The Dark Knight Rises

[corran horn]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I agree with many of your points. I think people call this a masterpiece because they've been so blinded by Nolan's 'greatness' that they think it's fundamentally impossible for him to make a mistake.

I have to say that I am more than a little offended by this comment. It's fine if you didn't like it but don't go casting aspersions on those of us who did. Personally, I liked TDKR better than TDK, for reasons DaveyJones already stated. I even like Hardy as Bane better than Ledger. Heresy though that may be, Hardy's Bane resonated more with me...to the point where I wanted more scenes of him.

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

I agree that TDKR has no new flaws that can't be found in the previous films of the franchise. In fact in some ways it's the best of trilogy. TDKR has the strongest and most exciting final act of the trilogy, whereas the first two films peaked somewhere in the 2nd act. TDKR does feel more rushed, and has the worst editing of the trilogy, and I think a lot of issues would be alleviated with a longer cut of the film.

It's on par with the other two films. Batman Begins wasn't perfect, but coming off of Batman and Robin it seemed like a masterpiece. The Dark Knight wasn't perfect, but Ledger's performance elevated it and made people ignore its flaws. TDKR isn't perfect, but the hype and anticipation building off of the second film lead to inevitable disappointment for some viewers.

It just seems like a lot of nitpicks are being cited as deal-breakers here. Narratively, visually, and thematically TDKR is just as strong if not stronger than a film like the Avengers. But I'm not seeing anything close to level of nitpicking on the Avengers, it seems like people are able to relax and enjoy themselves for that movie while they want to pick TDKR apart. I think Nolan's biggest mistake was setting the bar too high in his own franchise.

I agree with Shini that sometimes people just don't vibe with a movie. It can be technically flawless but if it doesn't suck you in, compel you and invest you in the story then it's all pointless. Plot holes be damned! I've overlooked many plot holes for the sake of mise-en-scene for countless films, independent and blockbuster. If a movie is entertaining enough it doesn't matter what rules it breaks. Some film movements like the French New Wave revolve around and embrace the breaking of cinematic rules. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I hated Breathless but loved Pierrot le Fou. Alas it seems TDKR is not clicking for some viewers, and that's cool, but don't dismiss others as fanboys just because the movie did click for them. The implications about enjoying Nolan's bodily fluids are especially off-putting.

Well done, sir! This expresses my thoughts completely. I'll try to have my own review posted this weekend.

[MovieMan50]

I'm sorry, I saw it twice. I've thought about the film for weeks. It was my biggest anticipated film of the year. I wanted to love it so much. But it's so lazy, so fake, so contrived and conventional. Hell I even thought it was incomplete as a "movie". There is no designated beginning and end. Shit just starts happening on top of other shit in the plot.

I of course respect people's opinions, but damn,i'm very VERY suprised some are calling this a "masterpiece" or "the best of the trilogy". Man, I think you guys need to stop and actually listen to yourselves.

Others have posted problems similiar to mine, Alfred leaving is just unexplained, tacked on,nothing like the previous two films Alfred, and awfully staged (by a staircase somewhere in Wayne Manor I guess?)

Selina Kyle is in the movie, not Catwoman. How did she obtain her suit, goggles, boots...whose her lesbo friend? why does Selina just mindlessly walk around Gotham as its torn apart? But she takes time to save a kid who stole an apple? From who? Bad guys that will beat a kid up for stealing an apple? What? Bruce is like "I want your ass on my face, there's still good in you" after she double crossed him, stole his car, attempted to break into his home twice to rob him, thats it. In terms of human moments between catwoman and bruce, the dance sequence is the ONLY development time for their relationship. How do these two just fall in love suddenly? After Rachel kept Bruce away for 8 YEAAAARS, he fucks 2 women in the film. What the...

Black knowing Bruce is Bats is conventionality in the plot. Nolan shouldve stayed far away from this cop out. Too much he didnt explain that didnt make Blake believable in the slightest. Thats what sucks about the Robin twist. This guy has shown absolutely no traits even to showcase himself as the heir to Batman. He drives a fucking bus around of orphans, and yells at cops from across a bridge. If you think about it, the Blake character could've been completely cut out of the film and there would be no impact on the plot of his absence.

Gordon is a waste. He's bed ridden sick at first, then he owns two dudes coming to kill him, hes back on his feet, then comes the span of the cops working with some sargeant who comes in wearing a brown jacket? (thats how I remember him as hes given no name or object to be involved other than to get shot down by machine guns) Oh, and how hilarious is it watching Gordon at the end, on the back of the BOMB truck, dropping the detonator inbetween the spaces in the trucks trailer? and his "dramatic action" at that moment is to, bend over, reach into the little hole where he dropped it, and pick it back up.....I mean, I was laughing and shaking my head at this point. Good thing the Talia death scene made me feel better....(ha, it didn't.) Talia just...dies in the truck...being watched by the 3 heroes who could be using this time to get rid of a bomb.

The ending "CHAAAAARGE" by the cops is one of the lamest battle sequences I've ever seen. In the overhead shot of the two sides clashing, if you look hard enough, you can see cop extras with guns begin to stand holding their guns up in the air as the terrorists bump into them, seemingly not even using their guns. They stand and wait for the other bad guys to run towards them. Watch for this next time, awful. Kills any sense of drama or tension, they literally get to the enemy and stand.

Also about the ending "charge", um, the terrorists with guns, even with 300 cops charging at you, would still mow down the entire group of cops if they all shot at the same time and if they were smart and not limited by Nolans lack of "realism" in this film, even though Nolan's all about making stuff "real". fuck that

Bane's death sucks, "Ohhhh I think guns are better batz see I just blew up that one guy with your cannons, so now dont bother on beating Bane and getting some payback, I did it for you, oh I'm still in the movie by the way" Batman is fucking stabbed by Talia, but it's cool. Gordon's reveal of him lying about Dent by Bane reading his letter in a cheesefest oration in front of 70 ppl outside a prison, Blake is all pissed at him, then suddenly not one other aspect of this reveal is even hinted the rest of the movie.

The prison is "hell on earth".....plus cable tv....and chiropractors...and dudes who sit around and chant all day for ppl who try to escape. Didnt these same prisoners rape Talias mom? And beat up Bane? What? Oh, and if you do get out of the prison, you throw a rope down and let the other rapists and murderers a way out, smooth Bruce.

Batman cant call Talia's bluff? He can get back from the middle east to Gotham because, as Nolan praisers say, "hes batman". Then why does his intellect and skills as the worlds greatest detective not help him identify easliy that this woman Tate is using him to take over Wayne Enterprises, is Rhas al ghuls daughter, and is teamed up with Bane? Gay, conventionality. Who needs to go into depth with anything in this movie anyway? Ppl still obviouusly loved it and hail it as a masterpiece.

The gasoline symbol on the bridge, yeah ok Bats just stand on that thin as fuck ice with your 80LB suit with a flare ready, the "people's" court? exile or death? what did that court system even do to show Bane's point to Gotham? Seemed unfair as fuck to me. The bomb ending, oh god, {"the auto pilot worked tho dude!" oh yea, your right, Bats jumped out of the pod and swam 6 miles deep into the ocean so the bomb's huge radius wouldnt kill not just him, but tidal waves and radiation also would not hit Gotham pretty hard...

You simply HAVE to show how Batman gets back into the locked down Gotham. Jesus, someone used an example of Batman just showing up on another planet, would you let that go unexplained? The National Guard cant even get into the city, at least show him scuba under the ice or something!!!! you have 260 million dollars on the budget Nolan you idiot.

Sorry, but I could tear this movie a new A HOLE anyday. If you did read my arguments, thank you. This came from a huge batman and nolan fan. Albeit a dissapointed Batman and Nolan fan. It has decent parts, but these flaws IMO kill the movie.

[corran horn]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

I of course respect people's opinions, but damn,i'm very VERY suprised some are calling this a "masterpiece" or "the best of the trilogy". Man, I think you guys need to stop and actually listen to yourselves.

Nope. All we need is some respect for a diverging viewpoint. There's more than a few films popular on this site that I'm not especially fond of, but I don't fault other people for liking them.

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

There is no designated beginning and end. Shit just starts happening on top of other shit in the plot.

I couldn't help but laugh at this . . . there's no beginning, but shit just STARTS happening.

So . . . how does a movie actually begin?

[MovieMan50]

What i mean by "shit just starts happening" is the odd placement of gary oldmans 12 second speech, followed by the airplane sequence,then a party at bruce waynes house...i just felt this entire opening stretch is just oddly paced and poorly edited.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

What i mean by "shit just starts happening" is the odd placement of gary oldmans 12 second speech, followed by the airplane sequence,then a party at bruce waynes house...i just felt this entire opening stretch is just oddly paced and poorly edited.

I think this was one of those movies that needed to be like four hours long. Hopefully theres a decently extended directors cut.

[xseanymacx]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

What i mean by "shit just starts happening" is the odd placement of gary oldmans 12 second speech, followed by the airplane sequence,then a party at bruce waynes house...i just felt this entire opening stretch is just oddly paced and poorly edited.

I would, without causing a shit storm or personal attacks, like you to elaborate more on your distaste for the airplane scene. I, personally, believe it sets up Bane's character, his motivations, the entire film's plot, as well as potential consequences rather perfectly.

[Silverload]

I seen this for a second time, and I can't shake the feeling that if this didn't have Nolan's name on it everyone would rip it apart.

Like for instance the flaming Bat symbol. I remember Daredevil & Punisher taking so much shit for using the hilariously cliched flaming symbol of the hero. Even reviewers made fun of it. The Crow did it first, and then too many superhero film have since lazily copied it. Yet, for some reason it is not okay for all the other films to do this, but it is okay for TDKR to do it. Because its Batman.

[MovieMan50]

Originally Posted by xseanymacx

I would, without causing a shit storm or personal attacks, like you to elaborate more on your distaste for the airplane scene. I, personally, believe it sets up Bane's character, his motivations, the entire film's plot, as well as potential consequences rather perfectly.

I will break the scene down by its layers. What works about Nolans filmmaking sometimes is his awesome use of tone and momentum to completely trick the audience into not noticing blatant jumps or leaps in logic. For instance,

The CIA is waiting for a van dropping off "prisoners" of banes army. Of course some will call this nitpicking, but the dumbass CIA officer never checks who the prisoners are. He leaves the bags on their heads and loads them onto the plane. If this was shown, ppl would go "why havent they moved the bags off their heads?" instead, it immediately cuts to the plane in motion, already airborn, then leads to the CIA guy with a gun to their heads. These quick cuts divert the audience to not think about this.

The CIA plane fails to have radar that picks up the plane hovering right above them attaching cables to their plane. Nitpicking? Maybe, but its sad to think how dumb these CIA guys have already been 3 minutes into the scene.

I hated the dialogue of the main officer...

"IF I TAKE THAT OFF WILL YOU DIE?!!"

"Itd be extremely painful"

"YOUR A BIG GUY!!!"

"For you."

Also gotta love

"WAS THIS PART OF YOUR PLAN????!!!"
And "WELL YOUR CAUGHT! WHATS THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR MASTER PLAN?!!!!"

The military could easily tell this plane didnt just "crash", the wings are blown off with explosives. I may have missed why exactly banes trying to fake this guys death by switching blood with him. But dont they still have dental records? Does the fake even look like the doctor? Again some call it nitpicking,but this isnt as smooth of an introducion as joker killing off his bank robbers (although the way he times the buses up is crazy)

I guess it just kinda drove me nuts how forces of serious authority are treated like dumb henchmen. Not just in the beginning, it happens throughout the movie. He wants realism but there are still things that dont work in the "world" nolans creating. Yes there is some of this in TDK and even BB but not the level of Rises.

And remember that i am an avid nolan fan, i thought this was his worst film yet, but thats not saying its a terrible film. Just on nolans level of detail And scene consistency, rises is lacking. Even TDK has some AMAZING directorial shots, rises directing is stagnant.

Back to the plane sequence one more time, concerning the direction. Its hard for imax cams to shoot in that condensed plane set. You can tell the camera is crammed into the damn thing. The editing and switching between characters is awful, with dialogue running into eachother between cuts. I mean its a small thing,but the quality is diminshed for me when i notice this kind of stuff

Jeez i type too much, hope you can see my frustration with the scene when its broken down, which normally, is what u want to do after a nolan film, break it down and discuss it. But with Rises, thinking back through it reveals some problems narratively and even technically. I expected better from nolan, supposedly one of the more sophisticated filmmakers working today.

[halflife]

Hahah, I like your plane scene breakdown.

I'll add to it.

Not only are the wings blown off with explosives, but then AFTER that. It is being carried how many more miles by ANOTHER plane before it actually crashes. So investigators are supposed to believe it's wings blew off mysteriously, and somehow flew many many many more miles before crashing?

Odd.

[xseanymacx]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

I will break the scene down by its layers. What works about Nolans filmmaking sometimes is his awesome use of tone and momentum to completely trick the audience into not noticing blatant jumps or leaps in logic. For instance,

The CIA is waiting for a van dropping off "prisoners" of banes army. Of course some will call this nitpicking, but the dumbass CIA officer never checks who the prisoners are. He leaves the bags on their heads and loads them onto the plane. If this was shown, ppl would go "why havent they moved the bags off their heads?" instead, it immediately cuts to the plane in motion, already airborn, then leads to the CIA guy with a gun to their heads. These quick cuts divert the audience to not think about this.

The CIA plane fails to have radar that picks up the plane hovering right above them attaching cables to their plane. Nitpicking? Maybe, but its sad to think how dumb these CIA guys have already been 3 minutes into the scene.

I hated the dialogue of the main officer...

"IF I TAKE THAT OFF WILL YOU DIE?!!"

"Itd be extremely painful"

"YOUR A BIG GUY!!!"

"For you."

Also gotta love

"WAS THIS PART OF YOUR PLAN????!!!"
And "WELL YOUR CAUGHT! WHATS THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR MASTER PLAN?!!!!"

The military could easily tell this plane didnt just "crash", the wings are blown off with explosives. I may have missed why exactly banes trying to fake this guys death by switching blood with him. But dont they still have dental records? Does the fake even look like the doctor? Again some call it nitpicking,but this isnt as smooth of an introducion as joker killing off his bank robbers (although the way he times the buses up is crazy)

I guess it just kinda drove me nuts how forces of serious authority are treated like dumb henchmen. Not just in the beginning, it happens throughout the movie. He wants realism but there are still things that dont work in the "world" nolans creating. Yes there is some of this in TDK and even BB but not the level of Rises.

And remember that i am an avid nolan fan, i thought this was his worst film yet, but thats not saying its a terrible film. Just on nolans level of detail And scene consistency, rises is lacking. Even TDK has some AMAZING directorial shots, rises directing is stagnant.

Back to the plane sequence one more time, concerning the direction. Its hard for imax cams to shoot in that condensed plane set. You can tell the camera is crammed into the damn thing. The editing and switching between characters is awful, with dialogue running into eachother between cuts. I mean its a small thing,but the quality is diminshed for me when i notice this kind of stuff

Jeez i type too much, hope you can see my frustration with the scene when its broken down, which normally, is what u want to do after a nolan film, break it down and discuss it. But with Rises, thinking back through it reveals some problems narratively and even technically. I expected better from nolan, supposedly one of the more sophisticated filmmakers working today.

Thank you for breaking it down and allowing us to keep things civil. I just assumed Bane's plane messed with the radar of the CIA's. I know the plan with the blood transfusion was with the hopes that appearances and all traces of teeth would be abolished when the plane hit the ground in its fiery glory.

I agree, the dialogue at times was pretty blatant and contrived. I'll give you that. It does seem at times because of the sheer scale Nolan tries to work on, everything does have to (in his world) fall into exact place and sort of be convenient, almost. Like the timing of the busses you alluded to from TDK.

Still, I personally felt there was more good than bad in TDKR.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

I will break the scene down by its layers. What works about Nolans filmmaking sometimes is his awesome use of tone and momentum to completely trick the audience into not noticing blatant jumps or leaps in logic. For instance,

The CIA is waiting for a van dropping off "prisoners" of banes army. Of course some will call this nitpicking, but the dumbass CIA officer never checks who the prisoners are. He leaves the bags on their heads and loads them onto the plane. If this was shown, ppl would go "why havent they moved the bags off their heads?" instead, it immediately cuts to the plane in motion, already airborn, then leads to the CIA guy with a gun to their heads. These quick cuts divert the audience to not think about this.

The CIA plane fails to have radar that picks up the plane hovering right above them attaching cables to their plane. Nitpicking? Maybe, but its sad to think how dumb these CIA guys have already been 3 minutes into the scene.

The military could easily tell this plane didnt just "crash", the wings are blown off with explosives. I may have missed why exactly banes trying to fake this guys death by switching blood with him. But dont they still have dental records? Does the fake even look like the doctor? Again some call it nitpicking,but this isnt as smooth of an introducion as joker killing off his bank robbers (although the way he times the buses up is crazy)

If a plane flies low enough it can actually avoid being captured on radar.

The wings didn't blow off from explosives, the drag on them was so intense once the larger plane started pulling it upwards at that angle that they were literally ripped off.

Agreed though, the doctor body double logic is very flawed. I mean can you really pump enough of someone else's blood into another body by just pressing hard enough on his chest?

[MightyCelestial]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

What works about Nolans filmmaking sometimes is his awesome use of tone and momentum to completely trick the audience into not noticing blatant jumps or leaps in logic.

I've always thought this.
I like his work,
but I can enjoy them because I expect there to be plotholes or flaws. I think that for him, those aren't as important as the overall idea.
He focuses on what he likes & finds a good way of covering up the stuff that he seems to have little patience with.

[CuatroDiablos]

The thing about Nolan's "plot holes" is that if you think a little , you will always find a way to fill them up by yourself , and the wonderful thing is that everyone comes up with different ideas.

And BTW no one was waiting for the drop off of "prisoners" of Banes army , they were just waiting for doctor Pavel because he made some kind of arragenment with the US GOV to give him protection ( that's what I think) and Bane probably intercepted him on his way to the plane. And the reason they didn't take their hoods off was becasue they wanted to introduce Bane inside the plane , makes it more exciting ....how do people enjoy movies these days , they nitpick every aspect of them...MOVIES ARE NOT REAL LIFE.

[CuatroDiablos]

OH..and BTW. Forensic work with dental match is very hard to work with if the passenger is crushed by the impact...nearly impossible.

[corran horn]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

I think this was one of those movies that needed to be like four hours long. Hopefully theres a decently extended directors cut.

I'm inclined to agree. As much as I loved TDKR (review will come this weekend), it did feel like it got the same treatment as The Two Towers, ie too much was taken out and thus crucial context was lost. I guess Nolan might have felt that he had to relent to the studio on running time after resisting them on 3D and villain choice (though I think he would still have won that argument).

[Shinigami]

I suppose somebody should point out the discrepancy between the twentysomethings who qualify realism and the almost absurd expertise big budget movies employ these days to inform their science and pseudo science. Has anybody read about the lengths Marvel movies went to consult with theoretical whosits in order to inform fantastical movies like Thor and Avengers? Has anybody read into Cameron's research with Avatar? This could be another situation where fans are laughing about unobtainium before realizing it's a real term correctly employed (and I was one of the fans laughing about unobtainium). The Dark Knight Rises opening with Bane hinges on the airspace where they crash, the country where they picked up the terrorists, and the bureaucracy of the doctor's native country added to the airspace in order to plausibly conceive of Bane's cinematic kidnapping. When big budget movies choose to attack something in ways that are less than realistic, it's usually a choice, because consulting experts is chump change for a tent pole release. After reading about the lengths the studio went to consult on the science of Thor, I threw in my armchair towel, because I thought Thor was absolutely ridiculous and was dismayed at how informed the studio wanted to be. I have a different impression of big budget hollywood movies these days, especially tent pole comic book movies. They seem to be pretty savvy where they want to be savvy. And where they aren't, it's probably intentional--like a ticking time bomb. But when it's intentional, the criticisms probably change a little bit. If I criticized the ticking tomb bomb as unrealistic that might be a silly criticism, because of course it's unrealistic. Even the people who liked it thought it was unrealistic. Even the film makers thought it was unrealistic. So it must have been employed for a reason other than realism.

[Silverload]

Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos

The thing about Nolan's "plot holes" is that if you think a little , you will always find a way to fill them up by yourself , and the wonderful thing is that everyone comes up with different ideas.

That's true of every movie. You can always invent ways to fill a plot hole.

[Scotch]

So I'm currently watching 'Batman Begins' and Bruce says to Alfred "You haven't given up on me." And Alfred replies "Neva." Did he "give up" on Bruce in TDKR or did he assume that he had to leave based on Bruce's wishes?

[SkyNet]

Alfred believed that Bruce Wayne could never be happy until he was dead, Bruce would continue to push himself until some villain killed him.

Alfred could not sit by and watch that happen, Alfred made many things in Bruce's life easier, including being Batman, and without him around perhaps he would see the light. And so in the end, after the city is saved and Bruce knows that Robin (i forgot his other name in the movie, JGL) will take up the mantle, because he is one of those "Good" people that Bruce thought Harvey Dent was... Bruce could finally put it all behind him... hence the highly debated final shots of the movie at the cafe!

[halflife]

I love how people are making EXCUSES to why things are the way they are in this movie, instead of just ACCEPTING they are flaws and problems.

Skynet, sorry buddy, don't make excuses for Alfred's absence. His character took an entire shift in this movie. You can't set up a character as a never give up type, and loyal, then completely ABANDON it, and say it's ok.

Cuatro sorry bro, just the fact that you say we have to "think" to fill in the blanks is something that shouldn't need to be done, especially with this type of movie. We shouldn't have to question things like "well maybe this happened," "this could have been why." That's stupid, why even have a story then? Just create a beginning, and an end, and let the audience make up the middle?

You are telling us not to nitpick, because it's a movie? Ok then, so Cuatro, do bad movies exist? Do you think any movies are bad? Why is that? Are you being "nitpicky" with those movies. Can't you just accept it's a movie and just LIKE it.

[DaveyJoeG]

10 years, 7 posts, and no friends.

[God of War]

I just wanted to say that Anne's backside on that bike was truly a sight to behold.

[misbehave]

I couldn't help buying this book the other day when I was shopping at Costco.



But I can tell you it's well worth the 25 bucks.

[halflife]

@DaveyJoeG

Sorry bud, I guess I'm not as "cool" as you and need friends on a movie website to feel special. I'm glad you have 96 friends bro, I hope it makes you feel all warm inside.

I can do the same thing....

DaveyJoeG 10 years on a movie site, 96 friends, 1.29 posts per day (avg)= Sheer amazing awesome person, probably gets laid left and right.

Will you be my first friend???????? plzzzzzzzzzz

Lets try and keep the topic at hand with discussing a movie now, without the lame attempted personal attacks of stats on a forum now, k?

[Silverload]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

10 years, 7 posts, and no friends.

I'm sorry, but are you serious with that shit?

[God of War]

We luv you, Davey...

I want that Batman trilogy art book NEOW!@

[corran horn]

At long last, my review...

Concluding a trilogy has been, for whatever reason, an excrutiatingly difficult task almost since the concept first came about. Out of the myriad live-action third installments to have come out over the years, only four or five are well-regarded: Return of the King, Prisoner of Azkhaban, the Bourne Ultimatum, the Last Crusade, and possibly Return of the Jedi. Note also that four of those are either based on pre-existing books or (in the case of ROTJ) were planned from the beginning. Here, though, we have something different, a third installment that wasn't preplanned but succeeds beautifully.

As with previous installments, Nolan has cast this film to the hilt. Besides the returning cast, we have three impressive new-comers. First off is Tom Hardy as Bane. This will be sacreligious to some, but I actually liked his portrayal slightly more than Ledger's of the Joker. Hardy brings an animal-like ferocity to the role and elevates what could have been a B-level villain and makes him compelling. Even though his mouth is covered, his expressive face shines through, especially in one scene where you can see a single tear drip down his face and one almost sympathizes with him in that moment. Elsewhere, Ann Hathaway silenced whatever minor doubts I had with her portrayal of Selina Kyle. As if in answer to critics of his portrayal of female characters, Nolan creates what could be his best female character yet (although I also liked Mal from Inception), and Hathaway makes a nearly complete break from anything else she's done and shows that she can do darker material. Last, but not least, is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Much has already been said about what he brings to the role but let me just add that with the work he has coming out this year (TDKR, Lincoln, and Looper), JGL has cemented himself as one of the best actors of his age group.

Established cast members, regardless of screen time, acquit themselves well. Christian Bale shows himself to be the best all-around actor to have donned the cape and cowl. While their screentime is considerably limited, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman still give enough to make you care about their characters (Caine especially). In keeping with his other films, Nolan populates his cast with recognizable faces and gives more than a few of them a moment to shine, the most notable being Aiden Gillen (Littlefinger!) and Christopher Judge (Teal'c!). Plus, bonus points abound for including my favorite sports team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, as the Gotham Rogues (though I'm miffed that they did not show Troy Polamalu, my favorite player). My only casting disappointment was with Marion Cotillard. Although the scene where she does reveal who she is was well done, i would have personally had her reveal herself at the beginning and develop her relationship with Bane (to mirror that between Bruce and Selina).

One problem I had with previous installments of the Dark Knight trilogy is that the films climaxed too early, weakening the third act. Here, the third act is easily the best of the trilogy, and while the supposed multiple endings bothered some, I felt they were entirely appropriate. As for the other plot holes, I honestly don't really care. I felt the film as is flowed just fine, but I would like to see what had been cut as I felt there was more than what was shown (much like the extended edition of The Two Towers, which I think is the best extended version of that trilogy). In addition to being a great conclusion overall, TDKR also puts an exclamation mark on what, I think, will be one of the best-regarded trilogies, alongside the likes of LOTR and the original Star Wars trilogy. Like LOTR, the Dark Knight trilogy will, I think, be regarded as one of the high points--if not THE high point--of its respective genre.


Lastly, a more personal note. As everyone knows, key parts of TDKR were filmed in Pittsburgh. For me, this created a more personal stake in the fate of Gotham because I recognized so much of it, from Heinz Field to One Oxford Plaza, to parts of the waterfront and possibly one of the bridges (which I think is the one that connected downtown to the Station Square area, a bridge I have traversed many times in my life). Although Cleveland was technically closer to my hometown, Pittsburgh was the big city I enjoyed visiting the most (still do, in fact). So, in some ways, a part of me made it into the film, allowing TDKR to draw me in more than its predecessors.

In short, well done Chris and Christian (and everyone else). You took what had been one of the sillier film genres and gave it a gravitas that, in my opinion, won't be matched any time soon.

10/10

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Silverload

That's true of every movie. You can always invent ways to fill a plot hole.

The difference between one film's plot holes and another's are the lengths you have to go to in order to fill them. i.e. It's more difficult to fill in the plot holes in a movie like Transformers than it is for The Dark Knight Rises.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by halflife

@DaveyJoeG

Sorry bud, I guess I'm not as "cool" as you and need friends on a movie website to feel special. I'm glad you have 96 friends bro, I hope it makes you feel all warm inside.

I can do the same thing....

DaveyJoeG 10 years on a movie site, 96 friends, 1.29 posts per day (avg)= Sheer amazing awesome person, probably gets laid left and right.

Will you be my first friend???????? plzzzzzzzzzz

Lets try and keep the topic at hand with discussing a movie now, without the lame attempted personal attacks of stats on a forum now, k?

It took me a while to realize what you were talking about with 96 friends, look, I don't give a shit about MFC, I only use it as a venue to post my videos and get a few more views on youtube. I was referring to how the tone of your previous post is going to eliminate any chance of people wanting to engage you in a respectful conversation. Saying stuff like "sorry bro, you're wrong" is the opposite of encouraging discussion. It's attempting to shut it down before it ever really got started.

Originally Posted by halflife

I love how people are making EXCUSES to why things are the way they are in this movie, instead of just ACCEPTING they are flaws and problems.

Nobody's making excuses for liking the movie. Some people are bothered by certain aspects of the film, others aren't. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by halflife

Skynet, sorry buddy, don't make excuses for Alfred's absence. His character took an entire shift in this movie. You can't set up a character as a never give up type, and loyal, then completely ABANDON it, and say it's ok.

Alfred always had a "tough love" attitude with Bruce. Watch his tone in the scene in Batman Begins before Chill's trial, he's scolding Bruce for his lack of respect. "I give a damn, Master Bruce..."

Alfred scolds Bruce after the tumbler chase in the first movie. "The only reason I didn't call the men in the white coats is because you said it wasn't thrill seeking." Then he points at the newscast, he obviously disapproves of many of Bruce's methods throughout the franchise.

"When you stitch yourself up you do make a bloody mess."

He also encourages Bruce to find a little more happiness in his life long before TDKR. "Perhaps you should hire them(Batman copycats) and take the weekend off."

Alfred's a human being and has gone from watching his beloved employers(almost family really) get gunned down, to raising their son as his own, to believing that son died during his 7 year absence, seeing his return and commencement of a very dangerous life as a vigilante.

There's an 8-year gap between TDK and TDKR and it's up to our own imagination to fill in the gap. Bruce has obviously been extremely depressed since Rachael's death and Alfred has himself to blame for it, due to his deception with burning Rachael's letter. Bruce might have been happier if he knew Rachael chose Harvey, but Alfred thought he was protecting him.

Also citing Alfred's "never give up" mentality is ignoring Bruce's death wish. When Alfred says he will "NEVA" give up on Bruce, he's not talking about Batman, he's talking about Bruce as a person. The first time he says it in the franchise is 7 years before Bruce comes up with the concept of Batman. This trilogy is more interested in fleshing Bruce Wayne out as a three dimensional character than just making kewl Batman movies.

Bruce's return as Batman wasn't about stopping Bane, it was about finding a release from his miserable life and finally being put to death. Refusing to support Bruce's death wish is not the same as giving up. Alfred doesn't want to help Bruce commit suicide-by-villain and I don't think that's a stretch for the character or any type of excuse by the film viewers. Realizing that the "never give up" thing is about Bruce Wayne finding a happy life and not about Batman, proves that Alfred's behavior in the third film is completely consistent with how he was portrayed in the first two... and he's STILL guilt-stricken at the finale when he thinks Bruce is dead and wants to blame himself.

Originally Posted by halflife

Cuatro sorry bro, just the fact that you say we have to "think" to fill in the blanks is something that shouldn't need to be done, especially with this type of movie. We shouldn't have to question things like "well maybe this happened," "this could have been why." That's stupid, why even have a story then? Just create a beginning, and an end, and let the audience make up the middle?

This mentality shows a lack of experience with cinema. Only the basest of films spell everything out for the audience. Blockbuster movies are extremely dumbed down so they can appeal to the lowest common denominator. Nolan does not do that with his films and I greatly appreciate that. It's like reading a Tale of Two Cities and being pissed off that there are no pictures and you're forced to use your imagination to figure out what things look like.

I don't suppose you're familiar with the films of Michelangelo Antonioni or Wong Kar Wai, who use this film-making technique regularly. It's called elliptical film-making, referring to the three dots in writing... Basically, directors leave out events in the story to let the viewers use their imagination to fill in the blanks. I think it's wonderful, and it gives their films excellent replay value. Every time I watch a movie like In the Mood for Love it's a unique experience for me, because I have a different idea of what's going on in between the scenes we're shown.

Originally Posted by halflife

You are telling us not to nitpick, because it's a movie? Ok then, so Cuatro, do bad movies exist? Do you think any movies are bad? Why is that? Are you being "nitpicky" with those movies. Can't you just accept it's a movie and just LIKE it.

This is a straw man argument, of course bad movies exist. However not everybody will agree on which movies are good, and which movies are bad. There's a certain objectivity to film critique, but at the end of the day, all that matters is if an individual enjoyed the movie or not. Having said that, and using the objectivity of professional film critics, the Dark Knight Rises falls in the category of a good movie.

Rotten Tomatoes: 87% fresh from critics and 92% fresh from audiences.

Metacritic: 78/100 from critic and 86/100 from audiences.

Originally Posted by Silverload

I'm sorry, but are you serious with that shit?

I'm one sarcastic son of a bitch. If I'm actually using one of those goofy smiley faces, I'm probably not being all that serious.

[gyro_44]

Originally Posted by MovieMan50

I will break the scene down by its layers. What works about Nolans filmmaking sometimes is his awesome use of tone and momentum to completely trick the audience into not noticing blatant jumps or leaps in logic. For instance,

The CIA is waiting for a van dropping off "prisoners" of banes army. Of course some will call this nitpicking, but the dumbass CIA officer never checks who the prisoners are. He leaves the bags on their heads and loads them onto the plane. If this was shown, ppl would go "why havent they moved the bags off their heads?" instead, it immediately cuts to the plane in motion, already airborn, then leads to the CIA guy with a gun to their heads. These quick cuts divert the audience to not think about this.

The CIA plane fails to have radar that picks up the plane hovering right above them attaching cables to their plane. Nitpicking? Maybe, but its sad to think how dumb these CIA guys have already been 3 minutes into the scene.

I hated the dialogue of the main officer...

"IF I TAKE THAT OFF WILL YOU DIE?!!"

"Itd be extremely painful"

"YOUR A BIG GUY!!!"

"For you."

Also gotta love

"WAS THIS PART OF YOUR PLAN????!!!"
And "WELL YOUR CAUGHT! WHATS THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR MASTER PLAN?!!!!"

The military could easily tell this plane didnt just "crash", the wings are blown off with explosives. I may have missed why exactly banes trying to fake this guys death by switching blood with him. But dont they still have dental records? Does the fake even look like the doctor? Again some call it nitpicking,but this isnt as smooth of an introducion as joker killing off his bank robbers (although the way he times the buses up is crazy)

I guess it just kinda drove me nuts how forces of serious authority are treated like dumb henchmen. Not just in the beginning, it happens throughout the movie. He wants realism but there are still things that dont work in the "world" nolans creating. Yes there is some of this in TDK and even BB but not the level of Rises.

And remember that i am an avid nolan fan, i thought this was his worst film yet, but thats not saying its a terrible film. Just on nolans level of detail And scene consistency, rises is lacking. Even TDK has some AMAZING directorial shots, rises directing is stagnant.

Back to the plane sequence one more time, concerning the direction. Its hard for imax cams to shoot in that condensed plane set. You can tell the camera is crammed into the damn thing. The editing and switching between characters is awful, with dialogue running into eachother between cuts. I mean its a small thing,but the quality is diminshed for me when i notice this kind of stuff

Jeez i type too much, hope you can see my frustration with the scene when its broken down, which normally, is what u want to do after a nolan film, break it down and discuss it. But with Rises, thinking back through it reveals some problems narratively and even technically. I expected better from nolan, supposedly one of the more sophisticated filmmakers working today.

I agree with many of your points about the plane sequence. The whole blood transfusion thing doesn't really make sense. The wings being blown off the plane (and sure to found miles away) is something I didn't even really consider before, but good point.

I guess in the end, for me, I don't really give a shit about these things. I loved the plane sequence, particularly when seeing it again. It's wonderfully paced and offers a great introduction to Bane and (for me) a truly exciting and original action sequence. When I say I wasn't bothered by some of these flaws, it's due to Nolan's craft as a filmmaker I think. He keeps me looking the other way.

I would agree also that The Dark Knight Rises is more flawed than the usual Nolan film. I would not say it's on the level of The Dark Knight, Memento or Inception, for example. It is a little too busy, overplotted and doesn't fully pay off some its thematic elements. But I still REALLY liked it, and repeat viewings smoothed over a few plot elements for me. There are some nagging flaws, but I'm just happy to let Nolan take me on another one of his rides and appreciate what, for me, are the many strong elements of the film (among them, Bane and Catwoman, who were both worked great I thought).

[ofwolfanddan]

Honestly, the only thing that really took me out of the film was the final "WHERE'S THE TRIGGGERRRRRR MAN!!??!? WHERE IS HEHEEE???" Bale has been a fine Batman, but this always ruined it for me and I found myself looking around as he was shouting these lines--kind of like the "WHERE ARE THEY?!?!" Lines from TDK--and feeling almost embarrassed. When all is said and done, I love Nolan's trilogy and feel as if it has given a comic book character a treatment that hasn't been achieved elsewhere in terms of philosophical undertones and thematic elements.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Sgizzy316

So I'm currently watching 'Batman Begins' and Bruce says to Alfred "You haven't given up on me." And Alfred replies "Neva." Did he "give up" on Bruce in TDKR or did he assume that he had to leave based on Bruce's wishes?

He gave up on Bruce.

[SkyNet]

Originally Posted by ofwolfanddan

Honestly, the only thing that really took me out of the film was the final "WHERE'S THE TRIGGGERRRRRR MAN!!??!? WHERE IS HEHEEE???" Bale has been a fine Batman, but this always ruined it for me and I found myself looking around as he was shouting these lines--kind of like the "WHERE ARE THEY?!?!" Lines from TDK--and feeling almost embarrassed. When all is said and done, I love Nolan's trilogy and feel as if it has given a comic book character a treatment that hasn't been achieved elsewhere in terms of philosophical undertones and thematic elements.

ha.. i do agree! Whenever he yelled like that it always made me think of Jack Bauer in 24... "WHERE IS HE!!!! WHERE'S THE BOMB"!!!!!!!!!!!! "DAMNIT CHLOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


as for Alfred giving up on Bruce... I'm not sure, I guess that is up for debate, I would say that Alfred left to hopefully show Bruce how serious he was about not being able to stay and watch Bruce kill himself, which was the only outcome acceptable to Bruce. I think to say he gave up on him is to say he didn't care whether Bruce lived or died and said "fuck it, I'm done"... but he obviously cared a great deal about bruce, and the only way to show Bruce how much, was for him to step away from him for a while.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by SkyNet

as for Alfred giving up on Bruce... I'm not sure, I guess that is up for debate, I would say that Alfred left to hopefully show Bruce how serious he was about not being able to stay and watch Bruce kill himself, which was the only outcome acceptable to Bruce. I think to say he gave up on him is to say he didn't care whether Bruce lived or died and said "fuck it, I'm done"... but he obviously cared a great deal about bruce, and the only way to show Bruce how much, was for him to step away from him for a while.

Well, technically speaking, he clearly didn't care whether Bruce lived or died after he left. It was all over the news Bruce was completely broke and Alfred still didn't come back to help. Bruce is gone for five months and we don't even see Alfred try to communicate with Blake about what happened to his dear Master Wayne. If Alfred left to show Bruce he needed to quit then it was rather redundant seeing as we don't see Alfred again until everyone thinks Bruce is dead...

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

Well, technically speaking, he clearly didn't care whether Bruce lived or died after he left. It was all over the news Bruce was completely broke and Alfred still didn't come back to help. Bruce is gone for five months and we don't even see Alfred try to communicate with Blake about what happened to his dear Master Wayne. If Alfred left to show Bruce he needed to quit then it was rather redundant seeing as we don't see Alfred again until everyone thinks Bruce is dead...

I don't agree with this. Of course Alfred cared whether Bruce lived or died, otherwise he wouldn't have made an ultimatum. Bruce wanted to die as Batman, and Alfred thought his life as a human being was more important than throwing his life away as Batman. Alfred tried to explain this to him but he's the one who made the decision to continue being Batman.

It's the same with his financial situation, everybody advised him to treat his finances more wisely, but Bruce went with his gut every time. You can't blame Alfred or Lucius for Bruce's stubbornness. Bruce's hubris was overpowering in this film to the point of him burning the bridges that have been around since the foundation of the franchise.

Metaphorically, I see it play out like an episode of Intervention. It's a tough situation for everybody involved; but, while the abandonment is harsh, you can't really sit back and blame the father for not wanting to watch his son throw his life away into a crack pipe.

And why would Alfred contact John Blake? He met the man once, even Bruce and Blake weren't that close. Blake spent most of the movie interacting with Gordon and Foley, not Bruce. Once Alfred walked out we didn't need to see him again, it would have brought the story to a halt. His emotional state of mind during his fight with Bruce explains how he feels about Bruce's decision to continue being Batman at the expense of losing Alfred. We can use what was established with the character to assume his reaction: he was upset.

Here's my point about Alfred I posted earlier:

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Alfred always had a "tough love" attitude with Bruce. Watch his tone in the scene in Batman Begins before Chill's trial, he's scolding Bruce for his lack of respect. "I give a damn, Master Bruce..."

Alfred scolds Bruce after the tumbler chase in the first movie. "The only reason I didn't call the men in the white coats is because you said it wasn't thrill seeking." Then he points at the newscast, he obviously disapproves of many of Bruce's methods throughout the franchise.

"When you stitch yourself up you do make a bloody mess."

He also encourages Bruce to find a little more happiness in his life long before TDKR. "Perhaps you should hire them(Batman copycats) and take the weekend off."

Alfred's a human being and has gone from watching his beloved employers(almost family really) get gunned down, to raising their son as his own, to believing that son died during his 7 year absence, seeing his return and commencement of a very dangerous life as a vigilante.

There's an 8-year gap between TDK and TDKR and it's up to our own imagination to fill in the gap. Bruce has obviously been extremely depressed since Rachael's death and Alfred has himself to blame for it, due to his deception with burning Rachael's letter. Bruce might have been happier if he knew Rachael chose Harvey, but Alfred thought he was protecting him.

Also citing Alfred's "never give up" mentality is ignoring Bruce's death wish. When Alfred says he will "NEVA" give up on Bruce, he's not talking about Batman, he's talking about Bruce as a person. The first time he says it in the franchise is 7 years before Bruce comes up with the concept of Batman. This trilogy is more interested in fleshing Bruce Wayne out as a three dimensional character than just making kewl Batman movies.

Bruce's return as Batman wasn't about stopping Bane, it was about finding a release from his miserable life and finally being put to death. Refusing to support Bruce's death wish is not the same as giving up. Alfred doesn't want to help Bruce commit suicide-by-villain and I don't think that's a stretch for the character or any type of excuse by the film viewers. Realizing that the "never give up" thing is about Bruce Wayne finding a happy life and not about Batman, proves that Alfred's behavior in the third film is completely consistent with how he was portrayed in the first two... and he's STILL guilt-stricken at the finale when he thinks Bruce is dead and wants to blame himself.

[gyro_44]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

He gave up on Bruce.

Personally, I think there's a bit more to it than just that...

[heathjack]

why was batman messing in 8 years? did it hurt his leg that bad? he ddidn'teven fall that hard. i liked the moive

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by heathjack

why was batman messing in 8 years? did it hurt his leg that bad? he ddidn'teven fall that hard. i liked the moive

Totally. I liked the movie too.

[CuatroDiablos]

Something really bugs me me about the nitpickers is that they lost respect for Bane because he was just a "henchman" after the Talia twist , but I think he was more than just a henchman and was behind all of the bad things that happened in the movie.

Also ...those tears he shed at the end of the movie were not because he was sad , it was because he was in pain. Wonder how this gets past people while watching movies...


I hope we get a directors cut so all the nitpickers get the answers they want.....or not.