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

[flavaflav]

Fair

The positives... good ending and Catwoman was much better than I thought she'd be. Talia is hot. The Robin arc I dug. Talia is hot. other than that, there's not much to like.

The negatives... Much like the Dark Knight, the pacing is horrible. I definitely felt like I was in the theatre for 3 hours watching a whole bunch of nothing happen on screen. Nolan has no idea how to make a story flow.

Bane was nothing but a pansy ass, stupid, mustache twirling villian without his painkillers. His voice was also meh. I understood most of what he said, but there were still quite a few times I had no idea what he was talking about. I liked how they tried to work in the Knightfall sorta-back breaking, but Bruce getting back to 100% in 2 1/2 weeks is ridiculous.

Once again, no detective work at all. This trilogy is a Batman series in name only. This is not Batman. It's ninjaman with gadgets to get him out of every predicament. Like the Bat.....

Speaking of which, while getting the Batman Beyond batmobile 70 years ahead of its time was a cool nod, if I hear another person call this series "realistic", my head will implode. Dark and brooding emo does not equate to being "realistic".

The emo was the biggest problem of all. it's nothing but Bruce being down on himself and whining for 3/4 of the movie. even Alfred goes emo.... sweet jesus. and then you don't see him for half the movie. Interplay between Batman and Alfred is integral to good Batman... but alas, as I said earlier, this is not Batman.

The Dark Knight Rises simply is not a fun movie to watch. It's not because it's trying to be a deep movie or artsy, because it's not either of those things. It simply isn't fun. I loved Batman Begins, though TDK was great for the first half, then fell apart in the second half... this movie then continued down that path. The no fun path. I had a glimmer of fun the last minute or two, but that was it.

In closing, I can't wait for a reboot. I think a 4th flick could be cool. Maybe even, dare I say, fun, because of the Batman Beyond-sorta set up... and Beyond is my fav take on Bats. But, I don't trust Nolan and I want a real Batman flick. Actual detective work and using his wits instead of his fists and tech. I'm happy this take on Batman is at an end. next.

[Samurai8472]

tighr wrote:

---

Robert Downey Jr, however, IS Tony Stark.

His Comic-Con 2012 enterance was pure Tony Stark




He should have said "Oh, it's good to be back!"

[davejames]

Leonardo T. Dragon wrote:

---

I think this sums up my most basic problem with TDKR perfectly-- it missed the very essence of the character of Batman. Sure, it had a costume and a "bat vehicle" and a "not-called-Catwoman-version-of-Catwoman" but it really wasn't a good BATMAN movie. Just watch Batman: The Animated Series and you'll see a MUCH better version of the character. A man who dedicates his entire life to protecting the innocent of Gotham because of his parent's murder does not just "give up" over a girl with whom he shared a single kiss and a hand-hold.

Nope. Sorry... don't buy it.

I won't even go into all of the other HUGE logical holes in the film but it is, IMHO, the WEAKEST of Nolan's films. He was closest in Batman Begins-- and even then he was only about 60% of the way there.

Yeah, it seems like there wasn't one moment when this Batman wasn't tortured and conflicted about something. We never see him become the calm, wise, and confident detective we see in the comics or BTAS or JLU. And as hard as the movies tried, he never felt to me half as mythic or larger than life as Burton's Batman.

Ultimately, as great as the first two movies were, I just think Nolan grounded the character and mythos a little TOO much. They're not Batman movies-- they're crime dramas with a little bit of Batman sprinkled in here and there.

[Set Harth]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

And the fact that somebody replaced the Bat-Signal on Gordon's roof.

There's no ambiguity here. All those epilogues happened, including the bit in Italy. And Bruce deliberately went to Florence so Alfred could see him there, just as he had always wanted to . . . .

Yeah, I'm kind of baffled that some people insist on seeing this as an Inception ending.

Not all Nolan movies are ambiguous, and none of his Batman movies are.

[Donald Draper]

On people having trouble hearing the characters talk, it probably partly due to bad sound setup in the theater you went to.

[Allyn Gibson]

Set Harth wrote:

---

Yeah, I'm kind of baffled that some people insist on seeing this as an Inception ending.

Not all Nolan movies are ambiguous, and none of his Batman movies are.

I actually haven't seen Inception, and even without seeing it the interpretation of the ending I had coming out of the film was that the final scene was possibly, even likely Alfred's dream. I thought it was a brave and bittersweet way to end the film, on an ambiguous note.

I consider myself agnostic on the ending to The Dark Knight Rises. The evidence in both directions is compelling but not convincing.

[Set Harth]

The scene where it is explained that Wayne patched the autopilot is no dream. That scene has an obvious implication, without which it serves no purpose.

[Allyn Gibson]

Set Harth wrote:

---

The scene where it is explained that Wayne patched the autopilot is no dream. That scene has an obvious implication, without which it serves no purpose.

Like I said, the evidence in either direction is compelling, but not convincing. In the one direction, you have the narrative evidence of the autopilot patch and the missing string of pearls. In the other direction, you have the science of nuclear explosions and the narrative evidence of Batman in the Bat with five seconds before detonation.

[Greg Cox]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

Like I said, the evidence in either direction is compelling, but not convincing. In the one direction, you have the narrative evidence of the autopilot patch and the missing string of pearls. In the other direction, you have the science of nuclear explosions and the narrative evidence of Batman in the Bat with five seconds before detonation.

Honestly, I read the script and there was no indication that those final scenes were meant to be ambiguous or open to interpretation in any way. Or that the final scene with Alfred was some sort of fantasy sequence. It was just as real and concrete as Gordon finding the new Bat-signal on the roof, as real as Lucius discovering that Bruce had secretly fixed the autopilot, as real as the orphans moving into the manor, as real as John Blake finding the Batcave . . . .

I'm genuinely surprised that so many people are speculating that the Alfred scene was a dream or a vision or whatever. That's certainly not how I handled it in the novelization (on sale tomorrow, btw). And certainly nobody at Warner Bros. told me to make it ambiguous or anything . . . .

Besides, if Batman was supposed to be dead, and that last bit was just a reverie, what about Selina? She didn't "die" in the explosion, so why wouldn't she get an epilogue of her own, if that final scene wasn't meant to wrap up her story as well?

[doubleohfive]

...never mind the fact that he's the goddamn Batman, and clearly he had time to prepare...

[sojourner]

I think most of the "it's a dream" view comes from how the scene was filmed. It had a certain dreamlike quality.

[Donald Draper]

Great point Greg, that is the last image of Selina in the whole film. Before that they kissed goodbye in costume right? Clearly setup for the revelation at the end. There is nothing dream like about that scene at all. Also the last image is Blake in the cave. Strange to have a fake dreamlike moment before a real one.

[CaptainCanada]

Allyn Gibson wrote:

---

In the other direction, you have the science of nuclear explosions and the narrative evidence of Batman in the Bat with five seconds before detonation.

Science really doesn't enter into it. Plenty of stuff happened in this series that doesn't take that into account. The editing of the sequence is designed to mislead, but I don't see how that could possibly stand up to all the clear narrative points indicating his survival.

[Agent Richard07]

flavaflav wrote:

---

...Bruce getting back to 100% in 2 1/2 weeks is ridiculous.

About 5 months had passed.

davejames wrote:

---

Ultimately, as great as the first two movies were, I just think Nolan grounded the character and mythos a little TOO much. They're not Batman movies-- they're crime dramas with a little bit of Batman sprinkled in here and there.

That's pretty much what I want... A good long dramatic thriller with several acts, dectonstructing the idea of what it takes for a man to fight crime and what his life and relationships go through as a result. ...with the story of Batman being the vehicle for that.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Honestly, I read the script and there was no indication that those final scenes were meant to be ambiguous or open to interpretation in any way. Or that the final scene with Alfred was some sort of fantasy sequence. It was just as real and concrete as Gordon finding the new Bat-signal on the roof, as real as Lucius discovering that Bruce had secretly fixed the autopilot, as real as the orphans moving into the manor, as real as John Blake finding the Batcave . . . .

I'm genuinely surprised that so many people are speculating that the Alfred scene was a dream or a vision or whatever. That's certainly not how I handled it in the novelization (on sale tomorrow, btw). And certainly nobody at Warner Bros. told me to make it ambiguous or anything . . . .

Besides, if Batman was supposed to be dead, and that last bit was just a reverie, what about Selina? She didn't "die" in the explosion, so why wouldn't she get an epilogue of her own, if that final scene wasn't meant to wrap up her story as well?

Well, it could have been a fantasy sequence. You never know.

I'm kidding. I took it to be 100% real and never questioned that.

[Captain Craig]

DarthTom wrote:

---

To nitpick the plot one of the less plausible parts of the film is - what deranged police cheif would deploy virtually the entire police force an a 'training exercise', that was really a man hunt? Moreover, the film would have us believe that 3,000 police officers were trapped underground for weeks - come out of being trapped - and have spotless uniforms and are ready to fight.

Very far fetched part of the plot.

I saw it with a group of 6 and one of the women in the group brought this up as her first critique. No way they hadn't atrophied from 80+ days underground with little to no means to stay fit.

I segued with a similar point about how Bruce had apparently atrophied from ceasing his activities and how the medical diagnosis showed us perhaps why. YET, after his back injury in those same 80 days his body was ready to fight, loss of cartilage etc that caused him to use a cane be damned. Guess the prison work out regrows cartilage. His leaping from the pit was made sans knee brace which he clearly needed earlier.

Mage wrote:

---

The thing is, after the Marvel-movies/Michael Bay era, we are used to not only getting an action-packed opening, but an action-packed everything.

These are not only NOT the same type of movie experience but not the same era. Bay has been making movies since the 90's afterall. The Marvel style is not in tone or pacing similar to a Bay film, it's a bit insulting imo to put them together like that.

timothy wrote:

---

I decided to wait a week out respect of what happened in colorodo. Plan to see it this saturday.

I get that this was how you chose to pay respects but let me say that I chose to go as a big FU to all crazy mofo's that I will not alter my life based on you. I went for those people who had the opportunity to do so taken from them.


I'm seeing the movie one more time but let me chime in that our group also had issue with Bane's voice. It was not that clear. Me and another guy also felt the film did a poor job of displaying the passage of time for those 80+ days the city was under siege.