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

Clareman

I saw it last night and thought it was a good movie, but I do have some issues with it.

What's the story with the blond with Selina, looked a bit girlfriendey there, was she just ditched for Bruce?
Bruce losing all his money cause someone got his thumb print, wtf?
Bruce is barely able to walk cause his knees are in such bad shape, he gets Stone Cold's knee braces and all of a sudden is sorted!!!
Why does Nolan insist on introducing a major character near the very end of the movie just to have them killed off (2 Face, Talia al Ghul, Scarecow (to a lesser extent))
Bane being sacrificed when setting off the bomb and him being ok with that, he was ok with having his lakkey killed on the plane, what benefit would be brought to him dying in the bomb blast?
Bane gets killed off with a lucky shot.
A broken back can be fixed by punching you in the back and hanging you by a rope.......
Bomb off the coast, ahhhh, you're going to have a massive tidal wave.


All in all it was a very good movie, I liked the way it linked the 3 movies together and tied off most loose ends, like a lot of people I would have been happier to just have Alfred nod at the end, but it was a nice way to bring the trilogy to a close, I would imagine that there'll be another trilogy in the works by the end of the decade, not necessarily with Nolan/Bale attached.

Teyla Emmagan

Liam O wrote: »

How on Earth could Bane have been "anyone"? Did you even see the movie?

Could have been any actor, is all I meant. You could hardly tell it was Tom Hardy. It wasn't exactly a role that would provide a career defining moment . All he did was thump things and muffle his words. I don't think there will be any Oscars going for that role, let's say.

dyl10

Really enjoyed. Pacing was a bit strange at times but the ending was excellent. There's no way it was any kind of dream sequence at the end, it was clearly left open so Batman, Robin and Catwoman were all alive for a potential sequel.

Sound was strange in my cinema, difficult to hear some dialogue.

I have to say Anne Hathaway was killer as Catwoman; sexiest movie character in years!

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Could have been any actor, is all I meant. You could hardly tell it was Tom Hardy. It wasn't exactly a role that would provide a career defining moment . All he did was thump things and muffle his words. I don't think there will be any Oscars going for that role, let's say.

Yup. Really could see Matt Damon, Keanu Reeves or Danny Devito in that role. :rolleyes:

Hardy was fantastic as Bane. To say any actor could have done that, does him a great disservice. Mask work is one of the most difficult disciplines in acting. To do it for a feature with emotions is pretty difficult actually.

Kinski

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardy was fantastic as Bane. To say any actor could have done that, does him a great disservice. Mask work is one of the most difficult disciplines in acting. To do it for a feature with emotions is pretty difficult actually.

Hardy did the role well, but I think Bane was a slightly dull choice of villain. His motivation wasn't very convincing.

TDK expended much effort in establishing that the Joker had an almost ideological commitment to "chaos", and that worked well placed in opposition to Batman's defence of order and justice (while also hinting at conflicts inherent in the duality of the Wayne/Batman identities.)

Bane, on the other hand, just wanted to destroy Gotham, apparently because he just "loved" Talia soooo much that he was willing to sacrifice himself to fulfil the ambitions of her father and the League of Shadows (wait, wasn't this guy kicked out of that cult?)

Batman's "Rogue's Gallery" is filled with many colourful, interesting characters, many of whom could have been brought to life by Nolan and the right performer in ways which could have complemented Ledger's turn in TDK nicely, but IMO they went with a safe but uninspiring choice, and Hardy did the best he could with what he was handed.

phil1nj

Kinski wrote: »

TDK expended much effort in establishing that the Joker had an almost ideological commitment to "chaos", and that worked well placed in opposition to Batman's defence of order and justice (while also hinting at conflicts inherent in the duality of the Wayne/Batman identities.)

Bane, on the other hand, just wanted to destroy Gotham, apparently because he just "loved" Talia soooo much that he was willing to sacrifice himself to fulfil the ambitions of her father and the League of Shadows (wait, wasn't this guy kicked out of that cult?)

Batman's "Rogue's Gallery" is filled with many colourful, interesting characters, many of whom could have been brought to life by Nolan and the right performer in ways which could have complemented Ledger's turn in TDK nicely, but IMO they went with a safe but uninspiring choice, and Hardy did the best he could with what he was handed.

The problem with Batman's Rogues Gallery is that there are too many fantastical characters in it (Clayface, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc even the Penguin and Riddler to a certain extent). None of these, IMHO, could have gone up against Nolans take on The Dark Knight and Bane does have the dubious honour of being the character who " broke the Bat".

From reading some of the comments on this thread it seems that most people wanted a Batman Vs. The Joker MKII for the third installment of the trilogy despite the fact that the Joker's story had already come to a satisfactory conclusion in TDK.

The League of Shadows story, however, was very much left up in the air after BB, ok their leader, Ra's Al Ghul/Henri Ducard was dead but they hadn't gone away nor had they given up their goal of seeing Gotham destroyed (they'd been trying for years after all using many different tactics). I for one was happy to see the story come full circle and also to have Bane leading that final installment was the right way to go (it didn't take anything away from the Jokers outing in TDK either).

My 2 cents anyway.

Rabies

The blonde girl that was with Anne Hathaway, am I the only one to think she acted a little like Harley Quinn?
Watched the movie for a second time tonight. Still enjoyed it.
I do agree about the remastered Bane voice. Doesn't fit the scenes and feel natural at all.

TDKR was a good finale to the trilogy.

thegreengoblin

It's nearly 24 hours since I saw the film and I am still on the verge of tears when I start thinking about it. What a way to finish it all off, what a superb ending.

I'm pretty sure we won't see those characters again as we've known them in the films, the reboot will be a new cast, different director, different style, etc, and there is just a sense of loss about the whole thing even though I've been so looking forward to it!

I wish I could be someone else for a few hours who hasn't seen it yet and is going tonight :pac:

johnny_ultimate

I'm pretty sure the only real reason for Kyle's sidekick was to give the up and coming Juno Jemple a bit of screen-time in a big budget blockbuster. You'll be seeing a lot more of her, probably outside the quirky indie roles she's getting noticed for at the moment. She's one of the few characters in the film that could have been cut without any major narrative knock-on effect, IMO, but then I guess they needed someone there to converse with Hathaway in her dedicated scenes.

spankmaster2000

phil1nj wrote: »

From reading some of the comments on this thread it seems that most people wanted a Batman Vs. The Joker MKII for the third installment of the trilogy despite the fact that the Joker's story had already come to a satisfactory conclusion in TDK.

I disagree.
The Joker was (ultimately) responsible for the death of Bruce's childhood love; plus the biggest terrorist threat the city had seen to date, in addition to "assisting" in taking down the all of the organised crime in Gotham.

Considering the fact that Scarecrow even made an (unnecessary) reappearance; I'd have appreciated a throwaway line regarding the Joker at the very least.
i.e. "...we haven't seen anything like this since the Joker", etc...
His existence isn't even mentioned once; which I thought was unusual.

Kinski

phil1nj wrote: »

The problem with Batman's Rogues Gallery is that there are too many fantastical characters in it (Clayface, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc even the Penguin and Riddler to a certain extent). None of these, IMHO, could have gone up against Nolans take on The Dark Knight and Bane does have the dubious honour of being the character who " broke the Bat".

From reading some of the comments on this thread it seems that most people wanted a Batman Vs. The Joker MKII for the third installment of the trilogy despite the fact that the Joker's story had already come to a satisfactory conclusion in TDK.

The League of Shadows story, however, was very much left up in the air after BB, ok their leader, Ra's Al Ghul/Henri Ducard was dead but they hadn't gone away nor had they given up their goal of seeing Gotham destroyed (they'd been trying for years after all using many different tactics). I for one was happy to see the story come full circle and also to have Bane leading that final installment was the right way to go (it didn't take anything away from the Jokers outing in TDK either).

My 2 cents anyway.

That's true (I'm sure everyone agrees Mr. Freeze wouldn't work, and The Riddler is probably too similar to The Joker, superficially anyway.)

But maybe they didn't explore Bane enough. His intelligence wasn't really depicted in any detailed way...if you didn't know he's supposed to be a genius, you might not realise it. Isn't that the point of his character? That he's intellectually and physically the equal (the better?) of Batman?

But I think it was a little too like TDK anyhow. Bane/Talia's plan involved creating chaos in Gotham, pretty much same as Joker, they just got further along and wanted to take it to its logical conclusion of nuking the place altogether.

What I think might have been interesting was to play the "Bane as liberator" angle more. That's how Bane spoke about himself (duplicitously of course), but the people of Gotham wouldn't have taken him seriously...just look at what he was doing.

They might have had Bane appearing as a "false prophet": stepping into the void filled by the presumed guilty Batman, the man who brings the Bat to justice by breaking him, beating petty criminals to a pulp, being championed as a hero of the people for storming the Stock Exchange...and so on.

Given that there was this tension in the last film around the way Batman metes out justice (is he fascistic?) they could have had the film centring around Wayne coming up against a real fascist: Bane assuming control of Gotham backed a by deluded, deceived populace, and Batman tasked with saving the city and his reputation.

But then I'm not Chris Nolan, so what do I know?:p

Professey Chin

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Considering the fact that Scarecrow even made an (unnecessary) reappearance; I'd have appreciated a throwaway line regarding the Joker at the very least.
i.e. "...we haven't seen anything like this since the Joker", etc...
His existence isn't even mentioned once; which I thought was unusual.

Nolan said there was going to be no mention of the Joker after Ledger died

Turtyturd

Clareman wrote: »

I saw it last night and thought it was a good movie, but I do have some issues with it.

What's the story with the blond with Selina, looked a bit girlfriendey there, was she just ditched for Bruce?
Bruce losing all his money cause someone got his thumb print, wtf?
Bruce is barely able to walk cause his knees are in such bad shape, he gets Stone Cold's knee braces and all of a sudden is sorted!!!
Why does Nolan insist on introducing a major character near the very end of the movie just to have them killed off (2 Face, Talia al Ghul, Scarecow (to a lesser extent))
Bane being sacrificed when setting off the bomb and him being ok with that, he was ok with having his lakkey killed on the plane, what benefit would be brought to him dying in the bomb blast?
Bane gets killed off with a lucky shot.
A broken back can be fixed by punching you in the back and hanging you by a rope.......
Bomb off the coast, ahhhh, you're going to have a massive tidal wave.


All in all it was a very good movie, I liked the way it linked the 3 movies together and tied off most loose ends, like a lot of people I would have been happier to just have Alfred nod at the end, but it was a nice way to bring the trilogy to a close, I would imagine that there'll be another trilogy in the works by the end of the decade, not necessarily with Nolan/Bale attached.

I am pretty sure Selina's friend is or at least based on this character.


Edit: Actually says it is her in the other media section.

podgemonster

It's been three days since i have seen it and when the lights went up in the end I must say I felt there was something missing. As the days went on I thought about the film more and more and i realised that although it wasn't perfect, its still excellent, an emotional rollercoaster and realised that my discontent was due to the fact that the journey was over.

For me it was a film of hope. The little circle of sunlight at the top of a pit, Selinas hope of a new life, Gordans hope for Batman to return and forgiveness, Alfred hope for Bruce to move on and the false hope Bane gave to the citizens of Gotham.

My 1 negative point was I didn't like that Talia died thinking she had won, i relish the look on a cocky villians face when they have failed like Bane when he sees the Bat signal on the bridge, Jokers when the boats didn't explode and Ra's as the train crashed. Also Scarecrow never got to wear his mask.

There were some iconic moments where I just wanted to shout in ecstacy. Batman 1st appearance wizzing by in the Batpod, the lighting of Bat Signal on the bridge, Blake rising in the Batcave and Bruces Climb. The first Bane Batman fight was graphic and brutal, it was like watching your Dad getting beating up, just heartbreaking. The second fight could have been longer but i loved how it ended with Bane scrambling on the floor like Joker in the interrogation room and Batman giving Bane permission to die.

This is probably the only movie I have openly and audibly sobbed at the cinema. When realising what Batman had to do I thought i could hold it in but that brief shot of Gordon putting his coat around young Bruce just cut right through me, i heard a grown man cry "No" when the bomb flashed in the distance, i knew how he felt.

As a trilogy it is the perfect progression of the origins of a hero to his end.

Rabies

Turtyturd wrote: »

I am pretty sure Selina's friend is or at least based on this character.


Edit: Actually says it is her in the other media section.

Ah.. makes sense now.

me-skywalker

Really enjoyed if. Was as complete and end to the trilogy as you can get.

The symbolism of humans looking upto idols to inspire them. Was treated brilliantly with Gordon taking matters into his own hands, Selina coming back to help instead of fleeing, Blake being a man of action and willing to take a different point of view, the power he instilled in the Police force to take on the bad guys as they were their own personal hero's. This was Bruce's sacrifice, he made them all hero's.

I really enjoyed Bane. He was fierce, powerful, composed and intelligent. The first villian that Batman fought were you could actually have a sense somethign bad coudl happen, he was actually going to loose. Ra's was too old and not as strong, The Scarecrow was frightening but coudlnt hold up, the Joker never wanted to actaulyl kill batman he wanted Batman to kill him, while Bane actually matched him up punch for punch. Does anybody know where Hardy got the idea for the way he holds his collar? I loved it brought a real non-chalance bravado to the character. Also the scene when him and Talia say goodbye and he blinks and sort-of winces was really emotive.

Clareman wrote: »

I saw it last night and thought it was a good movie, but I do have some issues with it.

What's the story with the blond with Selina, looked a bit girlfriendey there, was she just ditched for Bruce?

She's was a self preservationist, she was always in it for herself, her mate just seemed to be there to show that she had a small attachment to show her the ways of the dark arts.

Why does Nolan insist on introducing a major character near the very end of the movie just to have them killed off (2 Face, Talia al Ghul, Scarecow (to a lesser extent))

He didnt "just" introduce them, its their transformation into their alter-ego/characters that the story is based around and certainly gives the ends and ultimate justification. Only Joker is not given any character background or unravelling, he merely just exists.

spankmaster2000

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Nolan said there was going to be no mention of the Joker after Ledger died

Aye, but himself and Bale also repeatedly said "No Robin" also...

Again; I'm not asking for another actor to have stepped in, a cameo, or even a serious debate / conversation about the character in TDKR. Just some sort of reference to his current status. In the context of the film, I found it unusual.

al28283

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Aye, but himself and Bale also repeatedly said "No Robin" also...

Again; I'm not asking for another actor to have stepped in, a cameo, or even a serious debate / conversation about the character in TDKR. Just some sort of reference to his current status. In the context of the film, I found it unusual.

I assume that's why they went with Blackgate prison instead of Arkham, presumably The joker is in Arkham so they just avoided it completely.

spankmaster2000

al28283 wrote: »

I assume that's why they went with Blackgate prison instead of Arkham, presumably The joker is in Arkham so they just avoided it completely.

There is no "Arkham" in this franchise though, is there?
Aside from which, Arkham is in Gotham, isn't it? How did the Scarecrow get out, and the Joker didn't?

al28283

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

There is no "Arkham" in this franchise though, is there?
Aside from which, Arkham is in Gotham, isn't it? How did the Scarecrow get out, and the Joker didn't?

Arkham was in the first one and mention quite a bit in the second. Dunno why Scarecrow was around, maybe he's not actually crazy, just a jerk.

Professey Chin

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

There is no "Arkham" in this franchise though, is there?
Aside from which, Arkham is in Gotham, isn't it? How did the Scarecrow get out, and the Joker didn't?

Arkham was the asylum in begins.
Depends what you read aswell. Arkham is in gotham, outside gotham, on an island near gotham

Since the narrows seem to have been wiped from the city since Begins its possible arkham has a new location away from the city

nyarlothothep

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I went priming myself up to tear holes in it, I was ready to criticise it completely and walk out of the cinema in anger but instead I found the 2.44 passing by very quickly. I actually somewhat enjoyed a Christopher Nolan film for once and I attribute this to his toning down the annoying hallmarks of his style a bit.

For example, I was pleased with the absence of music for the fight between Bane and Batman, it made it much more immersive because it lent the scene realism, this is what would probably happen to Batman irl, he wouldn't effortlessly win the fight, he would lose. I also appreciated the fact that the central theme, though repeated a few times wasn't repeated every 5 seconds with montage sequences like in the TDK.

I think this film was probably the best in the trilogy. Batman Begins was ok but a bit boring, the central antagonist was boring, plot wise it was better than TDK. TDK had an overly elaborate plot, it had many excellent thematic elements which were poorly conveyed. The cast were forgettable except for Ledger, the guy who played Harvey Dent was rubbish. The only thing that made the film memorable was Ledger's transcendent performance, a performance which went far beyond an acting masterclass, it was timeless and will never be equalled, nothing comes close to it, not even Shakespearean acting. Take out the joker and you're left with a very average film. TDKR was in between the first two. The plot was better than TDK and Batman Begins, the philosophical and thematic subtexts were conveyed in a much less convoluted and more relaxed manner which worked in its favour, Bane was an excellent villain, though not at as good as the Joker, but then what could be. I also applaud the voice acting for Bane, it was simultaneously hilarious and threatening, in that you had a genteel english voice coming from a veritable tank of a man predisposed to extreme violence. That was cool because the voice never rose in anger much, and contrasted with the ferocious outbursts of violence, it created a sense of unpredictability and fear. However it was also funny, I wouldn't be surprised if people will parody it for years to come. So a double win on that count. I thought the plot twist at the end was unnecessary though and typically Nolan. And wouldn't the fusion bomb release a load of radiation? I think Batman should have died imo, although the justifications for his survival do make sense. But on a purely emotional level, I would have preferred that atmosphere of doom and sacrifice to have reached its apotheosis with Batman's literal sacrifice. It would have packed a much more visceral emotional punch.

I also think the score was good, however, in the battle scene between with the cops I think the chromatic ascending and descending section of the score should have been used for the whole sequence as it was my favourite section and also its very evocative of a kind of panic/unknown outcome atmosphere which would have worked very well in this context. Apart from that it was a good film, nothing amazing imo, but pretty damn good and I had my expectations completely turned upside down.

spankmaster2000

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Arkham was the asylum in begins.
Depends what you read aswell. Arkham is in gotham, outside gotham, on an island near gotham

In "The Narrows", right?
Wasn't the entire "Narrows" over-run after the events of Batman Begins though?
i.e. that's how the Scarecrow was left to run about, left to his own devices at the beginning of TDKR.
As such; I'd assumed that Arkham wasn't still in use as an asylum.

Rezident

Mssively dissappponting. Considering expectations it was the most disappointing film I've seen at cinema. The final quarter, or considering the ludicrous length maybe it was only the final tenth, was good despite the final cop out but it was mostly disappointing and there were so many huge plot holes it lost me within the first hour despite me really really wanting to love it.

Bruce the billionaire has an injured leg but doesn't go to the doctor for 8 years. And from there it got worse and worse. Too convoluted, it over reached and missed and some of the various plots were so contrived as to be risible. Massive fail. Bitterly disappointed.

Professey Chin

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

In "The Narrows", right?
Wasn't the entire "Narrows" over-run after the events of Batman Begins though?
i.e. that's how the Scarecrow was left to run about, left to his own devices at the beginning of TDKR.
As such; I'd assumed that Arkham wasn't still in use as an asylum.

Yep. I just gave a quick edit. In TDK, Scarecrow seems to have been more of a drugs dealer then anything so he was probably a basic prisoner so put into blackgate.
Joker would definitely be in a seperate asylum.

DirkVoodoo

Can't understand people looking at the ending as a possible continuation for the franchise, it isn't meant to be anything of the sort! The beauty of this is we now have a complete trilogy, there will be no "Batman: the phantom menace" prequel or different actor taking on the role in "Batman:Casino Royale". Nolan's trilogy will be unsullied and final.

"The Batman could be anyone"

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

"Whoever the Batman is, he doesn't wanna do this for the rest of his life.
How could he? Batman is looking for someone to take up his mantle."

Bruce saved Gotham and created a legacy for the Batman, he can finally move on and create a normal life for himself knowing that the Batman rose up from villain to hero, the hero the city deserved in the end.

I thought it was fantastic. Emotional and epic in every way that it could be. But to think that the ending was not simply the most narratively satisfying way to wrap it all up but some "back door" into the franchise for Nolan in case he needs to cash-in some time in the future is doing a real disservice to the story. We don't need to know about Blake (In my head he goes straight to being a vigilante called "Nightwing" and not using his christian name as a secret identity!) and how he will fight crime in Gotham, it's enough to know that he is the new "dark knight, watchful protector" for the city.

brianregan09

I haven't seen it mentioned here but how come in 5 months of no Batman Bane or any of his goons never thought to dismantle all Batmans stuff , I mean his gone for 5 months and his Bat/Plane is still in the exact same place he left it, WTF like, Surely they'd have guards or somthing at least near it, same with his batsuit , I mean they were running the city, Surely the smaller details would have been covered especially as the Batman was probaly the only thing that could foil there plans, I suppose Bane thought he was feiced after the beating he gave him but still I would have obliterated burned every thing belong to him in front of the people too to make them even more downhearted lol

Theboinkmaster

nyarlothothep wrote: »

the guy who played Harvey Dent was rubbish

No actually he was brilliant.

BlimpyBoy

Kinski wrote: »

All perfectly audible for me. My gf struggled though, but she's not a native English speaker.

What difference does iSense (?) make? Smarting that we don't have an IMAX, sense Nolan has made so much of that technology.

I had no trouble understanding Bane. I did find this interesting though.

http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Tom-Hardy-Based-Bane-On-An-Irish-Traveler/131243.htm

Kinski

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can't understand people looking at the ending as a possible continuation for the franchise, it isn't meant to be anything of the sort! The beauty of this is we now have a complete trilogy, there will be no "Batman: the phantom menace" prequel or different actor taking on the role in "Batman:Casino Royale". Nolan's trilogy will be unsullied and final.

I can think of 162 million reasons (and counting) why the decision to conclude the franchise here may yet be reversed. Sure, Nolan intends it to end here, but the story is open to continuation (even a Nightwing spin-off could be possible), and he doesn't own the rights to Batman: what if Warner tell him they're taking the same actors, the same aesthetic and tone, and they're going to make another one whether he wants to helm it or not?