"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

[Lapis Exilis]

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

BB and TDK had subtext, and something to say about the times we live in.

They did? Could you fill me in, because apparently I missed that.

posted by Kegg:
But it's Liam Neeson. So in this vaguely defined probably-central-Asia backstory of this film an Irish actor plays a mercenary whose daughter is French and whose protector is English.

Ha! Too true.

Honestly I always assumed that Duncan was Ra's al Ghul's real name, and the latter (which even in Arabic is a little ridiculous, it'd be like a German with the surname Totenkopf) was just a nom de guerre.

Ducard, not Duncan. Neeson's character was an amalgam of a character from the comics named Henri Ducard and Ra's al Ghul. And Ra's al Ghul has always been a fairly ridiculous character, from name to Ming the Merciless goatee to just about everything else about him.

DJP691 wrote:

---

My biggest issue with this film is that it sets in concrete the concept that Nolan's Bruce Wayne spent somewhere between six months and a year as Batman. That's it.

That only matters from a comic book perspective where you have to publish ongoing stories every month. These aren't comic books. And it's unclear at best how long he operated - that is, it's never stated how much time passed between BB and TDK, but apparently it was a substantial enough period of time for the various mobs to develop a working relationship and all agree on an accountant to handle their money (one of the more outrageous ideas TDK pivots on), and for a DA campaign and election to occur, and for that DA to do some fairly substantial work. All we know to time out the period between stories is that the Joker had pulled a job or two at the very end of BB, and was still pulling jobs at the beginning of TDK. That could be any amount of time from a year onward.

[Donald Draper]

I knew but forgot that Dick Grayon's father is named is John. Never realized that Dick's middle is John. Makes sense my father's first is my own middle name.

Oh and fun fact my dad's first and middle name is Richard Bruce.

[indianatrekker26]

sonak wrote:

---

Hmmm... oddly underwhelming. It was good, but not great. It was the least of the trilogy. Three stars for me.


On to specifics:


-Nolan clearly abandons even the faux-realism of the previous two here. This movie was way over the top in terms of its plot. Clearly into comic book territory here, rather than the almost "crime drama" feel of TDK.

-That first fight between Batman and Bane
I know the outcome had to be what it was for the plot, but how does Batman lose to Bane? In "Knightfall" Batman was physically and mentally exhausted when they fought, and Bane was much bigger.

Here, a much fresher Batman loses to basically a... really strong guy in a mask. Why would Bane have better fighting skills than Batman if they received comparable training? Also, why does Batman turn into an idiot during the fight? He has a UTILITY BELT. When he first realizes that he's overmatched, he should pull out his batarangs, concussion grenades, shurikens, whatever he's got. Instead, he weakly pulls out some flashy things at the very end that just fizzle and make bright lights.


And yet later, after being "broken" and in a prison for a while, THEN he comes back to fight Bane more effectively. Sure.



-for a Batman movie, there's not a lot of Batman in it.


-Anne Hathaway was great, Michael Caine was terrific, as was Gary Oldman. I like that Gordon got let in on the secret finally.


-Bane was very menacing and effective. I still missed about 20-25% of his dialogue, though.



-For all the rumors about the political undertones, Bane turns out to be a nihilistic terrorist thug. What if they'd skipped the bomb plot and made his "revolution thing" genuine instead of a lie to make Gothamites dance for his amusement?




-ok, that end scene. Is that supposed to be Alfred's fantasy, or did Bruce really escape? And if so, how?

So many people overlooked the scene between Bruce and Alfred, earlier in the movie. Alfred said bruce wasn't the batman he used to be, that he had been out of the game for 8 years, he wasn't the same man, couldn't just throw the suit back on. So Bruce went anyways, in over his head, and was owned by Bane. Then during his time in the prison, bruce gets his A game back, not only physically but mentally, he "rises" from the depths of where he'd been. It was such a powerful point in this movie, and seemed to go over alot of peoples' heads.

[doubleohfive]

sonak wrote:

---

-ok, that end scene. Is that supposed to be Alfred's fantasy, or did Bruce really escape? And if so, how?

I don't see how it could be Alfred's fantasy. We clearly see Bruce seated at a table with Selina; when did Alfred ever meet her?

Too, even if Alfred did see her photo on a computer screen in the Batcave, he has no way of knowing what Bruce's relationship with her would be like as Alfred spends most of the film out of the action.

Lastly - did anyone else notice that Alfred's line from the trailers - "I promised your mum and father I'd take care of you, and I've failed." (I'm paraphrasing) was absent in the film?

[Kegg]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Ducard, not Duncan.

Point. It's clearly been too long since I've actually seen Batman Begins (last time was... 2007 or 2006, I think).

That only matters from a comic book perspective where you have to publish ongoing stories every month. These aren't comic books.

To be honest one of the reasons I can never get my head around the idea of American superheroes is that they exist in a fluid, Bond movie like continuity where the same person can do the same job for decades and never age out of it and yet simultaneously continuity is really important to the point of publishers issuing comics that rotate around major continuity course corrections.

Obviously this is an impression I have picked up almost entirely from staying on the internet far too long as opposed to reading said comics, so I'm sure there's some major salient issues I simply don't grasp and so on.

Still, the idea that Nolan's Batman has a beginning, middle and end and the guy didn't Batman for decades without greying his hair is something I'm pretty comfortable with.

[Samurai8472]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

I don't see how it could be Alfred's fantasy. We clearly see Bruce seated at a table with Selina; when did Alfred ever meet her?


Lastly - did anyone else notice that Alfred's line from the trailers - "I promised your mum and father I'd take care of you, and I've failed." (I'm paraphrasing) was absent in the film?

Alfred meets Selina when he thinks she's one of the maids at Wayne Manor.


Most people are noticing a few things were cut. Such as Selina going down Gotham City Hall steps on the Batpod.


It was most likely cut because the stuntwoman crashed into an IMAX camera going down the steps.

[Hound of UIster]

The Evil Dead wrote:

---

The Dark Knight will be remembered as one of the greatest films of all time. The Dark Knight Rises will be remembered as a really great one, maybe one of the best of 2012.

It felt a little bit like Return of the Jedi to me. A mostly really good movie with a few things that hold it back from being as amazing as it's big brothers.

More like Godfather III or Superman Returns.

[jbny67]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

Lastly - did anyone else notice that Alfred's line from the trailers - "I promised your mum and father I'd take care of you, and I've failed." (I'm paraphrasing) was absent in the film?

That was his dialogue at the funeral at the end.

[davejames]

Kegg wrote:

---

Still, the idea that Nolan's Batman has a beginning, middle and end and the guy didn't Batman for decades without greying his hair is something I'm pretty comfortable with.

Yeah the idea of him having a limited career I'm okay with, and makes total sense for a real world Batman. But no matter how the movie tries to rationalize it, the idea of him going into hiding for 8 years, or retiring after one "final battle" (against Bane, really?) just rubs me the wrong way.

As long as there are people being preyed upon by criminal scum, and men abusing innocent women and children somewhere in the city, Batman should be driven to be out there DOING something about it. He shouldn't just be like "eh, the police can handle that small stuff; I'm just going to sulk in my mansion for awhile, or worry only about the crazy supervillains when they emerge... and afterwards I'll hang it all up and go sip martinis in Italy with my new girlfriend."

Say huh?? To me that is even more egregious and out of character than how Hal Jordan was portrayed in GL, or Superman in SR. And I don't know so many other Batman fans seem to be okay with it.

[Klaus]

Gave it a good.

Saw it late last night, enjoyed it but didn't think it was table-thumping good... it's a very deliberate movie, remarkably unhurried for a superhero flick. It's an interesting wrap-up to the trilogy, it hits a few popular notes... but it just didn't particularly engage me on any level. To be honest, other than Ledger and Caine nothing in any of the three impressed me that much beyond a certain amount of coolness.

[Hound of UIster]

davejames wrote:

---

Yeah the idea of him having a limited career I'm okay with, and makes total sense for a real world Batman. But no matter how the movie tries to rationalize it, the idea of him going into hiding for 8 years, or retiring after one "final battle" (against Bane, really?) just rubs me the wrong way.

As long as there are people being preyed upon by criminal scum, and men abusing innocent women and children somewhere in the city, Batman should be driven to be out there DOING something about it. He shouldn't just be like "eh, the police can handle that small stuff; I'm just going to sulk in my mansion for awhile, or worry only about the crazy supervillains when they emerge... and afterwards I'll hang it all up and go sip martinis in Italy with my new girlfriend."

Say huh?? To me that is even more egregious and out of character than how Hal Jordan was portrayed in GL, or Superman in SR. And I don't know so many other Batman fans seem to be okay with it.

I agree absolutely.

Bruce will always fight. He'll continue fighting either like in DKR, die and pass on the legacy like in Batman 666 or mentor the next Batman. But he'll never quit. To him it's his life.

[sonak]

indianatrekker26 wrote:

---

So many people overlooked the scene between Bruce and Alfred, earlier in the movie. Alfred said bruce wasn't the batman he used to be, that he had been out of the game for 8 years, he wasn't the same man, couldn't just throw the suit back on. So Bruce went anyways, in over his head, and was owned by Bane. Then during his time in the prison, bruce gets his A game back, not only physically but mentally, he "rises" from the depths of where he'd been. It was such a powerful point in this movie, and seemed to go over alot of peoples' heads.

no, I "got" the IDEA of it, it didn't "go over my head," because it was obvious from a dramatic perspective what they were trying to do.

But from a logic perspective it doesn't work. Bruce should be in WORSE shape to fight Bane the second time, since he was badly wounded and then tossed into a prison. And "rust" or not, Batman should have at least been able to escape from Bane in the first fight when it was clear he was losing. Again, he's got all these gadgets and weapons on his belt. Why's he forcing himself to fight Bane hand to hand? Misplaced chivalry or sense of fair play?

[CaptainCanada]

The point of the movie was that Bruce managed to break that self-destructive mindset (something that's really necessitated by the comics needing to keep him around permanently), having succeeded in saving the city.

[sonak]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

I don't see how it could be Alfred's fantasy. We clearly see Bruce seated at a table with Selina; when did Alfred ever meet her?

Too, even if Alfred did see her photo on a computer screen in the Batcave, he has no way of knowing what Bruce's relationship with her would be like as Alfred spends most of the film out of the action.

Lastly - did anyone else notice that Alfred's line from the trailers - "I promised your mum and father I'd take care of you, and I've failed." (I'm paraphrasing) was absent in the film?

OK, so they are all there at the cafe. That's cool, a happy ending, anyway. I just didn't catch the part about him escaping with the plane-thing on autopilot. Plus, Nolan is the "inception" guy, so I thought maybe he was going the "this is Alfred's fantasy" route. Caine's expression in that scene just made me think it was a daydream.

[Kegg]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

The point of the movie was that Bruce managed to break that self-destructive mindset (something that's really necessitated by the comics needing to keep him around permanently), having succeeded in saving the city.

Just so.

I mean, Batman the character in Dark Knight Returns may be, as Hound of Ulster says, a guy who just never quits, but this Batman is someone who needs to quit because it's destroying him.

I get the objection about him being completely out of the picture over eight years and not involving himself with even relatively minor criminals, but in the world of the movie replacing his vigilante myth of Batman with the white knight hero myth of Harvey Dent seems to render him unimportant.