Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

[minuialear]

I disagree with the notion that there is no message or thesis about Batman in this movie other than the OWS-esque theme; the latter is Selina's theme, but it becomes clear pretty quickly that it's not a central idea to the movie. Nor were there two "back to Batman" phases in the movie, but only the one, which spans the entire film.

As I saw it, the movie showed two things. It shows a terrorist (i.e. Bane) able to control fear about as well as anyone in the Batman universe, and able to do it in a way that can't be contested by force (this is probably the most political the movie gets). And then it shows a Batman who had learned a little too well to control fear within himself, to the point where he didn't recognize that fear is as crucial to being a good hero as it can be a weakness. He approaches his first encounter with Bane with the ideology that all he has to do to win is conquer his fear of dying to take away Bane's power over him, and learns the hard way that it's a lot more complicated than that. The ideology causes him to embrace a too-Nilistic interpretation of "Batman is a symbol," which doesn't allow him to play to his strengths, because he believes it's alright to give his life to the cause, because Batman can be anyone (which completely zaps all motivation to actually keep his life as a high-priority in a fight, which becomes his downfall in that first one). He has to learn not to suppress or control his fear of death, but learn how to embrace and harness that fear to fuel his strengths, which allows him to finally defeat Bane in their second encounter. These two fights were easily the most emotionally-charged fights in the entire trilogy.

I thought the pacing was fine; it moved faster and had more urgency than Batman Begins, and I felt like whereas The Dark Knight went too fast at times, to the point where plot points were rushed over and therefore didn't have emotional weight, this movie finally found a good middle-ground between the two. I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I went into this movie thinking I was going to hate it (Bane of all villains? Anne Hathaway as Catwoman?), but I think it was the one that finally hit its stride in the series.

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 100% with this.

 

[Coreless]

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?

I just got back from seeing it myself and I absolutely feel the same way, it was f**king bad ass and easily tops the Dark Knight for me. Its been awhile since I walked out of a movie in complete awe but I have to hand it to Nolan and his team, they know how to make some amazing movies.

 

[V TheSystem V]

Me and my girlfriend both watched the review after seeing the film, and agreed with the 'Heath Ledger shaped hole' comment, but also found Bane to be the perfect villain for the plot of the film. He showed Batman that he wasn't as invincible as he believed he was, and that he could be beaten physically, which no one had managed to do. If Joker were in this film (undeniably, it would have been amazing for Joker to come back but Heath Ledger cannot be replaced) I wouldn't have complained, but for the storyline of this film, Bane was more suited as he destroyed Batman in ways that Joker never could (in a physical sense).

Anne Hathaway was a great Catwoman right from the first 5 minutes. Sexy, clever, witty, flexible...everything you need from a Catwoman.

However, I don't think she gave the best performance of the film - Michael Caine did.

Spoiler

When he was telling Bruce that he didn't want to bury another member of the Wayne family, I could feel his emotion and his plight to keep his surrogate son from getting killed. And at the end when he's at the graves of Bruce, Thomas and Martha Wayne claiming he's failed them...I welled up. Thank God for the fact that he was wrong about having failed them, otherwise the welling up would have turned into tears.

Also, does anyone else see how much alike Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Heath Ledger are?

And when they talk about 'giant alligators in the sewers' I immediately thought of Killer Croc.

 

[endtherapture]

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.

Burton's Batman was awful. He never used his brain at all. Nolan's Batman goes around investigating, setting up crime scenes, being a detetive. Burton's Batman just beat people up.

 

[Seldon2639]

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.

Aside from visceral, emotional, reaction what part of this film do you think challenged any viewer or any other filmmaker? There was nothing in the movie that forced anyone in the audience to rethink *anything*. Batman is good, Bane is evil, big character twist that everyone who knows the comics saw coming and everyone who doesn't is saying "what the fuck?"

None of the character arcs are particularly deep. Joseph Gordon-Levitt probably gets the most screen time, but the "good cop on the straight and narrow who realizes that he can't work within the rules that protect bad guys" is the same arc of (a) half of all cop movies, and (b) the entire second movie for Commissioner Gordon.

The income inequality/social upheaval stuff could have been interesting if we hadn't already known Bane was evil and lying, so it comes across as Nolan slapping the audience in the face with "see, social upheaval is bad, now wait to be saved by your liege lord." There was no way to take the "taking Gotham back for its citizens" stuff as being real because we as the audience already know that it's a lie.

Nolan could have challenged us by making us question Batman's motivations. But because we know that the bad guy is irredeemably bad, Batman just gets to be an all-around hero.

The ending *could* have been challenging, if he hadn't immediately retracted any impact from Batman's heroic acts by immediately giving a bright happy ending for everyone involved.

This idea that complaints about how someone didn't enjoy the movie should be silenced because the movie was meant to "challenge filmmakers" only works if Nolan tried something experimental. At least then this could have been seen as an attempt at something bigger, which can be lauded whether it succeeded or failed.

But he didn't. The movie doesn't take any chances on difficult questions or choices. All the major character changes are well within what the audience would expect, and none of them raise any difficult questions for the audience.

 

[Seldon2639]

I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I'd have agreed with that except for two things, spoilered for other people:

1.

Spoiler

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character's name at the end is Robin not Richard Grayson, not Tim Drake, his actual name is Robin. That's making it as obvious to the lowest common denominator as possible

2.

Spoiler

There is nothing to indicate Miranda is Talia Al'Ghul until she says it unless someone is well-versed in either the comic books or very recently watched the first movie. It's a basic violation of the entire concept of a twist to make it something impossible to predict, and for most of the audience it would be

I liked the movie, but I think we can admit that for all of the praise Nolan has gotten for being the first person to make "serious" superhero movies, or how fantastic his "gritty" reboot was, that TDKR is simply not the stuff of cinematic history.

 

[CronoT]

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.

Agreed. I skipped watching this review as well. Not because I didn't want to hear Bob go on about it; but because I knew a movie this heavy cannot be discussed without some level of spoilers. Seriously, what could have been one of the most gripping moments in the movie, the ground collapsing during the football game, was so overplayed in the trailers and the commercials, that it rendered it little more than a set piece moment, instead of the iconic scene is could and should have been.

We of the Batman Fan Club knew right from the beginning that Bane was likely to break Batman/Bruce Wayne's back. Other than being able to juice up with the venom, the only other franchise-wide notable event concerning Bane in the comics is when he broke Batman's back. But, I WILL say that this movie treated the Bane character a hell of a lot better than they did in Batman & Robin. (Bat Credit Card) *trollface*

In the comics, Bane is actually as genius-level intelligent as they make him out to be in the movie. However, the League of Shadows connection was thrown in completely for plot convenience. That being said, about 50 minutes in, I pegged the "foreign accent" chick as Talia. I also pegged Lewitt as having some level of connection to being either Robin and/or Nightwing.

Finally; Bob, I DID have the Man of Steel/Superman trailer for my viewing, and I can tell you, it was a complete throwaway. I was more hyped to see The Hobbit trailer again; this time with more footage tossed in. It just sucks that we're getting it in two pieces, instead of in one go.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

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.

At the end of the day, this is what The Avengers was: a popcorn flick. Comfort food. A blockbuster and nothing more. A GOOD blockbuster, but not anything evocative like Lord of the Rings, the Godfather, Schindler's List, etc. You walk out of it saying "I had fun and was entertained.", not "I feel like something touched my soul and mind". The latter is what Nolan's films are.

My personal thoughts: this is the best movie I've seen since Inception. It's not quite as good as Dark Knight but the difference is literally a paper-thin margin. If Dark Knight was the Godfather of superhero movies, then Rises is the Return of the King. It's a perfect capstone to the greatest comic/superhero trilogy ever and I wait with bated breath to see what Nolan does in the future as he has pretty much cemented himself as the new Spielberg (as well as the god-emperor of superhero films). It's the best movie of the summer and maybe of the year. Everyone is great in their parts even if there isn't an incredible standout like the Joker (which was a one-in-a-million thing) and the narrative is a rollercoaster that brings you down and lifts you up and has a TON of fanboy moments.

 

[xaszatm]

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.

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.

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.

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

Spoiler

It felt as if there was one movie about Bruce Wayne and another about Robin (Can't remember his non-spoiler name) It felt I was jolted between the two films that happened to take place at the same time. Each film by themselves I enjoyed, but the movie would switch between the characters and almost forget the other.
Begining: Batman
Middle: Robin
Ending: Batman.

Also, I thought that Bruce surviving was pretty weak. I did like Robin taking Bruce's place but why was Bruce alive? It seems kind of dickish of him.

So yeah, thought the movie was good, not great. I didn't personally enjoyed it but saw where others could. So, do I deserve to be mocked at now?

 

[Mr.Pandah]

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.

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.

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.

Okay, I need to ask this. In what part of the review did Moviebob say that the film was bad? I watched it twice just to make sure I heard him correctly. He had problems with a few points but said that he liked a lot of the movie. What is with you people lately? Now it just seems that Bob cannot have an opinion that is different from yours.

Heck, I DIDN'T like the Dark Knight Rises. I thought it was a very good film, but it didn't feel like a Batman movie to me. Like Bob says, I thought that this was two separate movies that happened at the same time.

Spoiler

It felt as if there was one movie about Bruce Wayne and another about Robin (Can't remember his non-spoiler name) It felt I was jolted between the two films that happened to take place at the same time. Each film by themselves I enjoyed, but the movie would switch between the characters and almost forget the other.
Begining: Batman
Middle: Robin
Ending: Batman.

Also, I thought that Bruce surviving was pretty weak. I did like Robin taking Bruce's place but why was Bruce alive? It seems kind of dickish of him.

So yeah, thought the movie was good, not great. I didn't personally enjoyed it but saw where others could. So, do I deserve to be mocked at now?

I'm not mocking bob, nor will I mock you. I don't agree with his points levied against the film. I never said he thought the film was bad. I said he thought it had pacing issues bad enough for him to comment about them. That's where I disagree with him. Simple as that.

 

[-Torchedini-]

Mayor spoiling done here

Spoiler

I didn't like how they treated cat woman in the end. Yeah they don't say Hathaway is catwoman but it's hinted at with the goggles so anyway . I liked her entire performance in the beginning but after the Batman's back is broken and he needs to come back up it got really cheesy.
Also the software patch with the autopilot thing was a bit to tony stark level. Not something batman would do in my mind.

But the comeback in the end to do some good and the get together in florence felt a bit to forced on the character.

I liked Bruce having a bit of a relation with Talia and Talia flipping on him in the end. I worked up a whole conspiracy with my brother that the movie is saying that you shouldn't have intercourse and stuff . Nonsense but still...

Conclusion, I find the same things as you bob. It's a good movie but not a good ending or a worthy ending of the first 2.

 

[minuialear]

I guessed the twist near the end (and a few other things about the movie) even before I started watching it, but I still found them enjoying to watch--I doubt they were obvious to those who aren't as familiar with Batman's universe, and because Nolan didn't work to try to make these elements obvious to the lowest common denominator, they didn't feel obnoxiously obvious to me while watching the film.

I'd have agreed with that except for two things, spoilered for other people:

1.

Spoiler

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character's name at the end is Robin not Richard Grayson, not Tim Drake, his actual name is Robin. That's making it as obvious to the lowest common denominator as possible

2.

Spoiler

There is nothing to indicate Miranda is Talia Al'Ghul until she says it unless someone is well-versed in either the comic books or very recently watched the first movie. It's a basic violation of the entire concept of a twist to make it something impossible to predict, and for most of the audience it would be

I liked the movie, but I think we can admit that for all of the praise Nolan has gotten for being the first person to make "serious" superhero movies, or how fantastic his "gritty" reboot was, that TDKR is simply not the stuff of cinematic history.

For 1:

Spoiler

The name was obvious, but the fact that the character himself was to be a "Robin" was not, IMO. Therefore when given the obvious name, it still didn't feel obnoxious. It's not like you were expecting it the entire time and then he finally said it outright, such that all of us thought "FINALLY" when it was all said and done (we may have suspected it, but we weren't beaten over the head by the idea at all).

For 2

Spoiler

Her energy/eco-friendly-centric talk was a pretty big hint in that direction. As soon as she said it (combined with the fact Nolan stated before the film came out that there'd be 2 villainesses), it was pretty obvious, as I saw it. Only thing that made it less obvious was the fact that, again, Nolan went for subtlety, rather than beating us over the head with the fact that she was, in fact, Talia.

"Cinematic history" is a vague category so I won't touch that; I'd say it's definitely a contender for best of the trilogy though (can't say for sure until I've seen it a couple more times).

 

[Soundchekz]

TDKR was a great ending to the trilogy, sure there were a few things that didn't work, but it was still really good.

 

[Tono Makt]

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.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Ya know, I thought that people got warnings on these forums for calling other people trolls. I know I sure did, when I called out someone`s trolling. (Maybe they had to whine to the Moderators that someone was being mean to them for it to be done, hrm.)

The Avengers was a terribly disappointing movie, and I just don't see where so many fanboys are squee'ing themselves over it. Take out the Hulk`s fighting at the end, take out Black Widow's short "interrogation" scene, and the movie is terrible. It starts off with a rather boring sequence, the recruitment scenes (aside from Widow's interrogation scene) are barely meh with a healthy dose of "This is stupid even for a comic book movie." (see: Thor vs Iron Man vs Captain America on the mountain top.) Then once the team is "assembled" it turns into the Bruce and Tony Banter Show, where Thor, Cap, Widow and Fury are left with barely anything to say, and what they do say is rather anemic at best. Next up is a somewhat interesting fight on the Helicarrier before the only parts of the movie that are in any way worthy of a portion of the praise people have heaped onto it, which are the scenes where the Hulk is fighting the Chitauri giant flying bone things, the Hulk fighting the CGFBT's with Thor, and the Hulk fighting Loki.

Those scenes made the movie worth the price of admission, but take away those scenes and we'd be moaning about the Avengers being about as good as Green Lantern.

 

[Caligulove]

Just out of curiosity, what was the line lifted from 'Kingdom Come'? because that's easily my favorite graphic novel out there, and I'm surprised I would miss a nod to it. Any help on this one?

 

[VerdicAysen]

Bob,

I really have enjoyed most of your video's, but it's at this movie that I feel I can no longer watch your reviews. There are several really good reasons I feel this way.

The first thing? It's purely sociological that you find The Dark Knight the best movie in the series. Heather Ledger died when this film was being cut, and somehow that suddenly makes his character so much more important. Unfortunately, it was strictly interesting because Heath Ledger died and did try so hard to bring the character to life. In my opinion he was absolutely a throw away villain and they didn't really play out the effect that the Joker's plans had on Bruce Wayne until Rises. Alot of it was unsaid, but showed in several scenes. Had Ledger survived, that may have changed thing's and it's evident that certain parts of the film probably could have been cut away, or added to.

Let's cut to the chase. >>THE DARK KNIGHT WAS NOT BETTER THAN RISES.<< I honestly don't believe The Dark Knight even comes close to Rises. The Dark Knight didn't have the emotional effect that The Dark Knight Rises had. I don't recall looking around the theater three quarters of the way through TDK and finding almost the entire auditorium in tears because the content was so real, and touched everyone in some way. I found it incredible that as we all walked away we admitted to each other we never expected that out of a Batman movie. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that good, but it certainly wasn't Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. Sorry Moviebob, there was alot of subtext there, and you failed to notice it.

The truth is, Bruce Wayne had people in his life that knew he deserved better, that he shouldn't have been doomed to spend his entire life chained to a cause that was never going to be fulfilled. Not only that, but those same people were willing give their lives to see him accomplish an impossible task.

In the end, it's wrapped up beautifully, and it was worth the tears I shed to see the man walk away with some dignity, and I don't know about anybody else but I definitely paid good money to sit there and watch Batman get his ass kicked and then make a comeback. The only portion of Bob's review I agree with at all is the fact that the first 30 minutes were sort of needlessly drawn out. Outside of that, I was thrilled, and this will be a Day 1 BD purchase. Sorry, but this is better than BB AND TDK.

 

[Moeez]

I'm surprised Bob didn't bring up A Tale of Two Cities during the review. Huh. Gordon even reads from it.

TDKR did what what would happen from a great conclusion to the trilogy, a lot of people ending up emotional near the end. Whenever Alfred spoke to Bruce, tears welled up.

Saying this movie has no depth is a bit overboard. Begins was fear, TDK was chaos, and now TDKR is about pain which is pretty much from Nolan's mouth. This is the most I've disagreed with Bob on a review since Sucker Punch, and I wasn't enlightened like I would from a constructive negative assessment of a movie.

With comic book movies, it's best to take Bob's critiques with a grain of salt what with this over-bashing of Amazing Spiderman that felt more forced hate-mongering and deep-seated than I'd expect from his reviews. I didn't even see that movie but I could tell Bob had a chip on his shoulder.

Not as good as Avengers, c'mon. Get real. That movie is as shallow and bubble-gum as the one on the back of my shoe. There were no stakes in that movie, I didn't care for any of those superheroes' fates, it had awful pacing with that tragically bad opening sequence and then the excessive immersion-breaking amount of CGI in the last action setpiece removed any investment I had in the film-making. I applaud the technical feat of wrangling up all the Marvel franchises together, but as a film it just does not hold up.

 

[Don Reba]

Didn't Bob previously say that there would never be another Batman and Robin? Does it seem more likely now?

 

[Jegsimmons]

I disagree with everything, this was the best batman in the trilogy

While i do feel it had pacing issues, let be honest, this was a three hour movie, and its obvious they will probably release a directors cut adding probably another half hour.

Secondly, Bane was pulled off perfectly, so was cat woman, but then again they didnt need to be perfect with the comic books because the Nolan movies are a totally separate entity to any other batman story.
The action was amazing
the acting was down right heart string pulling
the ending was perfectly satisfying
the set pieces were the best ive ever seen
and i just fucking loved this movie, i have almost no citicisms outside of a longer version like a directors cut, but i consider that a compliment because it makes you want more.
Yes the second batman movie was fucking perfect, the first was the best origin story ever put to film, and this one is, in my opinion, the best in the series.

and what you said about structure...pfft. we've had 2 movies of set up, and this movie did not have faulty structure. it was made exactly like a batman story and no person was wasted.

And what you said about his first return being nearly pointless...thats the point, his second rise is the only rise, its the time he finally learned what he he was told and came to a realization that became his 'rise'


Go see this movie. i fucking rocks.