Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

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.
 

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.