#601  
Old 07-27-2012, 09:13 AM
Was I hallucinating them showing Bane having a LoS mark at some point? I thought it was shown after it was revealed he rolled with them.
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 07-27-2012, 10:27 AM
I also really enjoyed the fight between Batman and Bane. We haven't had a true fight scene in the entire trilogy. The Joker wasn't a true adversary in strength. Even in Batman Begins we knew Batman was stronger and more agile. What I love is that Bane was a true force to be reckoned with. You felt his power, intelligence, and pain. The dialoue was great and you can really tell Chris Nolan has improved his action sequences since BB. I really believe it was an iconic and classic scene.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 07-27-2012, 11:50 AM
Skimming through the comments I feel that Anne Hathaway gets way too much credit for her role as Catwoman. Catwoman had no surprises at all, the archetype bad girl that turns out to be good. On the other hand, Tom Hardy should get more praise, because his Bane was incredible. I loved the way he articulated, his weird almost sophisticated speech pattern that contradicts his brutish henchman look.

I'm not as impressed with The Dark Knight Rises as others. I'm one of those people who did't understand the ultimate plan of the villain. Something about a revolution, something the people have to do, yet they are never shown. Yes in hiding, because criminals rule the city. In the end the plan is to use the nuke and blow up Gotham anyway, so why hold it hostage for months?

Sure there are other things, but it's just nitpicky to complain that the stockmarket scene started in the afternoon and ended in the night. Who cares that Catwoman knew how to handle the Batpod. She also dresses up (including massive stiletto heels) before she burgles people for no reason at all. And it's obvious that Bruce Wayne used the same teleporter to go from India to Gotham that the Avengers used to go from North America to Germany in 10 minutes.

There are far far worse movies than TDKR, but I feel it's too ambitious for it's own good.

All in all Nolan made a great trilogy, but for the next movies I hope they take the property a little less serious.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:09 PM
I feel like my inner child was traumatized watching Batman get broken.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 07-27-2012, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
Skimming through the comments I feel that Anne Hathaway gets way too much credit for her role as Catwoman. Catwoman had no surprises at all, the archetype bad girl that turns out to be good. On the other hand, Tom Hardy should get more praise, because his Bane was incredible. I loved the way he articulated, his weird almost sophisticated speech pattern that contradicts his brutish henchman look.

I'm not as impressed with The Dark Knight Rises as others. I'm one of those people who did't understand the ultimate plan of the villain. Something about a revolution, something the people have to do, yet they are never shown. Yes in hiding, because criminals rule the city. In the end the plan is to use the nuke and blow up Gotham anyway, so why hold it hostage for months?

Sure there are other things, but it's just nitpicky to complain that the stockmarket scene started in the afternoon and ended in the night. Who cares that Catwoman knew how to handle the Batpod. She also dresses up (including massive stiletto heels) before she burgles people for no reason at all. And it's obvious that Bruce Wayne used the same teleporter to go from India to Gotham that the Avengers used to go from North America to Germany in 10 minutes.

There are far far worse movies than TDKR, but I feel it's too ambitious for it's own good.

All in all Nolan made a great trilogy, but for the next movies I hope they take the property a little less serious.
LOL yeah but to bad you weren't paying attention that 15 days passed between rising from the pit to his reappearance in Gotham. I guess you wanted a scene where he got hassled by Indian customs officers and then groped by TSA in USA...lol useles nitpicking.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 07-27-2012, 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
LOL yeah but to bad you weren't paying attention that 15 days passed between rising from the pit to his reappearance in Gotham. I guess you wanted a scene where he got hassled by Indian customs officers and then groped by TSA in USA...lol useles nitpicking.
If you were paying attention I said it was nitpicky, so I don't mind. Then I compared it to a similar scene in Avengers that nobody bothered by using sarcasm and implying a certain level of hypocrisy. Sorry you had to stop masturbating on anything Chrisopher Nolan related by trying to correct me.

Last edited by Herald; 07-27-2012 at 04:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 07-27-2012, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I'm not sure if plot hole is the right word because I never really called the movie out for plot holes, but that I think Nolan didn't take advantage of the situation he created for the film. I don't mind plot holes if the story is really good. There was a lot of dramatic potential in this film, but the stakes just weren't there for me. I never felt as if anybody was in harm's way in TDKR. Not Batman, not Gordon, not John Blake, Catwoman... at least in TDK, it felt as if people could die at any moment. Killing off Rachel and having the Joker threaten Gotham's citizens directly elevated the stakes in that film giving it more suspense. You need to have high stakes in a film like this and for me, the nuke was a terrible way to convey that feeling simply because you know that it was never going to destroy Gotham. It's a MacGuffin in the worst sense of the word. At least with Batman Begins, Nolan was more clever for making that MacGuffin tie in with the Scarecrow's fear toxin. And we saw how it was affecting Gotham. Everyone was losing their minds on the drug. That rose the stakes in the climax. In TDKR, it was simply a nuke. He didn't go that extra step, which I was used to from the other Batman films he made.

It also reminds me of a great line from the Joker in the Dark Knight which explains my disappointment with this film: You didn’t think I’d risk the battle for Gotham’s soul in a fistfight with you? And that is essentially what the ending of TDKR film was. It was a giant fist fight over Gotham. Between Bane and Batman. Between the cops and the terrorists/inmates.
You've oversimplified the role of the nuke in this film. First off, the whole purpose of the opening sequence was to explain why Dr. Pavel was believed to be dead later on in the film. Pavel was the only one capable of turning Bruce's reactor into a nuclear weapon and if the world thought he was dead instead of captured or missing, they would feel a lot more at ease thinking that no one was planning to use him to arm a nuclear device.

2nd of all, the irony of the nuke plot device is that the nuke was created from a reactor that was meant to provide the world with an unlimited resource of clean energy. What makes this plot element even more ironic is that the hero in the film was responsible for the reactors existence. That to me is interesting; a device meant to help the world is converted into a weapon by the enemy. Even more interesting is the question is Bruce to blame for the weapon ending up in the hands of the enemy?

3rd of all, the joker didn't risk the fate of Gotham's soul on a fist fight because he knew he was physically outmatched by Batman. The joker is more of a psychological villain than a physical one. Bane, on the other hand, was the first villain in Nolan's trilogy that was actually stronger than Batman. He was a very proud villain, one that believed Batman could never defeat him.

Lastly, the stakes couldn't have been higher in this film. Nuclear war has been the planet's biggest fear for awhile now, and this fear is mirrored by the images of revolution, terrorism, and nuclear threats depicted in this film. There's no point in killing someone in the film for dramatic effect if the narrative doesn't call for it. This film wasn't about revenge, it was about Bruce's quest to reaffirm the importance of the value of his life. It was about him learning that he could have a life beyond the pain and tragedy he experienced, that he wasn't necessarily destined to be a martyr. When Bruce arose from the pit, he basically found a way to climb out of the darkness of his own life, to escape his despair. Hence the title, The Dark Knight Rises.

Last edited by psycheoutsteve; 07-27-2012 at 05:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 07-27-2012, 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
You've oversimplified the role of the nuke in this film. First off, the whole purpose of the opening sequence was to explain why Dr. Pavel was believed to be dead later on in the film. Pavel was the only one capable of turning Bruce's reactor into a nuclear weapon and if the world thought he was dead instead of captured or missing, they would feel a lot more at ease thinking that no one was planning to use him to arm a nuclear device.

2nd of all, the irony of the nuke plot device is that the nuke was created from a reactor that was meant to provide the world with an unlimited resource of clean energy. What makes this plot element even more ironic is that the hero in the film was responsible for the reactors existence. That to me is interesting; a device meant to help the world is converted into a weapon by the enemy. Even more interesting is the question is Bruce to blame for the weapon ending up in the hands of the enemy?

3rd of all, the joker didn't risk the fate of Gotham's soul on a fist fight because he knew he was physically outmatched by Batman. The joker is more of a psychological villain than a physical one. Bane, on the other hand, was the first villain in Nolan's trilogy that was actually stronger than Batman. He was a very proud villain, one that believed Batman could never defeat him.

Lastly, the stakes couldn't have been higher in this film. Nuclear war has been the planet's biggest fear for awhile now, and this fear is mirrored by the images of revolution, terrorism, and nuclear threats depicted in this film. There's no point in killing someone in the film for dramatic effect if the narrative doesn't call for it. This film wasn't about revenge, it was about Bruce's quest to reaffirm the importance of the value of his life. It was about him learning that he could have a life beyond the pain and tragedy he experienced, that he wasn't necessarily destined to be a martyr. When Bruce arose from the pit, he basically found a way to climb out of the darkness of his own life, to escape his despair. Hence the title, The Dark Knight Rises.
Thank you for pointing out those subtle things that Nolan didn't make clear in the film. I don't know how I missed them... So that's why the film is called the Dark Knight Rises? I thought it was just to sound cool and shit. Damn, you blew my mind chum. You blew my mind.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 07-27-2012, 06:57 PM
Jesus Christ, this is the one place on the internet this movie is being discussed without everybody acting like 12 year old boys, can we please keep it that way?
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 07-27-2012, 06:59 PM
For those who saw it in a true IMAX theater, did anybody else have a problem with the music being mixed way too high that it drowned out the dialogue in some scenes? Guess it was just my theater.

I personally loved the movie, although it was the messiest and most bloated of the 3.

I'm wondering...how does Bane eat? Nolan should have had a scene showing him scarfing down a sandwich or something. Plot hole?!!!
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 07-27-2012, 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Visions View Post
For those who saw it in a true IMAX theater, did anybody else have a problem with the music being mixed way too high that it drowned out the dialogue in some scenes? Guess it was just my theater.
Actually no, not with that, but even when there was no music it felt like the sound was too quiet in general. For instance when Bruce and Alfred are talking right before he leaves him, Bruce starts whispering stuff it was hard to hear.

But yeah definitely it felt like at my showing (at least) the sound was too low during some of the quieter dialogue scenes.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 07-27-2012, 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
Jesus Christ, this is the one place on the internet this movie is being discussed without everybody acting like 12 year old boys, can we please keep it that way?
I hope you ain't referring to me, because before Captain Obvious's condescending post, I've been pretty civil about my opinions on the film and have respected other schmoes. Until that is, Mr. High and Mighty decided to talk down to me as if those obvious points were somehow lost to a philistine like me.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 07-27-2012, 10:09 PM
.

Last edited by PBateman; 07-27-2012 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 07-27-2012, 11:07 PM
I saw TDKR last Saturday and absolutely loved it. It's very difficult for me to decide whether or not it's better than TDK. I think that if it wasn't for Heath Ledger's performance TDKR would easily be my favorite by leaps and bounds. It's amazing that Nolan can make a comic book film so powerful and emotional. Such a great ending to the trilogy.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 07-27-2012, 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Visions View Post
I'm wondering...how does Bane eat? Nolan should have had a scene showing him scarfing down a sandwich or something. Plot hole?!!!
I have to admit, I wondered this as well. Is there room for a straw in that mask of his? Maybe he's a smoothie type of guy.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 07-28-2012, 12:10 AM
So, how old was Bane again?
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 07-28-2012, 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I hope you ain't referring to me, because before Captain Obvious's condescending post, I've been pretty civil about my opinions on the film and have respected other schmoes. Until that is, Mr. High and Mighty decided to talk down to me as if those obvious points were somehow lost to a philistine like me.
I believe he was referring to you, seeing as how you overeacted and misinterpreted the intention of my post. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was merely trying to say I disagree with you and here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 07-28-2012, 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
So, how old was Bane again?
Probably in his early to mid-50s.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 07-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Bane is in his mid 40's , much like Bruce IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 07-28-2012, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
Bane is in his mid 40's , much like Bruce IMO.
He looked like a grown man when Talia was just a child. (maybe 10?)

If Talia is in her 30's (being generous), then Bane is AT LEAST 40, right?
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 07-28-2012, 09:45 AM
Bane could have easily been late teens with Talia in the pit. Full of angst.
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 07-28-2012, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
He looked like a grown man when Talia was just a child. (maybe 10?)

If Talia is in her 30's (being generous), then Bane is AT LEAST 40, right?
This is just another one of the small plot holes that makes this movie terrible.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
This is just another one of the small plot holes that makes this movie terrible.
Nah.
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
This is just another one of the small plot holes that makes this movie terrible.
Really? If you're that nitpicky every movie is going to suck.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
This is just another one of the small plot holes that makes this movie terrible.
LOL....how is this a plot hole? Bane was probably in his late teens when he saved Talia...wow.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 07-28-2012, 03:43 PM
Saw it last night and still can't decide which film is the best of the trilogy. So now that The Dark Knight trilogy is over...

Spoiler:
Can we expect a Robin spinoff entitled The Boy Wonder?
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 07-28-2012, 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightAngel View Post
Spoiler:
Can we expect a Robin spinoff entitled The Boy Wonder?
Not from Nolan
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:45 PM
I guess I am late to this party, but I have to say that overall I was very satisfied.

Sure there are things wrong with it, but I think it did a great job of fulfilling an almost impossible task.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
Really? If you're that nitpicky every movie is going to suck.
This isn't the only problem I had with the movie. On an earlier page of this forum I posted a list of problems I had with it. I simply found the storytelling, emotion, and overall film a big disappointment, especially from Nolan.
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
I believe he was referring to you, seeing as how you overeacted and misinterpreted the intention of my post. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was merely trying to say I disagree with you and here's why.
Okay, man, maybe you weren't being condescending. I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand, I have been dealing with just about everyone over the fact that I didn't enjoy the film. Please accept my apology. I just felt that you were explaining the plot of the film, which to me, came off like you were talking down to me as if I didn't see the same movie.

Anyway, I get all the plot points that Nolan went with concerning the nuke, but I saw it as window dressing. It was all to mask the simplicity of the device.

I simplified the nuke because films have history, and the Dark Knight Rises doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nuclear bombs have been used over and over in action and sci-fi films since the 1950's. You can use all the excuses you want about escalation and how it relates to Batman and our world, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an overused story device in action films. The fact that it was built for peace but then used to kill doesn't excuse that it's still a cliched MacGuffin to hinge your entire film on. It was irony in the weakest sense of the word. Like I said before, I found that aspect of the story very boring. It was a prosaic choice that lacks imagination. I never once believed it would ever go off or do harm to anybody because Nolan wouldn't have the balls to do that. Hence, there being no stakes for me as I watched the film.
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 07-28-2012, 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Okay, man, maybe you weren't being condescending. I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand, I have been dealing with just about everyone over the fact that I didn't enjoy the film. Please accept my apology. I just felt that you were explaining the plot of the film, which to me, came off like you were talking down to me as if I didn't see the same movie.

Anyway, I get all the plot points that Nolan went with concerning the nuke, but I saw it as window dressing. It was all to mask the simplicity of the device.

I simplified the nuke because films have history, and the Dark Knight Rises doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nuclear bombs have been used over and over in action and sci-fi films since the 1950's. You can use all the excuses you want about escalation and how it relates to Batman and our world, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an overused story device in action films. The fact that it was built for peace but then used to kill doesn't excuse that it's still a cliched MacGuffin to hinge your entire film on. It was irony in the weakest sense of the word. Like I said before, I found that aspect of the story very boring. It was a prosaic choice that lacks imagination. I never once believed it would ever go off or do harm to anybody because Nolan wouldn't have the balls to do that. Hence, there being no stakes for me as I watched the film.
Yeah, I think closing off Gotham forever and letting it go on in some pseudo-real version of Arkham City would have been a much better way to go. Gotham destroying itself from within was always the point anyway.

So that when Batman "returns" it's not the same city he knew and is, more or less, the more extreme one from the comic books. The one where crime is a battle Batman can't win - but fights anyway.

See, I've come to like that Bruce's journey has a happy ending. It almost never does. But I'm torn because one of Batman's most noble traits was that he's fighting a war he knows he can never actually win - and fights anyway.

When the Dark Knight was ready to "rise" I had hoped that meant Bruce came to understand there would be no end to Batman, not for Rachel or Alfred. And especially not for Bruce Wayne. Nolan sort of went the opposite, which, in an odd way, was also the opposite of most other superhero films - where the hero's journey typically "goes on." Swinging back to action, flying back to the mansion, or looking out over the city. That's the usual story anyway. But, in TDKR, Bruce finds a way to put Batman behind him, but more than that, his parents death and his guilt and hate and anger as well. To find real closure and get on with a happy life.

Im not really sure if thats ever been done in Batman before.

But it also just feels kind of "wrong."
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 07-28-2012, 06:29 PM
I actually don't mind that Nolan gave Batman a happy ending in the film. It felt appropriate. I just think he rushed the third act of the film because of how much time was spent setting up Bane and the plot. I agree that seeing Gotham in shambles would've been far more interesting to see than the corporate espionage involving Wayne Corp and Bane in the first half.

One thing that I've noticed: I've heard from a few friends that Robin was supposed to become the new Batman and not "Robin." That just bothers the hell out of me, because in no universe could Joseph Gordon Levitt ever be Batman. It's just not possible.
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 07-28-2012, 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I actually don't mind that Nolan gave Batman a happy ending in the film. It felt appropriate. I just think he rushed the third act of the film because of how much time was spent setting up Bane and the plot. I agree that seeing Gotham in shambles would've been far more interesting to see than the corporate espionage involving Wayne Corp and Bane in the first half.

One thing that I've noticed: I've heard from a few friends that Robin was supposed to become the new Batman and not "Robin." That just bothers the hell out of me, because in no universe could Joseph Gordon Levitt ever be Batman. It's just not possible.
My opinion on that is that he just WAS Robin already. Batman has a sidekick, his name is Robin.

--In the comics he swings around in an acrobat suit beating up thugs both twice his size and weight.

--In the film he's a cop with a shotgun who protects Gotham in Batman's absence by rescuing the cops and trying to save innocents.

Much more realistic but ultimately serves the same purpose. Blake would NEVER have put on a super-suit; and he's not even that skilled a fighter. But he COULD have used the cave as a resource in helping the city behind the scenes, most likely to continue monitoring the ongoing bureaucratic corruption rampant in Gotham.
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 07-28-2012, 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Okay, man, maybe you weren't being condescending. I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand, I have been dealing with just about everyone over the fact that I didn't enjoy the film. Please accept my apology. I just felt that you were explaining the plot of the film, which to me, came off like you were talking down to me as if I didn't see the same movie.

Anyway, I get all the plot points that Nolan went with concerning the nuke, but I saw it as window dressing. It was all to mask the simplicity of the device.

I simplified the nuke because films have history, and the Dark Knight Rises doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nuclear bombs have been used over and over in action and sci-fi films since the 1950's. You can use all the excuses you want about escalation and how it relates to Batman and our world, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an overused story device in action films. The fact that it was built for peace but then used to kill doesn't excuse that it's still a cliched MacGuffin to hinge your entire film on. It was irony in the weakest sense of the word. Like I said before, I found that aspect of the story very boring. It was a prosaic choice that lacks imagination. I never once believed it would ever go off or do harm to anybody because Nolan wouldn't have the balls to do that. Hence, there being no stakes for me as I watched the film.
I see what you're saying, but I think even if Nolan replaced the nuke with some other city-ending device or high stakes plot element, we would still know that he wasn't just going to destroy Gotham. I think that fact is especially true with this film, which is the definitve end to Nolan's trilogy and Bruce Wayne's story. The whole "Arkham City" idea is pretty cool and all, but I don't it would of fit in Nolan's Batman films, especially considering his intentions regarding Bruce's story. I remember in TDK Nolan sort of harkens back to the idea of having Batman fight a never-ending war of crime with a specific line from the Joker: "You know, I think you and I are destined to do this forever." However, I think after seeing TDKR my perception of that line has changed to seeing it as merely a wink to all the never-ending battles between Batman and the Joker in the comics. IMO, Nolan did something more ballsy than blowing up Gotham City; he ended Bruce Wayne's journey as Batman. Never before has there ever been a conclusive ending to Bruce's war on crime in a Batman film. He may have passed his legacy on to someone else, but Batman is over for Bruce.

And you don't need to apologize, it's all good man. I respect your right to have an opinion, it's just in my nature to get all analytical and dissect plot elements with elaborate, (and sometimes overly elaborate) breakdowns. No disrespect intended.
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 07-28-2012, 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I actually don't mind that Nolan gave Batman a happy ending in the film. It felt appropriate.
Yeah I don't understand why people have an issue with this.

Mask of the Phantasm had my all-time favorite Batman scene. Bruce, after falling in love, goes to his parents' grave and apologizes that he isn't consumed by guilt any more and begs his dead parents to forgive him. He says something about not fulfilling his vow, wanting someone else to take the risk, wanting to help in other ways (giving money), and that he "didn't count on being happy" when he first promised to become the protector of Gotham. Again, to me, it's the most powerful scene in Batman's movie history by far, and more memorable than any Batman comic scene I've ever read.

I bring it up because there was always an out for Bruce: falling in love and becoming happy. He wasn't doomed to the Batman Beyond fate. If done right, it feels ok. As Soda mentiond before, Selina is the perfect woman to accomplish this. I think Nolan did it perfectly. He was ready to give it up for Rachel, but the time wasn't right. Now, it was: he wasn't physically capable of being the same kind of Batman as before. The police force wasn't as corrupt thanks to Gordon and Blake (under-the-radar exchange from this movie: Alfred suggesting that Bruce gives his technology to the proper authorities for use, and Bruce basically saying he couldn't trust them to do what's right). I thought it was a beautiful ending.

The more I discuss this film with my friends and in this thread, the more I like it.
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 07-28-2012, 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I actually don't mind that Nolan gave Batman a happy ending in the film. It felt appropriate. I just think he rushed the third act of the film because of how much time was spent setting up Bane and the plot. I agree that seeing Gotham in shambles would've been far more interesting to see than the corporate espionage involving Wayne Corp and Bane in the first half.
I also agree about the "happy ending". By the way, when I read your posts I hear the voice of Mike from Breaking Bad. It's slightly menacing, let me tell you. Love the avatar.
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 07-29-2012, 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
You have to understand, I have been dealing with just about everyone over the fact that I didn't enjoy the film.
You and me both Cop No. 633. To reword a famous TDK quote from the Joker, "If after watching TDKR I were to say it was the greatest ending of any trilogy or that Christopher Nolan had 'done it again,' nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that I didn't really enjoy the movie, well then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS! Introduce a little difference of opinion, upset the established order and everything becomes chaos."

Every person's favorite movie has many flaws, mine especially (V for Vendetta) but yeah, I have never faced so much backlash for vocalizing a negative opinion of a movie as I have concerning TDKR. For the most part this forum has been very good about simply disagreeing and not attacking each other so I'm grateful for that. In fact, when TDK came out I remember one guy in this forum that gave it a 6/10 and I was so interested in why he did not like the movie as much as I did. If anything, it gave me a different point of view to reconsider my own opinions.

On a totally different note, did anyone else find the music to be somewhat repetitive in this film, especially the Bane theme that seemed to be an endless track playing in the background for scenes on end?
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 07-29-2012, 01:28 AM
I get that some people aren't fully pleased with how Bane turned out. I admit, I thought he would turn out to be more memorable. During the scene where Gordon stumbles on Bane in the sewer I thought: "And here we go..." but he does end up being somewhat run of the mill. I thought he was strong enough that it didn't harm my enjoyment of the film though.

The first hour is pretty much what I expected. Cop noted in the other thread that the first hour is basically Bruce Wayne moping. Which I find understandable given what happened in TDK. But I do understand that some people aren't happy even though I'm a bit defensive in regards to this film.
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 07-29-2012, 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
On a totally different note, did anyone else find the music to be somewhat repetitive in this film, especially the Bane theme that seemed to be an endless track playing in the background for scenes on end?
I'm glad this was brought up. It was one part I didn't totally enjoy with the film. At times it seemed, it's hard to explain, but kind of unnecessary. I mean, it seemed a bit overdramatic at times when it maybe wasn't warranted. I felt like Zimmer was screaming at me to pay attention but then not much would actually happen.
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 07-29-2012, 02:35 AM
I don't know what music you're all talking about. Didn't bother me, and I don't know why it would - I guess you're the same people that found Joker's THEME annoying too. I will say I fucking loved the Gotham Stock Exchange sequence, and THIS bit of music particularly. Nolan just knows how to use those one-note strings to build up the intensity of a scene/sequence. Love it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump