"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I dunno, the only thing I look for in a Catwoman is someone who fills in spandex very well which, well, Hathaway does. I thought she did the part very well. I was surprised, because I didn't think she'd have the "grace" for it. But she pulled it off, looked good, and well, I think it's the best on-screen portrayal of Catwoman since Julie Newmar. (I hated the Michelle Pfiffer version and the less said about Halle Berry's the better.)
Which may have something to do with the fact that he's in a literal suit of titanium-alloy armor equipped with fictional repulsor technology. ( And Wayne wasn't told "you'll barely be able to walk again", he was told "don't go heli-skiing". )
Because he had no cartilage in his knee! He was dependent on the cane just to walk and stand. You need cartilage in your joints in order for them to work, if you have no cartilage in a joint it's stiff and not flexible. What do you think arthritis is?
I got the impression that a fair bit of his limping was psychosomatic.
Still. Doesn't. Undo. The doctor saying he has no cartilage in his knee!
It's a little weird but it didn't irk me at all. The back thing was a stretch but it worked with the theme of the film so it didn't bother me much either.
The back thing is a whole other can of worms.
Here's a tip kids: If you ever dislocate some vertebrae? You can't just have someone punch them back into place, force you to stand up, and then be all set to go.
Here's a tip kids: If you ever dislocate some vertebrae? You can't just have someone punch them back into place, force you to stand up, and then be all set to go.
Less of stretch than in knightfall where Bruce's back is healed by a woman with psycho-kinetic powers.
And IIRC it wasn't a full break as Barman twisted just as Bane smashed him down but there was severe spinal trauma.
So some of these "plot holes" are in line with source materials.
The knee thing isn't too bad.
I know 2 guys who have shot knees. One pretty much has no cartilage, same as in the movie. The guy can walk, but not run. And he's in constant pain that he has to manage.
I supposed Bruce could have fought thru excruciating pain and probably risk permanent knee inmobility to fight Bane.
But the back thing? No way. Go look at a diagram of a human spine. You think vertebrae can just "snap" back into place from being dislocated? You can't "dislocate" anything in the spine, even the spinal discs are glued tightly to the vertebrae.
When someone "slips" a disc, what actually happens is you tear the cartilage in the middle, and if it's bad enough it will press on nerves going down the spinal column, giving symptoms of sciatica, and in severe cases can damage the spinal cord.
So no, breaking something in your back is not a thing that you "snap" back into place and then keep on training.
If they wanted to keep it realistic, they could have went the route of having surgeons patch him up, which is what I expected to happen.
It only dissapoints me because I wanted to love this movie as much as I loved the first 2.
Leaping out of the Lazarus pit without the knee brace would have been pretty tough, but if Bane let him keep it, you could say that that helped him get out.
They didn't.
Here's a list of the top grossing films of all time. How many of them are in anything resembling physical reality? I'll grant Titanic (#2) and ignore The Passion of the Christ (#21). Other than those you have to go down to My Big Fat Greek Wedding at #74, which is still an exercise in absurdity despite respecting the laws of physics.
Come to think of it, that is kind of disturbing. Or at least ver-r-ry interesting and stupid.
I honestly don't really care about the stuff you guys are pointing out. I still really enjoyed the movie, even if it isn't perfect. I was drawn into it enough by the story, acting, and directing that I honestly never really thought to much about most of this stuff, except for the back thing which bugged me for a minute or two, until you guys started discussing them on here.
It bothered me because I enjoyed the "hyper realism" shall we call it of the first movie, and to some degree the second one?
It's almost like the last one Chris Nolan just rushed a script that included two very serious injuries (I know Bane breaking the bat's back was something the hardcore guys wanted to see), but he didn't bother to do it realistically enough. He turned it into the typical mindless action flick where the hero gets up from crippling injured just because he's the hero.
This wasn't The Avengers, it was the conclusion to a reboot of the Bat that kept the fantastical to a very low degree, and as believable as possible without sacrificing good action. It failed to conclude the series in that regard.
Normally that would be true, but Batman's vertebrae had time to prepare...
The Nolan Batmans are certainly more realistic in tone than the Burton/Schumacher films or the 60s TV show and movie, but they are not realistic, much less "hyper-realistic," in terms of being reflective of real life.
Batman Begins was my favorite live action Batman movie but it wasn't hyper realistic. That movie with it's water evaporatorinator, fear gas and armies of ninjas was fantasyland through and through.
Like I said before; a true "hyper realistic movie" would be near impossible to do. First of all, there are things we just have to accept for the story to work. The whole point about Bruce Wayne for example, and how he happens to inherit a fortune. It's definitely convenient for the story to have a super rich guy be the one who wants to fight crime.
Then there's the access to extremely advanced technology, like the cape that becomes rigid with electriciy, etc. etc.
All these things "work" simply because we accept them for the story to work. We are used to the Batman story being this way.
In that sense, within the scope of the Batman mythos shall we call it? Nolan's "Batman Begins" is hyper realistic compared to everything that came before it. The Dark Knight slipped a little. And The Dark Knight Rises went back into your typical derivative action film.
Within the sense of "real life" Batman would never work. The feats he does in the movie who cripple him quickly, even with armor, like that jump he does into the roof of the scarecrow's van (At the least he'd get a sprained ankle from that, probably more)
As an old time comic book guy, I find this rather perverse. DC has always been about the fantastic, while Marvel was always more grounded and mundane.
Perhaps in the comics. I definitely don't see that in the movies.
Example: We have beings who are pretty much gods with technology so more advanced than ours that it looks like magic to us. Yet they still ride horses and fight with medieval weapons.
We have a guy with armor so powerful, it can take on Thor one on one, and the guy inside can survive without even a flesh wound getting pounded by a hammer that hits like a supersonic jetfighter on a collision course. And this is supposed to be technology feasible to us today (Stark designed it all himself)
We have a guy who is normal sized, but gets massively huge and strong every time he gets angry, and is able to jump into the stratosphere in a single bound, and then land from that high up with nay a scratch on him.
I'm not so sure I would call any of that grounded. This is not a jab at Marvel BTW, I enjoyed Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers. I just know to turn my brain off before walking into the theater.
Similar threads
