Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.DemBones said:
![jFr[e]ak93](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/91/91030.jpg?1620781506){kind=avatar}
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, we're all snuggly safe here in Escapist-land, far from the broils of real life. The name is well-chosen indeed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.