Escape to the Movies: The 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.
 

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

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
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

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
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