The Dark Knight Rises - seen thread *SPOILERS WITHIN* See Mod Warning in first post

Handsome Bob

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Yeah, as someone pointed out, Bane punched through a pillar but Bruce kicked through one too. The only surreal moment of power that Bane displayed (in context) was when he lifted Bruce and kneed him in the back.

I'm still shocked by that moment, don't know what to think of it. Seeing it again tomorrow anyway.

Im in love with that moment. Always have been.

I'll probably end up loving it but I was just shocked that Nolan actually went with it. The whole fight had me in awe but when that happened, my mind was blown.

Scanlas The 2nd

tupac_healy wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I thought Bane was a great villain, possibly better than the joker IMO, the only problem was his anticlimactic death.

There was another problem, as I pointed out, he actually does spend an awful lot of his screen time just hanging about the place!!! Also, whilst I did understand the voice, I agree that it seemed out of place and they could have done something else with it

Yes I agree, he didn't do that much, as a villain though I thought he was great but would have liked to see more of him. I actually liked the voice, thought it was menacing with a weird twist.

Voodoomelon

Bane was fantastic, loved him.

But overall the movie was a bit of a let down; scenes like Bane and Batman fighting on the steps amongst thousands of cops just came across as old and tired. The scenes involving the bomb trucks and the tumblers were slow and unexciting. As was the joint scene with Batman and Catwoman fighting on the roof tops, everything looked quite staged, slow-moving and frankly uninteresting.

Did anyone see it in the Vue in Liffey Valley? Saw it in screen 2 and the sound was APPALLING. The surround channels were deafening and the dialogue was muddy and under-volumed, everyone I was with struggled to make out most of the dialogue. Quite disappointed at that.

event

al28283 wrote: »

Oh, an attachment, that explains it.

Well yes it does. He had a brace on his knee to enable him to walk without a limp, this was what enabled him to kick a hole in a wall.

And yes I'm aware of Bane from the comics, I'm also aware that Rha's was over 600 years old in the comics but they didn't go that route with him.

So you understand that his strength is one of his biggest assets. If he wasnt much stronger, he wouldnt be as good a villan.

al28283

event wrote: »

Well yes it does. He had a brace on his knee to enable him to walk without a limp, this was what enabled him to kick a hole in a wall.



So you understand that his strength is one of his biggest assets. If he wasnt much stronger, he wouldnt be as good a villan.

The fact that either of them can knock through walls was unrealistic and didn't feel like it belonged in the franchise which was going for the realism angle from the very beginning. Even with a brace on his knee :rolleyes:

Professey Chin

event wrote: »

So you understand that his strength is one of his biggest assets. If he wasnt much stronger, he wouldnt be as good a villan.

His biggest asset is his intelligence. Bane isnt the kind to get involved in every fight but has the ability when he wants to. He spends most of the time pulling the strings. In the comics I dont remember him throwing a punch until he felt batman was destroyed mentally & exhausted physically.

Professey Chin

al28283 wrote: »

The fact that either of them can knock through walls was unrealistic and didn't feel like it belonged in the franchise which was going for the realism angle from the very beginning. Even with a brace on his knee :rolleyes:

With everything else that happened over the 3 films youre picking some structural damage as unrealistic

Handsome Bob

al28283 wrote: »

event wrote: »

Well yes it does. He had a brace on his knee to enable him to walk without a limp, this was what enabled him to kick a hole in a wall.



So you understand that his strength is one of his biggest assets. If he wasnt much stronger, he wouldnt be as good a villan.

The fact that either of them can knock through walls was unrealistic and didn't feel like it belonged in the franchise which was going for the realism angle from the very beginning. Even with a brace on his knee :rolleyes:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're gonna complain about the lack of realism within a franchise that has a bloke walking around with half his face burnt off without a bother, really?

Professey Chin

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're gonna complain about the lack of realism within a franchise that has a bloke walking around with half his face burnt off without a bother, really?

Especially since people have been breaking concrete blocks with punches and kicks for hundreds of years

al28283

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

With everything else that happened over the 3 films youre picking some structural damage as unrealistic

Some structural damage? Bane punched through a wall with his bare hands, Even considering all the fantastical elements throughout the other movies that's a huge stretch for this franchise. Batman, nor any of the other characters had super strength in the other movies but now they do.

It was lazy writing, how do we show Batman's knee is better now? Have him kick through a wall. How do we show Bane is really angry and deperate, have him punch through a wall.

Professey Chin

al28283 wrote: »

Some structural damage? Bane punched through a wall with his bare hands, Even considering all the fantastical elements throughout the other movies that's a huge stretch for this franchise. Batman, nor any of the other characters had super strength in the other movies but now they do.

It was lazy writing, how do we show Batman's knee is better now? Have him kick through a wall. How do we show Bane is really angry and deperate, have him punch through a wall.

How? People with martial arts training have been breaking blocks of concrete for centuries. Is it really that had to believe that 2 well trained & very physically strong men who in that universe are examples of near human perfection wouldnt be able?

al28283

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

How? People with martial arts training have been breaking blocks of concrete for centuries. Is it really that had to believe that 2 well trained & very physically strong men who in that universe are examples of near human perfection wouldnt be able?

Yep, for me at least, It took me straight out of the movie. Just didn't match up to the others at all

Dempsey

al28283 wrote: »

Some structural damage? Bane punched through a wall with his bare hands, Even considering all the fantastical elements throughout the other movies that's a huge stretch for this franchise. Batman, nor any of the other characters had super strength in the other movies but now they do.

It was lazy writing, how do we show Batman's knee is better now? Have him kick through a wall. How do we show Bane is really angry and deperate, have him punch through a wall.

In TDK, Batman bend the barrel of a rifle, it was quite clear then that he had mechanical aids to help him do things. Bane is faster and stronger than Batman with these mechanical aids.

Sad Professor

Oh no, the "why isn't this gritty and realistic like Batman Begins" argument again. Can someone please send me their copy of Batman Begins? I must have a dodgy copy because the version I have isn't remotely realistic.

MJ23

Loved the film. The big disappointment for me was that Barry O Hanlon wasn't in it. I was sure he'd be in it.

event

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

His biggest asset is his intelligence. Bane isnt the kind to get involved in every fight but has the ability when he wants to. He spends most of the time pulling the strings. In the comics I dont remember him throwing a punch until he felt batman was destroyed mentally & exhausted physically.

i know, thats why i said one of.

tupac_healy

MJ23 wrote: »

Loved the film. The big disappointment for me was that Barry O Hanlon wasn't in it. I was sure he'd be in it.

What!!!

You mean he WASN'T Bane :eek:

Elessar

I NEED to see this movie again. There was so much in it, so much plot, so many arcs and things you had to keep track of. The potency of the film was lost on me because halfway through I got confused about the whys and hows. It is a MONSTER of a film.

I will say this though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some amazing stuff. And so satisfying to see Batman back again. I have some criticisms but for now I HAVE to see it again ASAP. I'm off work tomorrow so will probably go then. I feel like I've only seen half of it!

Did anyone else feel like this?

Scanlas The 2nd

Some people are really nitpicking about realism. For a start the whole idea of Batman is completely unrealistic, no one can go around beating up so many men (especially gangsters) as he does in batman begins, it's ridiculous. But this is a comic book movie, it wouldn't be much fun if batman got tired after beating up the 2nd guy and then got killed. The end. You have to accept a level of unrealism and go with it. Otherwise don't watch comic book movies.

On further thought the biggest let down for me ( along with Bane's death)would have to be the whole action sequence involving Catwoman blowing up the tumblers, it just seemed too easy and there was something fake looking about it. I thought it was really weak.

8-10

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

was there a shot of wayne tower showing the rail links etc all going into it? , i thought it was just a shot of a random building with wayne written on it??

That random building was actually Trump Tower.

Fishooks12

Sad Professor wrote: »

Oh no, the "why isn't this gritty and realistic like Batman Begins" argument again. Can someone please send me their copy of Batman Begins? I must have a dodgy copy because the version I have isn't remotely realistic.

I find the realism gripes hilarious, and I didn't exactly love the film, more I think about it the more I feel that it's probably Nolan's worst. But giving out about Bane punching walls and how Batman got back into Gotham is just pure nitpicking. It's a comic book film, you have to give some leeway in realism.

Next people will be giving out about Gotham not being a real city!

Oscorp

Elessar wrote: »

I NEED to see this movie again. There was so much in it, so much plot, so many arcs and things you had to keep track of. The potency of the film was lost on me because halfway through I got confused about the whys and hows. It is a MONSTER of a film.

I will say this though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some amazing stuff. And so satisfying to see Batman back again. I have some criticisms but for now I HAVE to see it again ASAP. I'm off work tomorrow so will probably go then. I feel like I've only seen half of it!

Did anyone else feel like this?

People keep asking me what I thought of it and I can't answer. I just didn't digest this film properly, I need to see it again!

Dietsquirt

Shred wrote: »

I saw it with the wife @ 9am in Vue this morning and absolutely loved every single second of it, right now it's the best of the three for me although I'll need to see it as many times as the other too before that's confirmed. Bane was terrifying and I, as others, really enjoyed Hathaway's perfomance. One small thing that's bugging the living crap outta me is the cop towards the end who

blows the bridge

- I can't place who he is, what the hell is he out of?

DEXTER, He's the cop going with dexters sister

Oscorp

Dietsquirt wrote: »

DEXTER, He's the cop going with dexters sister

Detective Quinn from Dex

Fishooks12

what did people make of JGL? Huge fan of his but I really didn't think he brought much and his character was very one dimensional

Was pleasantly surprised with Cat woman though

tony1kenobi

Fishooks12 wrote: »

what did people make of JGL? Huge fan of his but I really didn't think he brought much and his character was very one dimensional

I thought he was great.Did away with the "no guns,no killing" rule by offing two blocklayers for flinching.....and it tees up French Stewart to go up against him as the Riddler.Sweet deal.

homerun_homer

In terms of the realism of the franchise, who cares... Just look at how Batman was dragged along by the train in Begins, how was that possible with all the posts and parts of construction of the railway in the way. I got over this, unless there is some logical way he did it.

I doesnt bother me much as for a fantasy film set in a more realistic setting it rocks, as does each sequel.

hightower1

8-10 wrote: »

That random building was actually Trump Tower.

No, wayne tower in the nolan movies is actually the Chicago board or trade building. Trump tower Chicago looks nothing like it.


chicago board or trade building

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SPwZe10-u1k/S_XiQu5QB9I/AAAAAAAAAEE/ImKsZGbK_HQ/s1600/chicago-board-of-trade-building.jpg

Trump tower


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/20090518_Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower,_Chicago.jpg/225px-20090518_Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower,_Chicago.jpg

Phoenix Park

if anyone should know their towers its a man who is so into them he puts tower in his username

hightower1

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I find the realism gripes hilarious, and I didn't exactly love the film, more I think about it the more I feel that it's probably Nolan's worst. But giving out about Bane punching walls and how Batman got back into Gotham is just pure nitpicking. It's a comic book film, you have to give some leeway in realism.

Next people will be giving out about Gotham not being a real city!

You see Nolans first two batman movies set a standard level of realism that was the norm for the world, comparing that level of realism with the first two movies against TDKR you'll find this installment too fantastical in comparison to the others....not in comparison to real life.

Im sure no one here was saying BB or TDK was realistic as a factual documentary, its a given that anyone complaining TDKR was fantastical was doing to in contrast to the other films in the series.