What's new

The Dark Knight Rises

If no one wants me to put my detailed opinion of the film here, I'll wait a few days. Otherwise, let me know. BTW, I forgot about The Prestige. Though I felt like it just sort of droned along, I did think it was a better film or at least had much better craftsmanship than TDKR which felt sort of muddled and rushed, especially during the first third of the movie, which is really saying something given its' running time.
 
Yes. It does surprise me. Otherwise I wouldn't be writing about it.

Have you seen a (comic book) movie so scrutinized?

I never saw anyone write that Dark Knight was the worst nolan had made. Sure, not everyone loved it. But I don't recall anyone on this board really writing anything critical about it. The debate wasn't whether it was good or bad but if it was good or great.

The debate was whether it was overhyped or not.

This movie thus far in the first 3 pages of the thread is described as "epic" "best of the trilogy" and as "worst made by Nolan" and "worst of the trilogy."

Did someone here walk into Ted thinking it was Batman or something?

Considering the epicness of this trilogy "worst of the series" places it about 85% of movies made.

As for being suprised...wow...
 
Let me just say too that I knew little about the film and did not have high expectations and thus did not naturally go in for the obvious letdown.
 
Sometimes I wonder if some of you folks even watched the same movie.

I read a few posts that it was "epic" and that just the last 10 mins of the movie are worth the ticket prices.

Then I read a few other posts that say it was Nolan's worst film or the worst of the trilogy...

Jeez!

I can understand having different opinions of the movie. But why such a huge difference?

Did you even watch the same movie?

reminds me of inception people loved it or hated it.
never met anybody who thought it was avg or inbetween.
just one of the best movies or one of the worde
 
If no one wants me to put my detailed opinion of the film here, I'll wait a few days. Otherwise, let me know. BTW, I forgot about The Prestige. Though I felt like it just sort of droned along, I did think it was a better film or at least had much better craftsmanship than TDKR which felt sort of muddled and rushed, especially during the first third of the movie, which is really saying something given its' running time.
atleast give hatteway credit. she did an amazing job at acting
 
atleast give hatteway credit. she did an amazing job at acting

I think she is amazingly hot and I like her (any woman that thinks receiving anal is super hot and loves it gets brownie points). I just have a hard time seeing her as cat woman. Reports are she nailed it but I just have a hard time believing it. I am sure seeing the movie will cure me of that.
 
I think she is amazingly hot and I like her (any woman that thinks receiving anal is super hot and loves it gets brownie points). I just have a hard time seeing her as cat woman. Reports are she nailed it but I just have a hard time believing it. I am sure seeing the movie will cure me of that.
she is never called cat woman :D
 
atleast give hatteway credit. she did an amazing job at acting

No doubt bro. She was fantastic!!! And Hardy was very good if not great. I don't think many will feel that way but imo his mask is the main reason people may not be so impressed with his performance. It covered his lifeblood. But his charismatic ringleader-like voice, though totally unintelligible for a few lines for me, was great, as was his sensational physical transformation and performance, though if I'm honest, I wonder if he had a stunt double for some scenes. All that said, I had a ton of issues with the film. If you want, I'll divulge them with a massive spoilers alert prior.
 
Last edited:
I think she is amazingly hot and I like her (any woman that thinks receiving anal is super hot and loves it gets brownie points). I just have a hard time seeing her as cat woman. Reports are she nailed it but I just have a hard time believing it. I am sure seeing the movie will cure me of that.

She really was stellar.
 
No doubt bro. She was fantastic!!! And Hardy was very good if not great. I don't think many will feel that way but imo his mask is the main reason people may not be so impressed with his performance. It covered his lifeblood. But his charismatic ringleader-like voice, though totally unintelligible for a few lines for me, was great, as was his sensational physical transformation and performance, though if I'm honest, I wonder if he had a stunt double for some scenes. All that said, I had a ton of issues with the film. If you want, I'll divulge them with a massive spoilers alert prior.

Yes please. Ive seen it twice and I cant figure out why some people dont like it yet.
 
No doubt bro. She was fantastic!!! And Hardy was very good if not great. I don't think many will feel that way but imo his mask is the main reason people may not be so impressed with his performance. It covered his lifeblood. But his charismatic ringleader-like voice, though totally unintelligible for a few lines for me, was great, as was his sensational physical transformation and performance, though if I'm honest, I wonder if he had a stunt double for some scenes. All that said, I had a ton of issues with the film. If you want, I'll divulge them with a massive spoilers alert prior.

I had lots of problems with it too. Didn't hate it, but it's not as good as the first two.
 
Yes please. Ive seen it twice and I cant figure out why some people dont like it yet.

SPOILERS ALERT....DO NOT READ THIS PARTICULAR POST BELOW THIS UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE SPOILED...

I had a lot of issues...A LOT...many of which I won't even remember 'til I see it a second time soon enough. Here they are in no particular order.

1) Opening 20 second scene w/ Oldman...it felt odd to enter that way, then the fading and cutting to the men driving with Bane in the backseat. In short, that opening scene with Jim Gordon served no purpose and it was an extremely awkward opening and then transition to the scene with Bane. They should've just started with the latter as right after Bane's escape, we discover it's eight years later at Dent's holiday party anyway.

2) Flashbacks: They're not easy to pull off and Nolan beat us over the head with what? Five or so of them? There are many other, more advanced ways, to develop such scenes, without providing the flashback to help spoonfeed the viewer in some pathetic way to not so subtly help us tie everything together. We didn't need them. Maybe one, or two at the most...but they were way too frequent.

3) Development of character--everything felt rushed over the first third of the movie...The Joker's "background" was developed through his twisted stories about how he got his scars, through his layered dialogue. Bane? We just get these glimpses late in the film of his backstory. Nolan's reasons for doing such are clear to me but still, Bane never felt developed. Nor did Tate. Nor did Blake. Hathaway did a little just because she did such a wonderful job. And even pity party Wayne suddenly deciding to become Batman again, with no strong motivation, felt weak and contrived. I didn't buy it. Oh yeah, and FWIW, Bane was basically just Tate's bitch. Seriously.

4) Odd editing...we go from late daylight in one shot to darkness in the next (via the television) in a chase scene...a couple other errors like that too...

5) Shaky supporting roles...did we really need the guy from Reno 911 to play Wayne's doctor? Or Matthew Modine to play the pathetic cop? I'd rather have nobodies, so to speak...they just drew attention to themselves. That's never good. There were one or two more who I forget.

6) Bane's voice. I liked Hardy a lot. Maybe even loved him. But he was fairly tough to understand and completely unintelligible to me 3-5 times.

7) Writing--Gordon's wife and kids packed up for....wait...Cleveland? Then, we bring the President of the U.S. in later on...this felt very odd and out of place...Gotham felt like its' own world so to speak...a comic book world...then we bring in this crap.

8) The city--Batman Begins was heavily slummy. The next one had some slum scenes but much more downtown, skyscraper **** going on. When it came to Gotham, both were filmed heavily in Chicago. This one not only felt different than those two Gothams. It was. Pitt, NJ, NYC...it was all over the place as far as feel goes.

9) Plot--they said Gotham had 12 million people in this movie. In a previous one (BB or TDK), I think they give a number as well...for some reason I thought it was more...like 15 or 18M. Regardless, evidently a city 50% bigger in population than NYC is able to, within seconds, have its entire police force trapped underground. Or so it seemed. Give me a break. About, what, maybe 25% of the force would have been there? At most? If that? And for the record, there are 35,000 NYC police department staff. Obviously those are not all cops but you get the point. And what? Bane, some of his men, and the 1,000 dudes he broke out of prison were going to fend them all off. Meh.

10) "Gotham, this is your liberation." Evidently, a city whose become quite stable and whose residents have found solace, will upon these words, begin looting and assaulting one another like that. No matter their true natures. Bane's words evidently just changed them as people. And why? Because Gordon supposedly lied. Give me a break. I mean, I know when a political figure is said to have lied, I begin raping and pillaging those around me overnight. Again, this wasn't old, helpless Gotham. The city had grown strong and safe.

11) Evidently, we are to believe that a very physically fit Bale can barely jump from one ledge to the next, just grabbing on with his hands....but a five year old girl can manage her first time...yeah, that's believable.

12) Kicky's favorite--booming music. It didn't overtake the entire film but man, in that airplane scene, I felt like Helen Keller trying to figure how out what people were saying at certain points, especially Bane.


That's all for now. Once I see it again, I'll be able to provide a few more. And for the record, I really didn't go in with high expectations. And I wasn't looking for flaws. These things just jumped out at me as totally unbelievable. Especially from the get go.
 
SPOILERS ALERT....DO NOT READ THIS PARTICULAR POST BELOW THIS UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE SPOILED...

I had a lot of issues...A LOT...many of which I won't even remember 'til I see it a second time soon enough. Here they are in no particular order.

1) Opening 20 second scene w/ Oldman...it felt odd to enter that way, then the fading and cutting to the men driving with Bane in the backseat. In short, that opening scene with Jim Gordon served no purpose and it was an extremely awkward opening and then transition to the scene with Bane. They should've just started with the latter as right after Bane's escape, we discover it's eight years later at Dent's holiday party anyway.

2) Flashbacks: They're not easy to pull off and Nolan beat us over the head with what? Five or so of them? There are many other, more advanced ways, to develop such scenes, without providing the flashback to help spoonfeed the viewer in some pathetic way to not so subtly help us tie everything together. We didn't need them. Maybe one, or two at the most...but they were way too frequent.

3) Development of character--everything felt rushed over the first third of the movie...The Joker's "background" was developed through his twisted stories about how he got his scars, through his layered dialogue. Bane? We just get these glimpses late in the film of his backstory. Nolan's reasons for doing such are clear to me but still, Bane never felt developed. Nor did Tate. Nor did Blake. Hathaway did a little just because she did such a wonderful job. And even pity party Wayne suddenly deciding to become Batman again, with no strong motivation, felt weak and contrived. I didn't buy it. Oh yeah, and FWIW, Bane was basically just Tate's bitch. Seriously.

4) Odd editing...we go from late daylight in one shot to darkness in the next (via the television) in a chase scene...a couple other errors like that too...

5) Shaky supporting roles...did we really need the guy from Reno 911 to play Wayne's doctor? Or Matthew Modine to play the pathetic cop? I'd rather have nobodies, so to speak...they just drew attention to themselves. That's never good. There were one or two more who I forget.

6) Bane's voice. I liked Hardy a lot. Maybe even loved him. But he was fairly tough to understand and completely unintelligible to me 3-5 times.

7) Writing--Gordon's wife and kids packed up for....wait...Cleveland? Then, we bring the President of the U.S. in later on...this felt very odd and out of place...Gotham felt like its' own world so to speak...a comic book world...then we bring in this crap.

8) The city--Batman Begins was heavily slummy. The next one had some slum scenes but much more downtown, skyscraper **** going on. When it came to Gotham, both were filmed heavily in Chicago. This one not only felt different than those two Gothams. It was. Pitt, NJ, NYC...it was all over the place as far as feel goes.

9) Plot--they said Gotham had 12 million people in this movie. In a previous one (BB or TDK), I think they give a number as well...for some reason I thought it was more...like 15 or 18M. Regardless, evidently a city 50% bigger in population than NYC is able to, within seconds, have its entire police force trapped underground. Or so it seemed. Give me a break. About, what, maybe 25% of the force would have been there? At most? If that? And for the record, there are 35,000 NYC police department staff. Obviously those are not all cops but you get the point. And what? Bane, some of his men, and the 1,000 dudes he broke out of prison were going to fend them all off. Meh.

10) "Gotham, this is your liberation." Evidently, a city whose become quite stable and whose residents have found solace, will upon these words, begin looting and assaulting one another like that. No matter their true natures. Bane's words evidently just changed them as people. And why? Because Gordon supposedly lied. Give me a break. I mean, I know when a political figure is said to have lied, I begin raping and pillaging those around me overnight. Again, this wasn't old, helpless Gotham. The city had grown strong and safe.

11) Evidently, we are to believe that a very physically fit Bale can barely jump from one ledge to the next, just grabbing on with his hands....but a five year old girl can manage her first time...yeah, that's believable.

12) Kicky's favorite--booming music. It didn't overtake the entire film but man, in that airplane scene, I felt like Helen Keller trying to figure how out what people were saying at certain points, especially Bane.


That's all for now. Once I see it again, I'll be able to provide a few more. And for the record, I really didn't go in with high expectations. And I wasn't looking for flaws. These things just jumped out at me as totally unbelievable. Especially from the get go.

SPOILER ALERT


I agree with most of this.

You mentioned how Bane turns out to just be Talia's bitch, but I had problems with Bane even before that--mainly with his motivation. Before going in I was worried that his motivation for destroying Gotham would be no more than "to finish what Ra's started" and that actually turned out to be the case. In Batman Begins you have Ra's explaining that he believes Gotham has become increasingly corrupt and needs to die; he wants to destroy Gotham in the name of justice and to restore balance. In The Dark Knight you have Alfred's whole speech about how "some men just want to watch the world burn" and later on the Joker's speeches about the importance of chaos and even refers to himself as an "agent of chaos." I didn't feel Bane had his own m.o. like a villain of his caliber deserves. And a character's reasons for their actions are what make them interesting in the first place.
 
wes didnt see the movie twice yet, was gonna go but had some bussines to take care off

anywho with a complicated plot with "twist turns" people always seem to complain.
i withold judgemnt on it al until i see it 3-4 times.
for now i liked it, second i didnt notice that the movie takes place in about a 11-months- a year. not counting the scenes where alfred sees wayne/selina.

a friend of mine said in banes flashback storie they said something abut bane being born in darkness(eg the pit), so bane might be pure evil
but talias back story sais it proves she was actually the one born in the pit. so yeah that puts a plothole in banes origin. unless i had this discusion with a friend who also saw it only once
if bane wa spure evil why did he help thalia.
maybe bane was also born in the pit of darkness, meaning his mother was also there. so what if what happened to thalias mother also happened to bane. him being pure evil could relate to thalia and thats why he helped her out.
thjere are more discuscion like this i had about the movie some resolved some unresolved until watching a second/3rd viewing.
 
Back
Top