The Dark Knight Rises

[Mr Mystery]

Save your money, totally not worth seeing. Twist is obvious a mile off. Bane is about as intimidating as an irate Yorkshire Terrier.

Poor show Mr Nolan, poor show.

[DrLove42]

I would have to disagree. Its a great film, just doesn't quite match up to the high water mark that the 2nd set

Interesting to hear, the movie studio are already considering re-booting the series already

Looking forward to what Nolan does with Superman

[DarkLink]

It was awesome. Better than the Dark Knight.

[Iyandagar]

I must have watched the wrong film both times I went to the cinema to see this film then as I was totally spellbound both times. I loved it.

[Mr Mystery]

It was dull as dish water. I mean we're in the age of Avengers now. You have to up the ante or not bother.

The baddies were rubbish, and the plot holes were massive. It's not good when the twist is obvious from the first half hour. No real character development to speak of either. Sorry for the short comments, but trying to avoid spoilers!

[DrLove42]

Don't get me wrong its nothing near as good as the Avengers. But its not a comparative film.

The Avengers is a bit of an OTT power name fest, fast action and comedy. Thats not what batmans ever been about

Highlight for spoilers -

Talias character was good, but nothing like what she should be. Talia in the comics is in love with Bruce/Batman and wants him to join her ruling theleague, not a vindictive person.

Showing why "Robin" was disenfranchised with the police and may become his own superhero was well done

There wasn't mcuh actual Batman in it. He has a brief bike chase, then a brief "fight" with Bane and then the ending stuff. In costume, hes barely in the film

Alfred leaving is very abrupt and barely focused on. As is Bruce becoming a free man at the end...

As I said i enjoyed it. I think Heath Ledger made Dark Knight a stunning film, and i agree Bane is not as good a baddie. But the film is still very enjoyable, and i look forward to seeing it again.

PS - Avengers is out on DVD in md september :P

[Mr Mystery]

There's just a massive lack of suspense. And little conflict for the Bat. He has a childish spat with Alfred, as that's about it. The whole film lacks any emotion. Some scenes just sort of end.

It's just not a terribly interesting film. Perhaps it's the Halle Berry Catwoman curse seeping over. Sure Cat Woman remains nice to look at, but is a singularly uninteresting character. She does nothing but serve a rubbish plot device. And no sense of her gaining redemption either, which is kind of a major hook for that character.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I mean we're in the age of Avengers now.

Your mileage may vary on that one. Avengers was a lot of fun, but it's not the Best Film Evar. It might be YOUR best film evar, but that's a totally different thing. It wasn't a patch on the first "Iron Man" film in terms of character or humour (and whie engaging and funny, it's not a patch on Whedon's writing for "Astonishing X-Men" either)


You have to up the ante or not bother.

Only for you to like it. Frankly, I really can't stand stories where "the fate of the nation/planet/galaxy/universe/all realities hangs in the balance and only one man/team of heroes can save us/humanity/America" (delete choices as applicable). It's always struck me as lazy shorthand from the writers who can come up with a conflict for us to be properly invested in. You may love it - that's fine. But to state flatly that it's the only way to create an engaging meaningful narrative? A flawed argument. I actually found the "superheroes save the day by punching things" bit to be the least interesting bit of the film; I much preferred the action-free snarking.

Plus, sequel escalation isn't really a good thing. Consider "The Matrix" films: while the second and third "up the ante", the first is the one that's truly brilliant.


The baddies were rubbish

Your mileage may vary on that one. I liked Bane. Not a patch on the Joker in "The Dark Knight", but seriously: how do you follow Heath Ledger in that film? That performance was lightning in a bottle. Maybe we could get Schwarzenneger back in as Mr. Freeze? 'Cause that totally worked the last time...

Anyway, comparing "The Dark Knight Rises" to "The Avengers" is like comparing a sunday dinner to delicious ice cream: they're fundamentally sinilar, but not the same. "The Avengers" is all about bright colourful spectacle. "The Dark Knight" trilogy has always been about a sort of gritty hyper-realism. It's like, I love HBO's "The Wire", and I love "Teen Titans", but you can't compare them. They're totally different things.

I suspect the reason you're so disappointed is because you went in expecting the wrong things.

[DarkLink]

The Avengers was fun, but it's far from the best movie EVAR. And it's very ironic to complain about plot holes in The Dark Kinght Rises and then compare it to The Avengers. The Avengers had far more plot holes, nonsensical science and WTF? stuff in it than The Dark Knight Rises, not that The Avengers was the sort of movie to suffer from those issues. Similarly, The Dark Knight Rises is driven by tension, whilst The Avengers is driven by your desire to see the Hulk smash Loki into the ground like a plaything, because that was awesome and hilarious. You can't compare the two. They're completely and utterly different approaches to film making.

And Bane was awesome. You have to understand where he's coming from. He's a psychotic genius, not just a brute. Similarly to the Joker, he sees the world differently from others, and once you understand that you realize he will do anything to accomplish his goal. And since his goal is on an even grander scale than the Joker's, it makes him even more intimidating. The Joker just wanted to break down the rule of law. Bane wants to break down the rule of law, and then kill every single person in Gotham. And because of Bane's physical and mental prowess, and his oddly detached intellectual yet fanatically dedicated personality, you have every reason to believe that he can do so. The best the Joker could really hope to do was to get the Batman to break his no-kill rule. Bane simply breaks the Batman.

And I found Alfred's portion of the movie to be one of the most emotionally moving parts. Michael Caine is a great actor.


I actually found the "superheroes save the day by punching things" bit to be the least interesting bit of the film; I much preferred the action-free snarking.

The Avengers is an action comedy. It's about stuff blowing up, and it's fun, but the only thing that keeps it from being Michael Bay-esque is Joss Whedon's wit. And more coherent action sequences, too.

The Dark Knight Rises is an epic crime action. It's a tension-driven intellectual film about conquering your weaknesses and dealing with darker aspects of humanity. It's not 'fun' per se, it's emotionally gripping.

The two films go for different things, and each achieves them very well.


And I really liked some of the twists at the end, because they gave you just enough hints that you could guess what happened, but not without knowing for certain so you still felt the tension, but when you guessed correctly you felt smart. Best of both worlds.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Similarly to the Joker, he sees the world differently from others

Well, Joker, Bane and Batman are all Übermensch; they have seen the world's moral codes and rejected them in favour of their own preferred moral constructs. Batman refuses to engage with conventional morality, choosing to follow a "purer" ideal of justice (notably "purer" as he sees it - and I like that the films repeatedly draw attention to how the pathetic the idea of a billionaire beating up poor people is. As a side note, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_323023&feature=iv&src_vid=bFFDdgRj3nE&v=8l1PMVvfjDM N.B. language NSFW!). He chooses to ignore moral strictures regarding the established laws, instead following an idealistic sense of "justice" (his finances meaning unlike a poor man, he can simply say Screw The Rules I Have Money! instead of joining the police force (which arguably needs people driven by a strong sense of justice more than any other kind)).

The Joker comes from exactly the same viewpoint as Batman, only his chosen goal is evil committed for it's own sake. He dresses it up as "chaos", but the lie of this is proven when Gotham's people reject his "Two groups on a boat" plan and he elects to kill them out of disappointment (evil, lest we forget, is petty). This is also why Batman and the Joker work so well as characters; they've basically gone through the same abyss - one chose to embrace nihilism, the other to embrace his humanity.

Bane is the same, only where the Joker chose evil for it's own sake, Bane chooses domination (which makes sense to someone who was born and raised in a prison). His is almost the same as Batman: a dictatorial figure who imposes his will on the people of Gotham who are "lesser" than him. The only difference is in who they define as "lesser", as well as the lengths they are prepared to go to. They will both use torture and terror tactics, but Batman's madness restricts him from murder. Bane is basically Batman with the safety catch off.

Plus, I can't stop doing the voice. It's like an English version of Sean Connery.

[Iyandagar]

...phew, Malton, I thought it was only me walking around claiming to be Gotham's reckoning....

[MaltonNecromancer]

A mate and I spent literally an hour doing nothing but talking in Bane's voice.

[DarkLink]

I love how matter-of-factual everything is for Bane. He never jokes or uses hyperbole, he just states facts. And since he's crazy, and dead serious, it leads to some hilarious quotes. "That is a lovely, lovely singing voice".

[Mr Mystery]

I just feel incredibly let down. There was no passion in the acting, barring Caine who was excellent as ever.

The twists were rubbish as well. Everything was so formulaic. Once you've seen the new toy and the bad guy's ace, you know exactly how Batman is going to save the day. I didn't feel smart for guessing right, but mildly insulted that I was expected to get it wrong. It had so much pedigree, and do much to live up to, yet it feels nobody really bothered to try. Like a band that's had a breakthrough album, and the follow up is just running the same motions, with no attempt to innovate.

Perhaps it's the curse of the trilogy. Like X-Men, it shot it's bolt with the sequel, and followed up with a 'let's face it they'll watch it anyway' third. Ditto Spiderman. First was good, second was better, third was bobbins. There was just no tension in the plot. They give away to much, too early and too easily. Like when the main threat is revealed and brought into play. There's only one way out, and it's more obvious than Bane's terribly acting.

[Wildeybeast]

Looking forward to what Nolan does with Superman

Seeing Nolan do Superman would be great if it were happening. However we have Zak 'Sucher Punch' Synder at the helm so it will doubtless be rubbish.



Perhaps it's the curse of the trilogy. Like X-Men, it shot it's bolt with the sequel, and followed up with a 'let's face it they'll watch it anyway' third. Ditto Spiderman. First was good, second was better, third was bobbins. There was just no tension in the plot. They give away to much, too early and too easily. Like when the main threat is revealed and brought into play. There's only one way out, and it's more obvious than Bane's terribly acting.

Xmen three was done by different director as Bryan Singer jumped ship to helm the terrible Superman returns, hence why the third film failed to live up to the other 2.

As to TDKR, I really enjoyed it. I think comparison with the Avengers are totally misplaced as they are very different films. The Avengers is an action film, Batman, like the rest of Nolan's films is basically an arthouse project wrapped up in a multi million dollar budget. I think some of the complaints have failed to understand what the film is actually trying to do. If you want the Avengers then that film is great, but expecting the same from any of the Nolan Batmans is bound to leave you disappointed. The following thoughts contain SPOILERS.



Catwoman- I like the fact that her character is underdeveloped. It leaves an air of mystery about her motivations and creates ambivalence for her feelings towards Batman. Trying to give her background would have congested an already character heavy film when we have background development for Bane, Robin and Talia. And the film is about Batman/BW not Catwoman.

On that vein, I like the fact that he spends so little time in costume. You'll notice that Nolan has deliberately avoided using the word Batman in the title. He wants to focus on the character of Bruce as much as the Batman. The length of time he spends out of costume allows the film to focus on the struggles he has with reconciling his alter ego with his own identity, as well as showing his reluctance to do what he knows he has to do (sacrifice himself for Gotham).

As for Bane, I really liked him. I had no problem with the voice and his character was exactly what it was intended to be - a different version of Batman and different from the Joker. Where the Joker inflicts chaos simply for it's own sake, Bane is man on a mission, driven by love, just like Batman. They have both come out of the same dark hole, literally and metaphorically, and Bane is simply the other direction BW could have taken. He represents the physical and mental strength that Batman lacks and where the challenge with Joker is trying to understand madness, the challenge in defeating Bane is to overcome his own limitations. If the Joker is the antithesis of Batman, Bane is the opposite side of the same coin. I think he worked really well as a plot device baddie and whilst he doesn't bring as much to the film as the Joker did, he does what he needs to do the progress the BW story.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Interesting article (which I happen to agree with) about the lack of costume in superhero films:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/04/the-amazing-spider-man-superhero

[energongoodie]

I loved it.
I really enjoyed the Bane and Batman performances.
Joseph Gordon Levitt was great.

I want more!!!

[Wildeybeast]

Interesting article (which I happen to agree with) about the lack of costume in superhero films:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/04/the-amazing-spider-man-superhero

That is a really good article and I also agree entirely. The fact that it takes so long for BW to get into costume at the start of TDKR is testament to this and also to the work the previous two films have done in building the BW story. People don't just want a 90 minute slugfest between Batman and Bane. I entirely agree with the comments about Spiderman, which is ok as far as a reboot goes. The only reason I care about his final confrontation with Lizard is because of Pete Parker. The death of uncle Ben has genuine pathos because you know how it will affect PP (and because Martin Sheen is such an awesome actor). And I'm pleased to see them praising Captain America for the emphasis on the ordinary guy. I thought, outside of the Batman stuff, this is the best superhero film of modern times, but most people seem to have ignored or disliked it and I can't for the life of me understand why.

[MaltonNecromancer]

most people seem to have ignored or disliked it and I can't for the life of me understand why.

I think it's just because it doesn't have a central performance as overwhelming as Ledger's Joker - he was pretty much the main character of that film, and I suspect people wanted more of that. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Just saw the film four hours ago so my mind may change. I find after a few days my opinion on a movie alters, but here goes... I thought it was an intelligent film, and yet it just did not really work that well for me. I'd give it a B-/C+. Unlike some of you, I did not anticipate the plot twists and enjoyed that aspect of it. But somehow I found myself kind of bored. I don't want to to blow the plot to those who have not seen it but let's just say that Bane's plan seemed to "echo" the Joker's too closely in my mind.

I agree that the Avengers was a very different film, but I personally enjoyed it more. My 17-year old son totally disagreed. He liked this film much better.

PS: On a more minor note I also could not mentally make the alternating shots of New York and Boston become Gotham in my brain. For you Brits this was probably less of an issue as in all likelihood you have not spent much time in either place, but it did not work for me. Imagine setting the film in "Londtham City" then mixing up a bunch of shots of London with say...Edinburgh and trying to pretend it is the same fictional town. You'd probably notice right? I kept thinking "Boston...New York...now back to Boston...and there's New York again." I don't know how Nolan did the second movie but somehow I never noticed that problem in The Dark Knight.

Oh, and this is REALLY nitpicky, but that was some lame looking snow in the final fight scene. I grew up in Minnesota and I live in Arkansas, so I can damn well tell the difference between snow and cotton.

[Bigred]

I loved it. I've just sat down and watch all three over a couple days. While the initial Batman Begins was a bit wobbly, I think Nolan got his sea legs pretty fast.

I'm still torn over whether #2, or #3 was the better movie. I love them both for different reasons. The Dark Knight felt like a hard boiled cops and robbers drama that Michael Mann would have dreamed of, but with Ledger turning in the performance of his career. #3 aimed much higher, mixing a third batman, a third Tale of Two Cities, and 1/3 aging superhero - circle of life type stuff mixed in there. I loved tom Hardy's performance which I found to be excellent considering the limitation of being a major villian with a facemask. See Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin for an example of an amazing actor who just couldn't pull off a convincing role through a facemask. That said, Hardy's Bronson could almost be a trial run for Bane in the "physical acting" side of things.

Yes the Avengers will always be compared, but I agree its apples and oranges. Avengers is pure juvenile adrenaline and popcorn - and does it amazingly well. Batman has never been about that. At its heart Batman is about humans, rich, supersmart, james-bond equipped, but still human beings, and the darkness within us all.

I think kindly of Avengers, but the Dark Knight Rises sticks with me day after day, and that's the sign of a script and production that is running on all cylinders.

Its been a rough summer after the letdown of the Prometheus debacle. It was refreshing to walk out of the Dark Knight Rises with a giant smile on my face. Bruce Wayne has earned his retirement with his ladyfriend. Let the youngsters carry the load for a while.

[Wildeybeast]

I think it's just because it doesn't have a central performance as overwhelming as Ledger's Joker - he was pretty much the main character of that film, and I suspect people wanted more of that. That's how I see it, anyway.

But again, that is people looking for the same things in different films. The whole point of the Cap is that he isn't an overbearing showman like Stark or riddled with inner demons like Hulk or Batman. He's just an all round decent guy, standing up for what's right against overwhelming odds. The beauty of the film for me is this should make him an unbearable bore, but he actually comes across as quite likeable (helped in no small part by his awkwardness with women). It does suffers slightly from not having a strong central villain, despite Hugo Weaving chewing his way through the scenery in true panto villain style, but the overwhelming faceless minions are evil provide the threat.


I don't want to to blow the plot to those who have not seen it but let's just say that Bane's plan seemed to "echo" the Joker's too closely in my mind.


SPOLIERS
Only superficially. Bane uses similar methods, but has very different goals. He wants to wipe Gotham off the map, inhabitants and infrastructure, in Biblical punishment for their sins (well actually his girlfriend does, he just does as he's told - more Biblical imagery for you there). Joker wants to prove to Batman that everyone is just as mad and bad as he is when push comes to shove and that Batman's quest to save Gotham is futile as there is nothing worth saving. However, as he says in his final scene, he has no intention of destroying Batman (and by extension Gotham), as Batman provides him with so much entertainment. He wants chaos for it's own sake, Bane uses the chaos as part of the punishment and as a distraction to allow him to achieve his ultimate goal.