• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

How do you rate "The Dark Knight Rises"?

  • Excellent

    Votes: 147 58.3%
  • Good

    Votes: 61 24.2%
  • Fair

    Votes: 26 10.3%
  • Poor

    Votes: 12 4.8%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 6 2.4%

  • Total voters
    252
My father, who never read a Batman comic in his life, also didn't like the movie. He didn't like that Batman kept getting beat up and he said we should watch movies to get away from the problems of in the real world.
With that line of thinking, we'd never get good superhero stories, just more formulaic stuff, and that gets old after a while.

In his defense, he's 61. He grew up expecting different things from superhero movies. He wanted to see the movie with my brother and I, which surprised me. I think he just wanted to do something as a family (as I said, my mother is deceased, so his wanting to spend time with us carries more weight than it would've if she were still alive) and he knew we'd both be going to see it. I remember he liked Batman Begins. He personally didn't remember what was the last Batman movie he saw. I know for a fact that he saw part of The Dark Knight four years ago but I couldn't gauge his opinion. I only posted what he thought to show what one casual movie-goer who's not a fan thought.

My point was you don't have to be a fan of the comic to not like the film. Not everything is "Fanboy this! Fanboy that!" despite what people who want to dismiss any criticism might think.
 
re: Batpod, would something like this work a little better? (imagine it'd be on the other side as well and more spherical if need be).

batpod.jpg


I don't know... crazy bat-engineering :)
 
My father, who never read a Batman comic in his life, also didn't like the movie. He didn't like that Batman kept getting beat up and he said we should watch movies to get away from the problems of in the real world.
With that line of thinking, we'd never get good superhero stories, just more formulaic stuff, and that gets old after a while.

In his defense, he's 61. He grew up expecting different things from superhero movies. He wanted to see the movie with my brother and I, which surprised me. I think he just wanted to do something as a family (as I said, my mother is deceased, so his wanting to spend time with us carries more weight than it would've if she were still alive) and he knew we'd both be going to see it. I remember he liked Batman Begins. He personally didn't remember what was the last Batman movie he saw. I know for a fact that he saw part of The Dark Knight four years ago but I couldn't gauge his opinion. I only posted what he thought to show what one casual movie-goer who's not a fan thought.

My point was you don't have to be a fan of the comic to not like the film. Not everything is "Fanboy this! Fanboy that!" despite what people who want to dismiss any criticism might think.
Got it. It's always good to hear what a non-fan or a casual fan thinks. That line I quoted just caught my attention because a lot of people feel that way and I'm usually of the opinion that superhero movies can and should be more serious if need be. If anything it's a break from the norm. In thinking about this movie over the last few weeks, I agree that it would have been nice for Batman to not have dropped the ball on his crimefighting, but at the same time, it was great to see his troubles play out and his days come to an end. I didn't think I'd ever see that in a live-action movie.
 
I can't believe that they would waste this much time on "Robin" if the character wasn't being setup for a spin-off series.
They had to set up Blake as Bruce's heir and successor in a credible manner and, more specifically, for the audience to care about him. That's why they took the time, and it wasn't a waste.

There was no need to set up any heir for Batman. The movie could have easily ended with Batman "dead" and the symbol of Batman living on in the ordinary citizens of Gotham City. In fact, thematically speaking, that would have been a much more powerful ending for the trilogy. No, Blake's role strikes me as a studio-mandated decision to give them an option to continue the franchise without Nolan or Bale.
 
I can't believe that they would waste this much time on "Robin" if the character wasn't being setup for a spin-off series. Given the popularity of John Blake, I'm sure we'll get a Nightwing movie in a few years.
I doubt that. It would de facto be a fourth Nolanverse movie, and I think it was made perfectly clear that it ended with part three.

But the question is, if WB were to get greedy and decide to profit on nu-Robins's popularity (which could end up being short lived, it's too early to tell), would they even get JGL to play him again? Nolan's actors are known to be pretty loyal to him, no? And as far as Nolan is concerned, this thing is definitely over.

Nolan doesn't own anything - Warner's does. If they want to make a movie that is essentially a continuation of this unvierse there's not a damn thing Nolan can do to stop them. And why would he care if they did? He's moved on to other projects. Everyone keeps talking like Warner's is going to be tiptoeing around Nolan over these movies and this universe, which isn't exactly how studios operate, especially with as lucrative of a franchise as Batman.

As for whether they could get JGL - he's plainly positioning himself as an action leading man right now (Premium Rush due out in a couple of weeks), and a Batman II sequel would probably be a big ticket item for at least one film. Blake's story was by far the most interesting character piece of the film and there is a lot of buzz around it. You never know. I imagine it would depend on if they could get a workable script.
 
I doubt they will be able to get all the actors (especially Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman) back unless Nolan produces/writes the script or they get a shitload of money thrown at them.
 
Gary and Morgan would probably come back. It is a job in the end.

Gary's done everything from "The book of eli"/ Harry Potter and the upcoming "Robocop" reboot.

Morgan's part could be done in one day of filming.

Caine could do a cameo.
 
Since we're asking questions, what is that spinning down punch Bane used on Batman in their first fight? What fighting style is that?
 
Gary and Morgan would probably come back. It is a job in the end.

Gary's done everything from "The book of eli"/ Harry Potter and the upcoming "Robocop" reboot.

Morgan's part could be done in one day of filming.

Caine could do a cameo.

Why would you even need any of them except for possibly Oldman? It'd be easy enough to set something 3 years down the line, Alfred moved on after TDKR (he's going to stay at Wayne Manor and watch the kids??), Fox has retired (leaving a red-headed wheelchair-bound digi-tech genius in charge of Applied Sciences - woot woot!) and Oldman does the cameo, but the main police character is the head of MCU, characterize and cast as you will.

The above is merely an example of how with a teensy bit of brainstorming you could carry on with the continuity coming via the Manor/ Batcave/ Gotham/ Wayne Enterprises - and not much else.
 
I watched TDK again yesterday after along time. Its hard to tell how old Gordon's daughter was. But with the time jump to TDKR and another for a potental sequel Barabra would be about the same age as Robin.

Its clear one of the reasons they had such a huge time jump was so that Robin would have been very young when Batman debuted. Beyond the comic tadition of the age gap. But to show the inspiration Batman gave. Whch would have needed to have been a kid. Watching the first two movies now, its easy to imagine that little "John Blake" is following the Batman's exploits in the news. Talking to other kids about him.

Its fitting that Gordon Joseph Levitt was a child actor so we know exactly what he looked like younger. Also that Bale himself started as a child actor.

Anyone notice that the current issue of GQ kind of gives away a huge spoiler?

Levitt is on the cover with a large caption

"BOY WONDER - GORDON JOSEPH LEVITT"
 
This review is very short and very funny!

"Mmmph blrrg grug Batman glogg freedom raaar!" -Christian Bane, The Dark Knight Rises


The movie's gimp mask-wearing, MMA fighter-like villain no doubt has many profound things to say. But he talks like he's got an Egg McMuffin lodged in his trachia, so you're left to guess as to his motives for destroying a city, trapping every single police officer in a sewer, beating up Batman and rocking a smelly tanktop.

Bane stands as a symbol for his movie, which may as well be called The Dark Knight Bloats. Christopher Nolan followed up his two Caped Crusader masterpieces with a dud of a finale that, like Bane, is giant, slow-moving, talks too much and doesn't have a heck of a lot of reason to exist.
The movie runs a little long at nearly three hours, but I recommend taking a nap for an hour or so in the middle to make it pass quicker. Nolan helps you out with that by making the mid-section into a sort of cinematic lullaby that rocks you to sleep with board meetings, emo conversations and many, many, many scenes that do not show Batman being Batman.
This is not a movie to watch if you'd care to see Batman in action, doing Batman-like things like catching crooks or swooping down and punching people in the back of the head. The first act is mostly a poetry slam of one character after another reciting expositional monologues about how and why Batman has been away for eight years, and why that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Bruce Wayne is holed up in his stately manor, which really should be called Wayne's World, limping around with a cane like Willy Wonka when he first appears in his 1970s movie. Bruce Wayne has made some questionable business decisions, such as hiring Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) as a maid and spent all his money on a nuclear fusion bomb that could either provide the world an eternity of free energy or explode the city, depending on who's got it at the time.


You know how Bruce Wayne always kept it a deep, dark, double secret that he was Batman? Well, he's pretty much done with that now, willing to have a heart to heart about it with a cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) he's just met. Bane also knows, probably because he's — as Rush Limbaugh has cleverly deduced -- a stand-in for Mitt Romney, and figured it out because he's best pals with many billionaires. Also, I'm pretty sure Catwoman figures it out, unless Batman has a special Bat-kiss that differentiates his Bruce Wayne smooching experience.
It doesn't really matter that people know Bruce Wayne is Batman because he doesn't want to be Batman anymore. It takes a heck of a lot of boringness to get him back in his suit, and shortly thereafter something bad happens and he's no longer Batman again until just in time at the very end.
If I'm being a little hard on the movie, it's because I expected so much more from it, and because it does a great job of reminding you how good the other two were by flashing back to scenes from those films again and again. The point of the flashbacks is to restate profound philosophical points from those movies, I guess to avoid having to come up with any new ones of its own.
The Dark Knight Rises isn't awful and is perfectly watchable, but just doesn't make much sense or build upon the groundwork laid by the earlier movies. It's this series' version of The Matrix Revolutions, The Godfather Part III or Caddyshack 2. Nolan's other Batman movies were stylish, deep, exciting and shocking. This one is just content to sort of hang out on the porch and watch the cars pass by.
I'll close with a quote from Bane: "Mrkl mumf unite argyle frankensense blarg."
The words are as true today as they were during the midnight screening.
It's a good movie. However, it practically begged for a review like this.
 
TDKR "criticism" has been in RLM territory for some time now.

First of all, the motivation of the villains is a bullshit problem. In their motivation the villains of this film are essentially no different from any number of movie villains over the years, including BB. And no one ever had an issue with "motivation" in those cases... just this one. You might as well say "this movie violated fundamental rules of filmmaking that I made up myself". You might as well say "TDKR changed the Force".

Bane also knows, probably because he's — as Rush Limbaugh has cleverly deduced -- a stand-in for Mitt Romney

Don't tell me - you're just joking. At least that would explain a theory contradicted by the fact that this movie was finished shooting before Romney was even the nomney.

Also, I'm pretty sure Catwoman figures it out, unless Batman has a special Bat-kiss that differentiates his Bruce Wayne smooching experience.

She heard Bane call him "Mr. Wayne", but don't let that get in the way of your much more entertaining kissing theory.
 
Regardless of what one thinks of TDKR it's on track to make some decent money despite a somewhat stumbling start.
 
I think part of the problem is people try to understand Bane's motivations but I don't think they really make much sense except as Talia's stooge but that isn't revealed to the end. He seems like this guy with some higher purpose but in the end he's just pissing in everyone's corn flakes for as long as he can.
 
I doubt they will be able to get all the actors (especially Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman) back unless Nolan produces/writes the script or they get a shitload of money thrown at them.

Caine has said in Empire magazine he would come back as Alfred even if it was a reboot.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top