they adapted Bane for this. It's no Joker, and there really never will be another Joker. But the first half of the movie with Bane is superb. It's just as much his movie as the previous one was Joker's.

I need to leave this thread before I decide to take it upon myself to insist to everyone that's having second thoughts.
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Gennadios said:
Worst. Superman. Trailer. EVER.

Seriously bob, you didn't miss much, just watch the first 40 minutes of Batman Begins and you'll catch the gist of the trailer.
It was a teaser trailer, and a decent one at that. It was surprising to see how they were handling it.
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
I haven't seen the movie yet, it arrives only next Friday here in let-down land (Brazil), I've got tickets to saturday, not Friday so I MIGHT, just MIGHT, escape the horde of teenager lunatics that insist on making jokes throughout the whole movie.
Well, what the frak is going on here MovieBob??? Lately I'm realizing something disturbing about your criticism: maybe you're just and extreme fan-boy. I say this because you put The Avengers on the top of the world, and sincerely, it's a good movie, but that's all it is, it's entertaining, didn't blow my mind away, but I didn't expect that either, so ok, nice movie, nothing much, the theatre nowadays is full of movies that have that effect (on me at least), I'll surely clap hands because doing a SUPER HERO movie that does that IS indeed a feat that proves the director's abilities. But what I find strange is that, wow, MovieBob would give it an Oscar if he could.
Batman The Dark Knight Rises: I'm not expecting much, I sure as hell don't expect it to be better than The Dark Knight (which I'm fascinated by), but I do think it will be better than Batman Begins (which was great at first, but then as you watch it again and again it becomes pretty weak). However, I've seen other reviews, from big folk, and they all loved it and many levels, and what is strange is, the things they loved the most is what MovieBob said aren't spectacular; for instance, I've seen a lot of praise on Tom Hardy's Bane, saying that the actor did a wonderful job expressing his feelings merely through his eyes, that Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman finally got to shine as a great character (since so far he was sorta led by the villains) and that, well, the story was damn impressive, giving the series the closure it deserved (although there seems to be a few plot holes), making Nolan's Batman trilogy the best super hero series ever. And then there are the reviews that went deep into the philosophical aspects that the characters bring hidden inside them.
It seems to me that MovieBob is sort of a fan boy for this kind of thing, setting his standards so high they actually become hazardous to his criticism. What I'm saying is: hey, I really HATE everything Lord of the Rings, but were I to review the movies or book, I WOULD praise it, because it deserves the praise. I think MovieBob is letting his feelings get in the way of his professional view...
 

steampunk42

New member
Nov 18, 2009
557
0
0
im ok with this. I never expected it to be better than the Dark Knight. that being said, when bob says a movie is ok and that he "enjoyed it" im fine with that since my tastes are significantly lower. example: i thought the Postman was an ok film.
 

shadowmagus

New member
Feb 2, 2011
435
0
0
SamStar42 said:
shadowmagus said:
SamStar42 said:
Gives a 'mild' spoiler warning.

Proceeds to tell the mid-film twist. Fucking hell Bob.
Which mid-film twist? That Bane breaks the Bat?

OT: This isn't a surprise. I expected it would be a good movie, but it wouldn't be as good as TDK and possibly even not as good as BB. Still, it'll get my money, if even for one show.
I've read about eight reviews. NONE OF WHICH stated that.

It's a dickmove. It might not be seen as a massive shock, but when he says 'i have to explain the plot' I didn't think he'd fucking go that far, considering that again, NO OTHER REVIEW has had to say that. Bob has pissed me off before but this is a new level.
This happened in the comics though, as a poster after this points out. It's literally Bane's biggest claim to Batman villain fame and was a huge plot point in the Batman canon. Personally, I felt it would have been more of a twist (and a disappointing one mind you) if something like this had not happened.
 

lithiumvocals

New member
Jun 16, 2010
355
0
0
Sexy Devil said:
Spoilered the big stuff in this post, not really any spoiler in my opinion are in the open but still if you want to know nothing about the movie then look away.

Just on the Bruce learning to be Batman again in the second act, can I just say I don't think that's what was happening. He fully admitted that he was completely prepared to die in the battle for Gotham while in that pit, but it never even occurred to him that he could die any other way until what's his face pointed it out. Seems more like the pit was doing double duty of reminding him that Batman wasn't just a thing about thrill seeking, and that he has an identity beyond Batman, which he had clearly forgotten in this movie. He got invested in the idea that he is Batman, when it was meant to be an incorruptible symbol and the pit set him straight. Hence why ENDING SPOILERS
He ran away with Selina after the bomb detonated, with John taking up the mantle.

So in my opinion it wasn't an unnecessary retreading of ground.

I disagree with the Bane stuff, the Selina romance, etc but really I doubt anyone cares about me arguing characterisation. I will say that the twist gave Bane's character all kinds of levels of depth (though I thought he was good before it).

Honestly I thought it was the best of the trilogy. Everything about it was just holy shit, they actually topped TDK to me. But to each their own, at least you weren't trying to hate it. Personally I held back the overpowering urge to piss just so I wouldn't miss a moment and I did it with a smile.

Also the Cillian Murphy cameo was nothing but awesome.
I agree completely with this. I absolutely loved the movie. I loved Bane as a villain. Every single line he had was solid fucking gold and he just fucking felt menacing. I loved John Blake and the way his character evolved. I loved the ending. I loved the scene on the football field. I have never been more satisfied by a movie before.
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
arc1991 said:
Oooh forgot to mention, we will see more Batman films, maybe not in this trilogy, but remember we have the Justice League Films coming in 2014/2015
I dread that soooooo much. Remember that Justice League "movie" that already exists? Look for it, it's so awful everyone should see it. It works kinda like a reality show (YES, you read it right), and I remember and overweight Flash in the most piss-poor imitation of costume discussing "Big Brother style" (the reality show) about how cool it is to be part of Justice League... So-Sad...
Obviously this Justice League would a big production and all but... I don't like the way it works in the comics already, plus the DC movie that really worked so far was Nolan's Batman, and I dare say Tim Burton's version was pretty fun, but that's all.
Well I didn't expect The Avengers to amount to anything good, and it was pretty entertaining, so I hope I'm wrong, on the other hand, I always expect some good out of the X-Men movies, and although they were all fun, they were also frustrating... Geez there's sooooo untaped potential for a good X-Men movie..
 

lithiumvocals

New member
Jun 16, 2010
355
0
0
Brad Shepard said:
Anyone think the sales of this movie will go down now because of the Aurora shooting?

I heard about that. Jesus, that's some fucked up shit. My heart goes out to those killed and their families. Damn fucking shame.
 

Katya Topolkaraeva

New member
Dec 9, 2010
44
0
0
I think a seriously reworked version of Poison Ivy (and then have philosophical debate on how much it's ok to do to save nature exc.) or the riddler would have been waaaaaay more interesting. But i never much liked any of the new batman movies so i don't really care.
 

ZephrC

Free Cascadia!
Mar 9, 2010
750
0
0
Wow. Sometimes I like to think that it would be nice to have a place to discuss things on the internet with a bunch of random strangers.

Then I see threads like this one and remember why that's a terrible idea. I think most of the people in this thread are just here to talk about how they hate MovieBob and read all of his articles and watch all of his videos just so they can find more ways to despise him. It's very... odd and off-putting.

The Internet. Is. Weird.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
Waaghpowa said:
I felt that Dark Knight dragged on a tad too long and could have done with being maybe 30 minutes shorter.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought that. When watching the film for the first time, I was convinced that they were setting up Two-Face to be the villain of the next film. Then they killed him off. *confusion*
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
JoesshittyOs said:
Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations?
The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods or Captain America?
 

Malisteen

New member
Mar 1, 2010
86
0
0
re who would make a better Nolan villain than Bane: the Riddler. Not stunt cast as Depp, but still. Do him as some sort of blend of Jigsaw and the villain from Speed. The Riddler works as a kind of detached academic that would mesh nicely with Nolan's preferences and Aesthetic.

As for the 'formula' for assessing Moviebob opinions: like most formulas that are surprising with their accuracy, if you examine it it's pretty obvious. Opinions vary person to person, yours will probably be different from MB's. So if MB's opinion couldn't be higher, you'll probably like the movie less than he does, and vice versa. I find the trick with reviewers is to find a few that generally lines up with your own opinions, and follow those regardless of what the rest say.

Otherwise: the review is telling me that this movie is what I already expected it to be from the trailers. Which means I'll enjoy it well enough.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Who cares about Batman? Everyone wants to know what you thought about Spider-man Bob! I'm sure you're just full of interesting and logical concerns regarding the movie.
 

Trololo Punk

New member
May 14, 2011
672
0
0
I saw it last night. And although I did not like it as much as the Dark Knight I still really enjoyed it and found the ending to be a satisfying one. Better then the first in my opinion.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
You know, if you don't think Bob's taste in movies, is good, or that his criticisms are accurate... why do you watch him at all?

I know I've disliked movies he's liked, and liked movies he hasn't, but I oftentimes find that his reasoning is at least sound; where we tend to differ is a matter of taste and he has admitted time and again that... you know what, never mind.

I will say that the revelation that Batman hardly ever shows up in his own movie is enough for me to give it a pass.
 

Zeriah

New member
Mar 26, 2009
359
0
0
You'd have to be an absolute moron to think TDKR would be as good as TDK, Heath's performance was a once a decade performance. I'm thinking it would still be a great movie, just not as sublime as TDK and the general consensus appears to be exactly that. I probably won't be able to see it until Tuesday but I'm still quite excited.
 

Falsename

New member
Oct 28, 2010
175
0
0
I demand to know Bob's cridentials as to why the hell he's a film critique.
"It's good but something just doesn't feel right" IS NOT a valid review point!
"Avengers was better" is a manner of opinion, sure, But they're completely different movies. Why even compare the two.

I take absolutely nothing in this review seriously or even from the mouth of someone who knows what they're talking about.

Movie Bob, stop pretending and find a new career.

-throws down mic and walks off stage with hands in the air-
 

Falsename

New member
Oct 28, 2010
175
0
0
MetalMagpie said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations?
The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods or Captain America?
Bob spews out words that 'sound' like they're from a critique. Stuff like 'plot', 'structure' and 'subtext'.

No one should take his videos as a real review. Now you may say that even critiques have differing opinions, but when they go against the flow as many times as Bob... you have to wonder if it's sincere or just for attention.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
Falsename said:
MetalMagpie said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations?
The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods or Captain America?
Bob spews out words that 'sound' like they're from a critique. Stuff like 'plot', 'structure' and 'subtext'.

No one should take his videos as a real review. Now you may say that even critiques have differing opinions, but when they go against the flow as many times as Bob... you have to wonder if it's sincere or just for attention.
*shrug* Sometimes critics almost all agree. Sometimes most agree and some don't. And sometimes they're completely split. Since there's no scientific measure of a film's quality, that's just the way it'll have to stay.

There's really no such thing as a "real review" either. There's just people and their opinions. Some people are more skilled at explaining their opinions, and some people have background knowledge on a subject that makes their opinions more interesting. Those people are more likely to be able to make money as columnists and critics. But it isn't like being a doctor. There's no such thing as a "qualified" critic.

The two main uses of reviews are entertainment and informing consumer purchasing decisions. If you don't find MovieBob entertaining and his tastes aren't close enough to yours for you to use him as a guide for what films to see, then there really isn't much point in you watching his videos.

Personally, I watch the videos primarily for entertainment, as his taste in film is just a little too different to mine for his views to be especially useful to me. Even with the positive reviews (including this one), I probably won't bother to see Dark Knight Rises because I didn't particularly like The Dark Knight (or Batman Begins). Nolan's Batman just isn't my thing.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
Rogue 09 said:
Who cares about Batman? Everyone wants to know what you thought about Spider-man Bob! I'm sure you're just full of interesting and logical concerns regarding the movie.
Sarcastic comment or did you miss his two Spiderman reviews?

*cannot detect irony very well on the internet*
 

ch0pstixZ

Look ma! No Hands!
Feb 11, 2008
33
0
0
Gotta disagree with Bob on this one. I found this movie fantastic, engaging and not at all poorly paced. The character of Bane was amazing. In my opnion, better then Batman Begins, on par with The Dark Knight.
 

DemBones

New member
Apr 20, 2012
19
0
0
A lot of people seem to needlessly be getting angry at Bob for his opinion. I'll state what I agree with before I go into counter-arguments: the film is poorly paced in the beginning and the faults in characterizations are there. It does seem like Nolan may have turned his back on his previous vision by including so many more comic book tropes than the other two films. That said, I thought it was much better than merely good.

The faults with the film's structure can probably be attributed to the ambition of the screenplay. I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to balance a nearly 3 hour film with such a large ensemble. It starts out a little slow and than drags a bit in the middle. The thing is that was a problem with both Batman Begins and to a lesser the Dark Knight, just less people noticed it because of how novel those films were. Both of those films are heavy in the telling/not showing so seeing it here was no surprise. Those were some of the things that kept the other films from being near perfect. This time around people knew what kind of spectacle to expect from Nolan, which may have lead to some letdowns as more of the cracks began to show. I feel that some of the more judgmental criticisms are a result of this being by Christopher Nolan, arguably the best director currently working. The problems with this film are similar to those in his other films, and while it would be terrific if he could improve I don't think it is fair to claim Rises is worse on those grounds.

The only way I could claim that this film was not on par with the others is if it tried to be different and failed. Some of the structure problems are a result of this film trying to tie all three together into a coherent narrative, and it succeeds at that. I also think that it's incomparable to the Avengers, so saying one is better than the other is trolling. You may like it more but if that's the case Bob you should make it clear.

The film makes a lot of callbacks to Begins and had to thematically resonant with that film more so than TDK. This let TDK be tighter, more thrilling and deeper, which is why I believe it's still the best. The Dark Knight did not have to worry about the overarching plot as much, so it could shine much brighter for it. Another thing TDK had for it that neither Begins or Rises had was a scene-stealing Oscar winning performance.

Heath Ledger's performance was never going to be topped, but I feel Tom Hardy did his damnedest. His hulking Bane was a different sort a terrifying, and he brought the same intensity to this as he did in Bronson. The problem I found was that at times it seemed like he was trying to be more like the Joker, reveling in the destruction he's causing, but he couldn't pull it off. He was supposed to call back to classic movie monsters, and I believed he succeeded in that. Hathaway was great as well, but I agree that the love interest angle wasn't developed as well as it should have been. She's still more interesting than Rachel ever was. Everyone else, particularly Oldman and Caine, performed as admirably as I expected them to.

I'm glad that there wasn't any subtext relating to events in our world. What was happening on the screen was limited only to the world that Gotham occupies. I'm annoyed by some critics claiming the Occupy Wall Street connection (like the George W. Bush connection from TDK) because it's too simplistic. TDKR even makes it clear that any of the extraordinary rendition from TDK was all for naught, since Batman still failed in saving Harvey Dent and subsequently had to lie about it. Batman may be in the 1%, but even as Bruce Wayne he donated his resources back into the city that raised him and gave back to the people. He's a socialist who understands that to make progress, compromises need to be made (even if he might enjoy those compromises to a potentially insane degree). Bane is not fighting for the down-trodden, he's manipulating them to bring about his own vision. He has more in common with the 1% in our world than Bruce Wayne does. The film is not exactly subtle about this either (again, telling and not showing) so it gets particularly irksome when it seems some critics are merely drawing the connections to attract page views. This film, as it should, links back to Batman's beliefs in Begins helping more to wrap up the overarching plot rather than the single film. Besides, Jonathan Nolan said beforehand that inspiration for this film came from A Tale of Two Cities: the story that takes place during the French Revolution where a wealthy man trying to right his wrongs sacrifices himself for an unrequited love while the country is torn apart. He took the fall so that she could live, while peasants were sending other aristocrats to the guillotine. The connections are there, something that exists in Nolan's world, not just ours.

And speaking of sacrifice:

I still don't know how I feel about the ending. It is much more comic-book inspired than what Nolan has previously done, and that weakens it. I think that I'm OK with it, since the necessary themes were still addressed. It was the last step Bruce needed to take so that he no longer needed to be Batman. It doesn't matter that he lives, since Batman went out and died for his city. Someone else is taking up the mantle so that the legend can live on. This ending is both thematically resonant and not a downer, which probably would have upset too many people if he actually died.

In summary, the structure problems are more a result of linking the franchise together than of this particular film being noticeably weaker. This film set out to make a coherent trilogy and end it in epic fashion. In that regard, I believe the film was a great success.
 

SoMuchSpace

New member
Mar 27, 2012
87
0
0
Really, not as good as the avengers?

That's like saying Wine is not as good as Pepsi.Bad analogy, yeah.But what i mean is the Avengers was the most cliche "group of super heroes get together and kill baddies and then disappear again" type of crap.Okay, it was decent.But Every batman film triumphs over the kiddie stuff like Avengers and The amazing spider man.

Movie Bob is an idiot, it constantly amazes how try hard Movie Bob, Yahtzee and Jim can be just to get attention on the forusm.They're all like high up on their intellectual chairs when all they are is a couple of stupid fat blokes spewing their unnecessary bile of an opinion all over the internet.And you guys eat it all up.Like it's the word of god or something.Sad.
 

YodaUnleashed

New member
Jun 11, 2010
221
0
0
Not as good as the Avengers? I almost stopped watching right there....almost. The Avengers was a good fun romp of a ride but it was too corny to be great. I understand that corniness is par the course for that type of film and that the new Batman films are inherently different but that doesn't mean I don't prefer or like one more over the other or think, based upon my own expectations and preferences, which one is 'better'. I'm still a little overwhelmed with everything that I just saw to really form a fully-fledged out opinion about the Dark Knight Rises and I'll definitely have to watch it a few more times to completely soak it all in (something the Avengers doesn't have going for it) so I'll just throw out a few thoughts. I liked it very much and I believe 's almost as good as the Dark Knight but the lack of a Joker like level performance is noticeable and as interesting as I found Bane to be, I will concede he's certainly no Joker.

Still, I was emotionally moved by this film in a way I wasn't by the other two so it does have that going for it in comparison. To be honest though, when all is said and done and the three films can be watched consecutively I know I'll be satisfied and blown away each time I watch this grand finale. Having tempered my own expectations I am not disappointed in the slightest and am happy it is a fitting and 'almost as good as the Dark Knight' conclusion rather than being the 'second coming' many may have hoped it to be, which I was not anticipating whatsoever.
 

YodaUnleashed

New member
Jun 11, 2010
221
0
0
DemBones said:
In summary, the structure problems are more a result of linking the franchise together than of this particular film being noticeably weaker. This film set out to make a coherent trilogy and end it in epic fashion. In that regard, I believe the film was a great success.
Exactly, as a single film TDK will probably always reign supreme, much like Empire does in the original trilogy, but the third film, in this case TDKR and ROTJ in Star Wars cases, whilst not as good as the previous film still rounds everything off practically perfectly with a highly satisying and coherent conclusion. In fact, the only third film in a trilogy that I can think of that is better than the first two films is Lord of the Rings ROTK, but that film was made at the same time as the other two with only one extra year of production so it is unsurprsing that the quality was not only consistent but ever rising with each films release.
 

jFr[e]ak93

New member
Apr 9, 2010
369
0
0
TDK is almost impossible to beat. So, I am going to this expecting slightly worse then TDK but better then BB, which I thought was drab.
Sure it was o.k, I just thought they should have had a more obvious character arch for Bruce. It was there, just not as much as I wanted.

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

So color me hopeful for this to be fairly good.

It's a Nolan film, nuff said.
 

Chknboy

New member
Sep 10, 2008
124
0
0
I'm glad Bob didn't give this such a great review, because that means that anyone who sees the review should be pleasantly surprised at how good this movie is. After watching it last night at the premiere I have to say that it was a satisfying end to a series, and thoroughly enjoyed it, go watch it NOW.
 

Coreless

New member
Aug 19, 2011
298
0
0
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

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

newwiseman

New member
Aug 27, 2010
1,325
0
0
Saw it at midnight, I entirely agree with Bob.

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

Phase_9

New member
Oct 18, 2008
436
0
0
I thought the same thing halfway through the movie. I leaned over to my friend and said "Hey, if this is a Batman movie, where the hell is Batman?" Then it bugged me for the rest of the movie until he showed up again.

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

APSunder

Filmmaker
May 25, 2010
163
0
0
Sorry Bob, but this was the best superhero movie ever. By far. Better than Avengers and TDK, and the emotion was incredible, immense, and deep.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
The mere fact that you even enjoyed the movie probably means that it will be better than I was anticipating.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
It was an okay movie. A lot of it worked. A lot of it wasn't that good either. It's a weird film.

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

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

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

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

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
All I can think about when it comes to The Dark Knight Rises now is the shooting in Colorado. the guy who did it said "I am the Joker". No, he isn't. He's like those guys at the beginning of The Dark Knight claiming to be Batman, except far worse, because he's got 12 dead people and 59 (so far) injured people hanging over him. But, I'll give him this at least, he is a psychopath, kind of like the Joker.
 

Britisheagle

New member
May 21, 2009
504
0
0
Saw it this afternoon and can't help but agree. Brilliant film, much better film overall than the Avengers and yet I preffered the Avengers as it was more entertaining as a whole than this film. It was a good story but I saw the twists coming a mile off, being a fan of Batman and comics in general, and some of it seemed long winded and confusing. Tom Hardy's representation of Bane was awesome though.

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

NicolasMarinus

New member
Sep 21, 2009
280
0
0
And here I was thinking they wouldn't put up the review because of what happened in Denver. Or that at least someone would mention it in the comments.

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

SilverHammerMan

New member
Jul 26, 2009
448
0
0
I watched it last time at the premiere and I found it dragged. I wasn't really sure if it was a legitimate problem that I had with the movie though or if I was just burnt out because I saw it as the culmination of a Nolan Batman movie marathon that had seen me in the theater for a full 5 hours or so already, so this is a nice confirmation.
My problem with the movie is that I just wasn't a great Batman story to me, and there are just some story elements that grate on me in any medium, and those elements kept coming up again and again. For example Catwoman, Anne Hathaway was great, and she played the role really well, but I find that almost by necessity, when she shows in a story Batman becomes a massive sucker since she has to have someone to mess with as a femme fatale. I still like it, but it feels she puts one over on Batman a lot. And her motivation, which I won't spoil, felt generally boring and cliche to me.
I agree with Bob on the structure making no sense, and that was actually one of the worries I had going in, since it seemed like it would, and indeed it turned out to be, really weird to have Batman come back twice in one story.
I actually liked Tom Hardy as Bane, he wasn't the best part of the movie, and honestly the whole "people's revolution" thing that the movie had going felt really uninspired and boring to me.
The late game twist was good, but the problem I had with it was it meant that it was just another thing that Batman had missed. In this movie Batman isn't just fallible, he's a bit of a putz, not only is there surprisingly little Batman in this movie, but when he does appear he keeps getting his ass handed to him.
And while I liked Joseph-Gordon Levitt's character, I felt like I didn't like him nearly as much as Christopher Nolan did. The character seriously hijacks huge parts of the movie, and while that's not necessarily bad, I was there to see Batman, not some generic cop. And the early revelation he makes to Bruce felt forced.
Furthermore, I found the ending to be incredibly[/]b cheesy. Just shockingly cheesy, especially coming from Christopher Nolan. It was really two incredible cheesy ending one after the other, and while the comic fan in me kind of loved the second one, it was still goofy as hell and first one felt very out of place and just strange.
I don't want to seem like a party pooper, and I genuinely liked big parts of the movie, but it's just that there were things that I disliked and they're more prominent in my mind right now, maybe in a few days I'll have processed the movie more fully and start of see some underlying themes and so on, but right now I have to agree with Bob that it was good, but not great.
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
Bob calls the movie good although not as good as the two others, but despite ranking The Dark Knight as one of his all time favorite super hero movies, he's automatically biased.

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

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

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

Tiamattt

New member
Jul 15, 2011
557
0
0
Saw it , although it felt unnecessary long in some parts overall I thought they did a good job. Like Bob said the action and acting was great and while the story took it's sweet time getting to it's peak like a roller coaster moving very slowly to it's highest point once it got there it became awesome. I will say that less Batman more Bruce has one major benefit to it, less sore-throat voices for us to endure. Seriously that thing was making the audience crack up in places where nothing remotely funny was going on.

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

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

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

Mr Somewhere

New member
Mar 9, 2011
455
0
0
I don't often disagree with Bob, well, not terribly often at any rate, but I do disagree with Bob here.
I thought it was a great film, it did not quite reach the height of the previous entry, yes, but it wasn't off by any significant degree. It tied together thematic elements, plot elements, from the previous two films in a neat little bundle. It added something of its own touch too.
Call me a cynic, but I had no great love for The Avengers, it was the usual superhero fluff that put me off superhero comics. It was good for what it was, but I felt that The Dark Knight Rises was a far superior film.
I think this trilogy will resonate with people for some time to come, it ended on high, as far as I'm concerned.
I just hope this discussion doesn't turn to the usual vehement bile. Whether you agree with Bob or not his opinion is as valid as any.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I jut saw this last night, and I thought it was fantastic. I thought that it was a great ending to the series. I didn't think it was a good as The Dark Knight, but I still thought it was amazing. Additionally, I actually thought Tom Hardy's Bane was kick-ass! I thought he was a great character.
 

Oskamunda

New member
Dec 26, 2008
144
0
0
Well, Bob, your showing may not have had the Superman trailer, but at least it didn't have real fucking bullets [http://abcnews.go.com/US/aurora-colo-batman-shooting-71-victims-largest-mass/story?id=16817842#.UAm06u5Yt8E].
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
NicolasMarinus said:
And here I was thinking they wouldn't put up the review because of what happened in Denver. Or that at least someone would mention it in the comments.

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

Sai Marston

New member
Jul 20, 2012
1
0
0
This is the only review of Bob's I've ever watched that I came away from simply saying '...you're absolutely wrong.' I just saw the midnight showing and don't agree with anything mentioned in this video. This review was so off annoying my boyfriend asked me to turn if off around the four-minute mark, but I insisted we watch the rest of it because it was almost over and I (usually) respect Bob's opinion on movies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,746
371
88
Country
USA
Sai Marston said:
Everything Bane does is more intense than the Joker....
The plot of The Dark Knight is laughable when you place it anywhere near the smallest of candles. ....
Heath Ledger did an amazing job as the Joker, but due to his death and the time the movie has had to saturate popular opinion it feels that people have romanticized his role...
By the end credits I felt they -had- successfully surpassed The Dark Knight
DK is one of the most re-watchable movies of which I can think. Ledger is incredible in the role, so, Kudos. I agree with you in that you do have to suspend disbelief a lot more in DK than DKR. How hard would it be to get all that gas into a hospital in broad daylight?

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

He hates that Catwoman gets a defeated Wayne to be Batman again, then Bane beats Batman, then Batman rises and that makes the 1st half worthless. WRONG! He is Batman again for the wrong reason at the beginning. He is doomed to fail and we just wait for it to happen and wonder if the failure we be spectacular. IT IS!!! His rebirth is hard and hard won. It is very worth watching.

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

CarlsonAndPeeters

New member
Mar 18, 2009
686
0
0
I agree with everything Movie Bob (particularly the structural issues) EXCEPT...

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

bojac6

New member
Oct 15, 2009
489
0
0
I often find myself wondering if Movie Bob and I saw the same movie, our takes are so different. But this time, I agree with him completely. He articulated everything I was thinking as I walked out of the theater.

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

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

Sad.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Bane is just not an interesting character to have in a Batman movie. I think the best villains are those that can fight Batman on a more mental level. After playing the Arkham Asylum/City games you make even the crazy characters more realistic and able to fit in the Nolan universe.
 

MattKirby

New member
Aug 6, 2008
127
0
0
I've read a lot of the posts and it seems like this might be turning into a pied piper routine. I love movie bob and his criticisms but as a film enthusiast/student/maker/actor I will say take what he says with a grain of salt. I personally didn't get any of what he was saying from it. I had a captivating experience even in a full cinema of douchebags. It's fantastic and it's scope just expands, I thought it was really good, I enjoyed it more than the second one and for me it never bogged down because all the threads of the movie tied together very nicely in my viewing. I think it's important to watch the movie as a viewer and not a critic because what good is criticism if you're just going to shit all over something that's not even bad.
 

Nfritzappa

New member
Apr 1, 2010
323
0
0
Oh look MovieBob is trying to be edgy and smart.

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

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

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,746
371
88
Country
USA
Nfritzappa said:
The only thing that really carried TDK was Heath Ledger's legendary performance. ... It makes you care about Gotham more than any other Batman film, and is a commentary on social norms and protest. The suspense is thrilling, the music is fantastic...I think people will remember this trilogy quite fondly, probably more so than Lord of The Rings.
I watch the 2 Batman movies a LOT more then my copies of Lords. Just a fantastic trilogy.

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

Another quibble with Movie Bob:

He also thinks Bruce Wayne has not accomplished anything, come to no conclusions. I think he has. I think he realizes someone like Batman is necessary. He recognizes his own limitations and, well, you'll see what he does. More than ever in the series, he realizes Gotham needs a super hero.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Don't know what the hell Bob is thinking again. The Joker not being in the movie is no cloud over the story anywhere except in his own head. The movie rolls along just fine without the inclusion of his character.

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

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

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

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Milanezi said:
arc1991 said:
Oooh forgot to mention, we will see more Batman films, maybe not in this trilogy, but remember we have the Justice League Films coming in 2014/2015
I dread that soooooo much. Remember that Justice League "movie" that already exists? Look for it, it's so awful everyone should see it. It works kinda like a reality show (YES, you read it right), and I remember and overweight Flash in the most piss-poor imitation of costume discussing "Big Brother style" (the reality show) about how cool it is to be part of Justice League... So-Sad...
Obviously this Justice League would a big production and all but... I don't like the way it works in the comics already, plus the DC movie that really worked so far was Nolan's Batman, and I dare say Tim Burton's version was pretty fun, but that's all.
Well I didn't expect The Avengers to amount to anything good, and it was pretty entertaining, so I hope I'm wrong, on the other hand, I always expect some good out of the X-Men movies, and although they were all fun, they were also frustrating... Geez there's sooooo untaped potential for a good X-Men movie..
I didn't actually mind the Green Lanturn, but then again thats one of the only hero's i don;t know much about.

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

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
I haven't agreed with Bob on much lately, but this review is pretty spot on, imo.

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

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

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

I enjoyed it, but it wasn't amazing.
 

idodo35

New member
Jun 3, 2010
1,629
0
0
oh man i really really liked this one :) of course it can match expectations but in my opinion it was a great movie...
catwoman is done great, said twist caught me with my pants down (not literaly you pervs!) and i really liked the new bane...
and yes it feels like two movies (or at least two parts) smooshed into one but i can handle that...
oh and not enogh alfred!!! not nearly enogh!!!
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
It was better than The Avengers.

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

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

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

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

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
MetalMagpie said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations?
The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods or Captain America?
Avengers, April release. Cabin in the Woods, April. Captain America, over a year ago. According to his reviews, at least half the movies that he's reviewed are monsterous piles of crap.
 

Dr. Dan Challis

New member
Sep 18, 2009
30
0
0
I find the criticisms of the structure and pacing extremely odd; despite its length Rises is easily the fastest moving of the trilogy, and the one with the strongest story arc. The construction of Rises' script has a definite edge over Dark Knight's, even if the end product isn't quite as good because it lacks...dead horse alert...a villain as flamboyant and entertaining as Heath Ledger's Joker. Dark Knight crescendos at the 90 minute mark and spends the second half of the film trying to regain the momentum it's lost. The material with Harvey and (especially) the ferries rigged to explode just isn't as compelling as the beginning with the Joker and the mob. Ledger pretty much carried the entire last hour of DK on his shoulders. That he pulled it off more than justified his Oscar win. Bane's plot, on the other hand, lends Rises a lot more narrative thrust and does a nice job of tying into plotlines established in Batman Begins in satisfying, if not unexpected, ways.
 

Stormz

New member
Jul 4, 2009
1,451
0
0
I thought the movie was really good overall but I have to say that the ending annoyed me.

keeping it open for a spinoff series. Which would probably suck because Nolan isn't coming back for another Batman movie and there's pretty no way that it could ever live up to the trilogy.
 

jaketaz

New member
Oct 11, 2010
240
0
0
Dr. Dan Challis said:
I find the criticisms of the structure and pacing extremely odd; despite its length Rises is easily the fastest moving of the trilogy, and the one with the strongest story arc. The construction of Rises' script has a definite edge over Dark Knight's, even if the end product isn't quite as good because it lacks...dead horse alert...a villain as flamboyant and entertaining as Heath Ledger's Joker. Dark Knight crescendos at the 90 minute mark and spends the second half of the film trying to regain the momentum it's lost. The material with Harvey and (especially) the ferries rigged to explode just isn't as compelling as the beginning with the Joker and the mob. Ledger pretty much carried the entire last hour of DK on his shoulders. That he pulled it off more than justified his Oscar win. Bane's plot, on the other hand, lends Rises a lot more narrative thrust and does a nice job of tying into plotlines established in Batman Begins in satisfying, if not unexpected, ways.
I agree. And it's not Nolan's job to satisfy all the desires of every Batman fan, it's his job to challenge us as viewers, if not to challenge his fellow filmmakers! I had tears in my eyes at the end, which rarely happens to me in a movie period, much less a superhero one.

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

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

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
Just saw it today, and I'll say it's a good movie. Worth seeing once and that's it. What I don't like about this movie is what Nolan has been doing with the source material in general. Making it Batman in name, and nothing else really. The second movie pulled it off well with The Joker, but not much else.

My biggest issues with Bruce Wayne in the Nolan movies is that he isn't like Bruce Wayne in any accurate material at all. Nor is Batman for that matter. Nolan's Batman is -very- willing to kill someone, and that's not something Batman will do. In general Nolan's Batman is another view on him, it's just not one I agree with. It's somewhat as if someone gives you a chocolate icecream, and you unwrap it to find strawberry. Sure, strawberry is good but it's not quite chocolate.

Then again, some people like strawberry more than chocolate.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
It was a good movie, I liked it, I don't agree with all that you said bob, but, what would the world be without different perspectives.
 

Frontastic

New member
Aug 3, 2010
318
0
0
Let me start by saying I adore all three of these movies and Nolan's filmography in general. Now, I always considered 'Begins' the best Batman film of the previous two and TDK the best filmy-film (film student here, so it had more 'going on' artistically) of them. However while I still think TDK is best film (I agree that the political stuff is text in 'Rises' rather than subtext so TDK wins), I think this is the best Batman movie of the three.

The late in the game character reveal? Yes I called it in the opening reel but was it any less awesome seeing that character on-screen? Hell no. It was amazing. In fact during the big endgame/chase there was so much adrenaline going through my body I was physically shaking, not even a joke as my friend who saw it with me can attest to.

Yes there were pacing issues, it really did sag in the middle, but I can overlook them becasue it was the most satisfying Batman movie to date. Not the most satisfying film but the most satisfying Batman film. And the end reveal that Bob says ruins it, I sort of saw it coming seeing as the film stuck far closer than I expected to a certain of the more famous graphic novels.

Now in saying all that I need to see it again to properly judge it because the fanboy took over on that first viewing.

But yes the Kingdom Come line-drop was magnificent
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
It was good not great.


A lot of the film as bob said just wasn't structured well. The main motivation for the whole thing was supposed to be that Gotham while crimeless had become a cesspool of greed and corruption. This was made very clear in the post-production releases, but you really don't get that feeling in the movie at all. It just plain seems like a great place to live. If you haven't seen the movie then you wouldn't understand why this is so important. Also if you're expecting the cliffhanger/end of batman thing that been suggested around the internet then forget it doesn't happen.

Lastly the whole rising thing? Lame... Mild spoiler(I've been in worse rehab clinics than that.)
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
MovieBob said:
The Dark Knight Rises

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

Watch Video
So I've got to ask, what is the line from Kingdom Come that they lifted?
 

Lethos

New member
Dec 9, 2010
529
0
0
I just got back from seeing it.

I.Fucking.Loved.It.

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

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

lead sharp

New member
Nov 15, 2009
80
0
0
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Black Mask, The Penguin, The Riddler, Hush, KGBeast, Maxie Zeus, Hugo Strange, The Ventriloquist, Deadshot and (imagine this done in a Hannibal Lecter style...) Calender Man.

If you can do the Scarecrow and the Joker you can do any of the above, as they are no more no less outlandish than any of them.

Aaand he chose a one note plot device.
 

JokerboyJordan

New member
Sep 6, 2009
1,034
0
0
lead sharp said:
Cheesebob said:
What other A list non-ridiculous Batman villians could you have instead of 'Bane' though?
Black Mask, The Riddler, Hush, Hugo Strange.

If you can do the Scarecrow and the Joker you can do any of the above, as they are no more no less outlandish than any of them.

Aaand he chose a one note plot device.
Changed it to the ones that might've actually been plausible in Nolan's setting.
 

warpoetry

New member
Jul 21, 2012
5
0
0
I could not disagree more with Movie Bob on this one. Man. It's the best in the entire trilogy to me.
 

magicringgirl

New member
Apr 17, 2009
27
0
0
I was really hoping MovieBob would talk about the ending! Which was, in my opinion, the best part of the whole movie! I found the pacing to be wicked slow at times which ruined much of the good stuff. Holy Crap Ann Hathaway this was definitely your best performance! All in all it was a fun action packed movie that I'm glad I saw but wont be heartbroken if I never see it again. However the ending and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, omg wow!!! I want to see Nightwing, this has to happen now! I always loved Nightwing and this would be such a dream to see him on the screen especially as Joseph Gordon-Levitt! And I honestly think this may be their plan. As I watched the movie I couldn't help but wonder why they would want to end such a huge money maker but I think this is why! Look Out Gotham their is a new Hero in town!!!
 

[Insert Name Here]

New member
Nov 26, 2009
349
0
0
Saw it last night, and I reckon it's the best damn movie I've seen all year. It just felt so epic and was so well executed! Avengers was great, but it was more just bombastic spectacle. This was a movie that felt so much more meaty to me. XD It was fantastic IMO.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
Does the film feature the same kind of latent racism as Begins, I wonder? Considering the implied connection with the League of Shadows, I mean.
 

VyseN1

New member
Feb 4, 2011
3
0
0
Lethos said:
I just got back from seeing it.

I.Fucking.Loved.It.

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

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

Mr.Pandah

Pandah Extremist
Jul 20, 2008
3,967
0
0
I'm just gonna call bullshit on this. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it had terrible pacing issues like MovieBob thought it did and the fact that it had two "rising" points didn't detract from it at all. Batman thought he was hot shit who could just get back into the game but then got his ass beat and proceeded to truly "Rise" up. Simple. I don't know, I thought the movie worked, and I thought it worked really well.
 

Mr.Pandah

Pandah Extremist
Jul 20, 2008
3,967
0
0
Lethos said:
I just got back from seeing it.

I.Fucking.Loved.It.

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

Edit: What's with all the people on first page going "called it!" Most of them haven't seen the film. Why so desperate to try and be right?
This is pretty much my opinion on it. I agree with you.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Just got back from seeing it. While I think Bob was a little heavy handed with the negative vibe, he mainly nailed it. It's a great movie. Easily the number two of the summer behind Avengers. But it's quite a way behind, and part of the reason stems from the very fact of Avengers existence.

Part of the problem is that as Bob noted, this third movie starts to give long time Batman fans a little bit of service. Some actual comic nods start to creep in. Plus the entire movie is culled by mashing together a few of the BIG 80's and 90's massive Batman crossover tales. No really this movie is The Dark Knight Returns + Knightfall + No Mans Land all mashed together. Really! That's the huge secret script that is so being kept under wraps. They read these three graphic novels and made a movie from them. They actually did a good job of it. Better than most comic to movie "adaptions" (see Fantastic Four 2). But it still leaves a weird taste in the viewers mouth for a few reasons.

If we had not seen Avengers first, this might have been a much better received movie. Like how the X-Men movies were great until we saw Spiderman 1 and 2. Dark Knight Rises is both a joy and a horror because it finally starts to sprinkle some fleeting signs of the Batman mythos into the movies. We start to get little nods to who characters may be. Connected backstories, etc. Just little breadcrumbs. But that's all they are is fleeting breadcrumbs. They are the best moments in the movie but they have no real payout. Then we look at Avengers. They took the comic book world that we comic fans loved, all of it whole hog. Instead of breadcrumbs they gave us the whole loaf, and made a giant sandwich out of it first for us. They dove in with the costumes and the aliens and the gods. All of it. And they shoved it in front of the world, and it was wonderful. Instead over here we get stuff like a one off line from "Officer Blake" at the end. We can feel the classic "Bat family" and overall Batman cast creeping towards familiar places. Really really cool places. But they don't actually bring us there. Two years ago this would have been one of the years best movies. But now? We have seen what can be done when you don't try and "adultify" a comic book property and make it darker and more serious, and instead embrace the actual property full bore. This doesn't do that. It doesn't do that in oh so many little ways.

Part of the weird thing about the movie is the supporting cast is just so much more interesting than either the main hero or the villains. Commissioner Gordon and Third Rock from the Cop boy were by far the best things on screen. Surpassed only by Anne Hathaway. Bane was entertaining but kinda shallow and pointless. I found myself sitting in the theater and thinking how much better this would have been if they had just taken all of his dialogue and used it to do a Lady Shiva story instead. The actual Bruce Wayne story arc is sorta meh. It starts out interesting and goes downhill to the point where at one point you think they accidentally slipped in a real from the first half of Iron Man, the plot and setting was so horribly similar.

Oh and remember how I said the story mashed together all of those 80's and 90's graphics novels? While it made for a decent Batman story for this movie. The story told was in no way greater than the sum of it's parts. And that is a problem. Because this movie has probably poisoned the well for us to ever see a real "Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns" movie to be made. Just as Promethius knocked out any hope of us seeing a movie adaption of "At the Mountains of Madness". In the long run it sort of sucks for that.

Overall go see it. It's the best thing in theaters right now. It is a good Batman story. It's certainly better than Amazing Spiderman or Prometheus. It's just not as good as Dark Knight or Avengers.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Having just seen it, I will say that it's not as good as "The Dark Knight", but it is still very good. Not as good as Inception either, but still good. I did get the sense, that Movie Bob got, that the film really felt like it should have been split into two parts. Even though it was quite long, it felt a bit rushed and the final physical fight was a bit underwhelming.

Still, worth the money I paid. Nolan might have failed to make the third film the best, but he succeeded in making a pretty great, entertaining film.
 

Mr.PlanetEater

New member
May 17, 2009
730
0
0
I actually think this was the best of the three. Okay Bane isn't great compared to The Joker, but then even if they had used the Riddler--or any other villain--instead they still wouldn't be better than The Joker. Where it gets its edge, in my opinion, is the scale and the way it comes full circle with the first movie in a way I won't spoil.

That said I do agree with a lot of the problems that Bob brings up, because they are definitely there. Who knows though, maybe I think this is the best of the three because I didn't get hyped for this as much as other people. >.>
 

Piecewise

New member
Apr 18, 2008
706
0
0
Anne Hathaway as cat woman is just something I really can't get over. She looks just so...not catwomany. She looks so thin and pale and non-threatening; you just know that any punch from her is gonna be like a kitten headbump. There's just something about her face that makes me laugh everytime she tries to act tough or dangerous.

That said, they really did blow their load with the Joker in the second one. This one just feels like they're trying to disguise the fact that they didn't really have anywhere to go. I mean, after the joker, the most iconic, arguably best villain in the batman mythos, anything less is gonna be a let down. It would be like if Luke met and killed the Emperor in the second movie and then spent the third movie just fighting stormtroopers.

Personally, I don't even really consider this a trilogy. I just look at The Dark Knight as it's own, self contained interpretation of batman, and these other two are just...other batman movies.
 

Mr_Jellyfish

New member
Jan 11, 2011
51
0
0
If it's not as good as The Avengers, then we're in trouble! I finally got round to seeing The Avengers and while it's not offensive in the way a Michael Bay movie is, it was a pile of rubbish. I honestly don't see what anyone liked about it, it was a mess of a movie. My expectations are significantly lowered for Dark Knight Rises!
 

Hoagster51

New member
Jun 8, 2010
53
0
0
I have read Kingdom Come and have no idea what he is talking about. Can somebody answer this?

EDIT: Its okay, I went through Kingdom Come and found it. Its the "oh, so that's what that feels like..." line.
 

Don Reba

Bishop and Councilor of War
Jun 2, 2009
999
0
0
I think The Dark Knight Rises was better than Avengers. A lot better. Avengers were a steady quip stream sustaining an inane plot, whereas Batman managed to be fascinating across many dimensions. It was still imperfect: the Batman's mid-movie journey was poorly thought out and motivated, Bane's potential as an interesting villain was left untapped, and the movie did have some minor pacing problems. Yet, the good outweighs the bad by a large margin.

I noticed many authors do this: lead a story to a grim cynical conclusion, but then abruptly finish with "it all worked out in the end and everyone lived happily ever after." Those who wish for a sugar-coated ending will accept this no matter how implausible, while the rest will go on knowing what really happened. Also, it leaves space for a sequel.
 

frostay

New member
Jul 26, 2010
12
0
0
That 'Batman-Jesus' 'second coming' image is a meme waiting to happen if I ever saw one. Awesome, moviebob!
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
Farther than stars said:
We all knew it was impossible for it to live up to expectations. Maybe if they'd used the Riddler and Catwoman as antagonists... but Bane just doesn't come off as a top-tier Batman villain. Bottom line, they were never going to top Heath Ledger as the Joker.
Wow. I would love a Riddler villain film.

I realize he "was" kinda before, but I mean a more serious Riddler.

Maybe not Arkham City style but the later graphic novels for sure.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
JoesshittyOs said:
MetalMagpie said:
JoesshittyOs said:
Bob. Stop it. I understand there is such thing as opinions, but when was the last time you reviewed a movie that managed to surpass your insane expectations?
The Avengers, Cabin in the Woods or Captain America?
Avengers, April release. Cabin in the Woods, April. Captain America, over a year ago. According to his reviews, at least half the movies that he's reviewed are monsterous piles of crap.
I think that's what makes him a critic. If he was completely blown away by half the films he saw, he wouldn't have much to talk about. ;)
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
Ramzal said:
Nolan's Batman is -very- willing to kill someone, and that's not something Batman will do.
Hang on what...

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

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

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

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

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

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

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

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

BBboy20

New member
Jun 27, 2011
211
0
0
YodaUnleashed said:
In fact, the only third film in a trilogy that I can think of that is better than the first two films is Lord of the Rings ROTK, but that film was made at the same time as the other two with only one extra year of production so it is unsurprsing that the quality was not only consistent but ever rising with each films release.
Then again, that was a direct adaptation.
 

Don Reba

Bishop and Councilor of War
Jun 2, 2009
999
0
0
Father Time said:
I really disagree with your movie review, moreso than any other I can remember.

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

Maybe it's because I just came from watching it but I really liked the film. I think it was a good way to end it though.
I decided to delay watching Bob's review until I saw the movie. When the ending credits rolled, I thought: that was one awesome movie, but I see why Bob might not like it. And then I saw him criticize it for the exact things I thought he would. Still an awesome movie.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Zing said:
I think it would have been foolish of anyone to expect this to live up to or exceed The Dark Knight. It was never going to happen. This is the unfortunate stigma that TDKR has to live with. This is pretty much what I expected and I'm definitely still going to see it. If only because I have a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

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

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

Ramzal

New member
Jun 24, 2011
414
0
0
endtherapture said:
Ramzal said:
Nolan's Batman is -very- willing to kill someone, and that's not something Batman will do.
Hang on what...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lukey94

New member
Sep 2, 2008
404
0
0
Inkidu said:
So Bob lauds everything but one thing so that means it'll be good.

If he totally loves it, it's probably not that great (if not worse). Read Sucker Punch.
If he totally hates it there's a good chance that it's better than it is. Read Amazing Spider-Man.

Got you figured, Bob-O, got you figured. :D


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

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

HotFezz8

New member
Nov 1, 2009
1,139
0
0
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

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

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

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
HotFezz8 said:
people need to ignore this review. This is a great film, and you can tell by the fact MovieBob goes through this review saying how great everything is, and how you should see it. It's easily more intesting with better (deeper) characters and a more engaging story than the Avengers.

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

I'm willing to bet that MovieBob doesn't like this movie, but he will love the next trite piece of shit. Magic Mike or whatever.
But he liked the movie...he even recommended that everyone go see it. He was just critiquing the problems(I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if he's on the money), which is what a reviewer is suppose to do.
 

Galletea

Inexplicably Awesome
Sep 27, 2008
2,877
0
0
I love this movie. Love it. Even the silly parts. It is awesome.

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

Draconalis

New member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
0
Given that I'm one of the few people in the world that didn't actually like the first two very much, I was actually surprised with just how MUCH I liked this latest installment.

Much better than the previous ones.

Edit:

And I still prefer Jack Nicholson as the Joker.
 

Draconalis

New member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
0
NicolasMarinus said:
And here I was thinking they wouldn't put up the review because of what happened in Denver. Or that at least someone would mention it in the comments.

Nope, we're all snuggly safe here in Escapist-land, far from the broils of real life. The name is well-chosen indeed.
Try page 3 or 4 rather than skipping along and missing it. It has been mentioned.

Also it happened in Aurora not Denver