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

al28283

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread should be retitled, "The Dark Knight Rises - need to bitch, moan and whine thread".

This film is in no way a 4 out of 10 film. Honestly, most of Jennifer Anistons movies are better than a 4 out of 10. This is better than a 4 out of 10.

"But wwwwwwhhhhyyyyyy did they make them wait 5 months before exploding the bomb?"

Because this is a film not real life. This is not based on a true story before any one mistakes it for one. I know I nearly did. It was only when I saw Anne Hathaway looking hot did I realise it was a film.

Bane's death really came out of nowhere didn't it? Unlike the epic shootout that was JFK's end, the battle to the death against the French security forces that was Diana's death and of course no-one can forget the drawn out affair of Kurt Cobains death. Fact is. Death happens. It happens quickly and it happens unexpectedly. This is the guy who allegedly "broke the bat" (I would argue that it was Rachel's death many years earlier that really "broke the bat") This guy needed a cannon to the stomach. He was evil.

What else?

Bruce and Selina at the end in the Italian restaurant enjoying a glass of wine. The Bastards. Not like Bruce has done anything to deserve that. The Bastard.

I know I missed some nit-picking points, but I swear these people would have lashed out at the Godfather(1+2), Shawshank, Airplane, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly if they were young enough when they came out.

Second film in this franchise got it right with the line, "Some men just want to watch the world burn"


Oh and by the way, it's nearly 2015 and we don't have hoverboards. I suppose you'll all start hating on Back to the Future 2 now?

You point out that this is a film and then use real world world examples to justify Banes anti-climactic death. :rolleyes: By that rationale it would have been ok for Bane to keel over half way through the movie as a result of a undiagnosed illness, after all it happens all the time in real life.

Just because you enjoyed the movie doesn't mean others are idiots for not enjoying it.

CL7

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Rather more like fresh cress served on a warm turd.

The film had some flaws and they bothered some more than others but it's hard to take you seriously after reading the above. I wonder if hold every film you watch to the same ridiculously high standard or are you being disingenuous here?

Squ

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

"But wwwwwwhhhhyyyyyy did they make them wait 5 months before exploding the bomb?" Because this is a film not real life.


Bane's death really came out of nowhere didn't it? Fact is. Death happens. It happens quickly and it happens unexpectedly.

So when you want it to just be a film, thats ok, but for Banes quick, no payoff death, thats just what happens in real life?

krudler

Bruce and Selina at the end in the Italian restaurant enjoying a glass of wine. The Bastards. Not like Bruce has done anything to deserve that. The Bastard.

On that, he's meant to be dead, yet he's sitting in public view, one of the most richest most famous men in the world sitting there not long after his supposed death which would have been worldwide news

Chazz Michael Michaels

CL7 wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Rather more like fresh cress served on a warm turd.

The film had some flaws and they bothered some more than others but it's hard to take you seriously after reading the above. I wonder if hold every film you watch to the same ridiculously high standard or are you being disingenuous here?

When a film recieves a lot of hype, and has die-hard fanatic fanboyz defending every element of a rather average film, then yes, I tend to hold such films to high standards. As with Avatar, someone must provide the voice of reason.

To be honest, I would give it 6/10. Not a turd, but a smelly fart.

xerces

I watched this movie yesterday. I hadn't been paying attention to the hype surrounding it or reading much about it on the net, so I went in with almost no expectations whatsoever.

I loved it. After the first few scenes of Bane on-screen I knew I was gonna enjoy it, I thought he was immense. One of the first things I heard as I exited the theater was a teenage girl complaining profusely about the sound of his voice and being unable to understand him, but I thought it was great. The tone and level of intensity of his voice combined with the phraseology he used really suited I thought. It was creepy as fuck.

The movie engrossed me the entire time, with the last third filled with relentless awe-inspiring moments, especially when Bruce made it out of the pit accompanied by that majestic score. I thought the ending was very clever and emotive, I was sure it was going to end solely with Alfred's nod to the screen, so it caught me off guard a little when it cut to Bruce and Selina Kyle.

I'll be going to see it again later this week.

Handsome Bob

krudler wrote: »

Yeah that pissed me off too, Bane isn't a criminal mastermind, he's a lovesick lackie at the end of it all.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Bane has any romantic feelings for Talia. What I interpreted from it was that Bane became the protector of Talia in the pit because to him, she represented innocence. The one person in the pit who truly hadn't done anything to warrant being in it and perhaps reminded him of his own circumstances (if we are to assume that Bane was also born in the pit).

It's more a sibling/father figure relationship.

Squ

Can a mod split this tread into

"i have seen the film and want to discuss all aspects of it"

And

"zomg, dat is d best movie eeeevvvvveeerrrr and all d haterz can go and fúck demselves!!!!!!1!!"

jaykhunter

It seems for every person "nit-picking" in the thread there's one person with a pot on their head, clanging it saying "no! no! no! no! it was absolutely perfect! shut up shut up shut up"

To deny some people that there are some flaws, or things people didn't think was great, is ridiculous.

Duggy747

One thing I hate about this movie and the last is the inability to criticise it without people thinking you're just being finicky and some all-hating goblin.

Basq

This thread is ridiculous.. and this is from someone who was far from wowed with the film.

I've already outlined my problems with the film in detail.. but the petty criticisms with regards to tiny insignificant details by various posters is hilarious.

Kiith

Squ wrote: »

Can a mod split this tread into

"i have seen the film and want to discuss all aspects of it"

And

"zomg, dat is d best movie eeeevvvvveeerrrr and all d haterz can go and fúck demselves!!!!!!1!!"

You'd need 3 thread.

1. Reasonable - "I saw it and want to discuss it."
2. Fanboy - "It was brilliant, everyone else is wrong."
3. Wannabe film critic - "Why didnt they get on their stomach and spread their weight out on the ice to survive..."

Kiith

I saw it, and absolutely loved it. Thought it was a great way to end the trilogy.

Was it perfect, no. Was it better then TDK, no. But it was a fantastic film, with some excellent set pieces, great characters, and really enjoyable fight scenes. I also loved the ending.

farna_boy

it seems to me that peoples biggest problem with the film was the hype surrounding it before it came out. If that is the case, then unfortunately, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing and subscribing to the hype.

This is the second film of the year that has hyped up beyond belief and now both have suffered because of it (the first being Prometheus). There have been many people telling all of us how EPIC!! each of these films was going to be and it was difficult to ignore all this hype, but no matter what would have happened in either of these films, neither of them could ever have exceeded our own personal expectations of them.

There are (arguably) some genuine complaints about the film but if you analyse any film to this extent, you will always find something to complain about.

Overall, I enjoyed the film and thought it was quite good, but I did my best to lower my expectations for the film before I saw it and ignored all the trailers, speculation, threads and hype as much as possible, and this probably made the film better for me.

Next time there is a film coming out that you really want to see, try avoiding all conversation, trailers, etc. about it and you will probably enjoy it a whole lot more.

I do love mentioning to people that people online are complaining about a Batman film being unrealistic. They react even before I get to how one of the problems is someone being able to kick a bit of concrete off the corner of a wall while getting two ferries rigged with explosives and the trigger for each being on the other boat.

Chazz Michael Michaels

farna_boy wrote: »

it seems to me that peoples biggest problem with the film was the hype surrounding it before it came out. If that is the case, then unfortunately, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing and subscribing to the hype.

This is the second film of the year that has hyped up beyond belief and now both have suffered because of it (the first being Prometheus). There have been many people telling all of us how EPIC!! each of these films was going to be and it was difficult to ignore all this hype, but no matter what would have happened in either of these films, neither of them could ever have exceeded our own personal expectations of them.

There are (arguably) some genuine complaints about the film but if you analyse any film to this extent, you will always find something to complain about.

Overall, I enjoyed the film and thought it was quite good, but I did my best to lower my expectations for the film before I saw it and ignored all the trailers, speculation, threads and hype as much as possible, and this probably made the film better for me.

Next time there is a film coming out that you really want to see, try avoiding all conversation, trailers, etc. about it and you will probably enjoy it a whole lot more.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but you are wrong. The hype was annoying, and I did my best to avoid anything about the film for fear of spoiling it. My expectations were not too high, I thought it might sit somewhere between the first and second. I didn't think TDK could be topped, not wihtout Ledger. What amuses me is how people are being swept away by the hype, being told what to think by the mob. It's basically Avatar (remember that hype over nothing? Best film ever!) all over again. Two out of three good films is not bad for a trilogy, but the last one simply fell short.

Squ

farna_boy wrote: »

it seems to me that peoples biggest problem with the film was the hype surrounding it before it came out.

i'm guily of this. Though not industry hype. Self inflicted hype. Looking back, i dont know what i expected. If Jesus had of written and directed it probably wouldn't have been good enough for me.

I'm going to wait and watch it again with a more realistic level of expectation.

johnny_ultimate

Wow. Everyone just breathe in, breathe out, slloowwlllyy.

It's only a film at the end of the day. One about a guy in a bat suit. There's quite a bit of suspension of disbelief required. Any film can be dismantled and every little action critiqued. It doesn't mean they should be.

Very few people have said it's perfect, very few people have said it's the worst film ever made. A majority agree it's flawed, some think it falls short of its ambitions while others think it succeeds despite the problems.

It's only a film. We'll all move on and watch others - I'd imagine most already have. No-one wins when a film is broken down to obsessive micro detail. Think macro, as most have done, and it'll be far easier to articulate one's opinion and engage in thoughtful, worthwhile debate. About its general failures / successes. Analysis of its themes and grander concerns. Debates about its positioning (or lack thereof) in an accidental trilogy of mega-blockbusters.

TLDR? Let's all just chill the **** out

al28283

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Wow. Everyone just breathe in, breathe out, slloowwlllyy.

It's only a film at the end of the day. One about a guy in a bat suit. There's quite a bit of suspension of disbelief required. Any film can be dismantled and every little action critiqued. It doesn't mean they should be.

Very few people have said it's perfect, very few people have said it's the worst film ever made. A majority agree it's flawed, some think it falls short of its ambitions while others think it succeeds despite the problems.

It's only a film. We'll all move on and watch others - I'd imagine most already have. No-one wins when a film is broken down to obsessive micro detail. Think macro, as most have done, and it'll be far easier to articulate one's opinion and engage in thoughtful, worthwile debate.

Let's all just chill the **** out

A resonable opinion???? THROW HIM IN THE PIT!!!!!!!

homerun_homer

I didn't find the hype annoying, it's fun and what you would hope for with an event movie like Batman. I wasn't let down. It wasn't perfect but I don't go trying to poke holes in the plot holes or bitching about it being unrealistic. The films were grounded well but were never realistic and nor should they fully expected to be.
If you made a realistic Batman movie it would be nowhere near as exciting. We see Batman standing atop a skyscraper right after Bruce makes love to Marion at night. If this was for real how long would it take him to get there and then to get up that high and stand on a very awkward part of the building, and for what reason?? Just for ****s and giggles but mainly to looks cinematic to the audience. He didn't need to go up there, he was to go underground and meet Catwoman. So for reasons like that I don't nit pick.

The class, style, acting, action and plots of these films have been brilliant and that's what I take from the franchise. Not "Can you really believe he could punch through a concrete pillar or Bruce break a wall with his weak leg".

bb12

loved the film. one thing bugged me throughout though...

why did everyone keep refering to him as "The" Batman? all the other films he was just called Batman yeah?

homerun_homer

bb12 wrote: »

loved the film. one thing bugged me throughout though...

why did everyone keep refering to him as "The" Batman? all the other films he was just called Batman yeah?

I dunno but maybe because he had been missing for 8 years and he just got referred to in that way over time.

Professey Chin

bb12 wrote: »

loved the film. one thing bugged me throughout though...

why did everyone keep refering to him as "The" Batman? all the other films he was just called Batman yeah?

Crane definitely called him The Batman in begins

Sad Professor

Nearly everyone refers to him as "The Batman" in TDK as well.

Chazz Michael Michaels

bb12 wrote: »

loved the film. one thing bugged me throughout though...

why did everyone keep refering to him as "The" Batman? all the other films he was just called Batman yeah?

The Frank Miller comics call him 'the' Batman. As did the very early ones, I think...

Handsome Bob

http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-10-ways-it-didnt-live-up-to-the-hype.php

10. Bane

In the first scene, Bane mentions that nobody cared about him before he wore the mask. So the mask is more than just about managing pain, it's about what it inspires and the fear it provokes, just like why Bruce adopted his persona. Just one of the many ways that Bane mirrors Bruce in TDKR.

9. Dialogue

Meh, didn't bother me. That particular scene mentioned didn't bother me because that moment wasn't about both characters pontificating and witty one liners, it was just about shutting the fcuk up and fighting.

8. Exposition

This isn't a new criticism of Nolan and again, it's never something that bothered me about his films.

7. Catwoman

To say she just spent her time riding around with her ass in the air is quite the strawman. It was a fascinating portrayal that constantly skirted the lines between vicious and caring, and like Blake, I saw her role as reminding Bruce that he has neglected Gotham for too long as Bruce Wayne rather than as Batman.

6. John Blake

I get the feeling that the article is just throwing a tantrum over the ending rather than judging the character for what it was. He says he'll come back to it, so will I.

5. Fight Choreography

At its worst? Lol, oh please. The sewer fight provided one of the best moments in the franchise while Selina's fighting was also a highlight. This criticism smacks of someone who can't fault the fighting scenes this time around so rambles about the editing tricking you into thinking it's good. Was the fighting flashy in the sewer? Nope, but easily the most heart thumping piece of action I've seen in a long time.

4. Smokes and mirrors

Not sure what he's talking about here, but I think it's one of "not enough action!!1!" For me the film was perfectly paced and the time flew by, some people seem to dislike the slow first hour but for me it was the perfect set up to what followed. I personally found it fascinating to watch Bruce in the first hour.

3. Too many subplots

I'd agree that Gordon and Talia were short changed, and that Foley was a pretty pointless character (the article didn't hit on that).

2. The ending

One of the themes of the film is pain and how you get over it. Bruce has let pain define and dominate his life and the Batman persona is the personification of this. In order to finally move on, he had to let Batman go.

This isn't the comics, this franchise ended the right way, with someone learning how to deal with their grief and pain in a mature way. It's an important lesson for life in general.

1. Batman

Bruce was jaded due to years of pain, loss and trauma. In fact, I'd almost argue that it was accurate to the comics as by the time Bruce fought Bane in Knightfall, he was broken mentally. Bruce was also broken mentally in TDKR by the time he faced Bane. As Bruce said himself, there was nothing out there for him. As Alfred said too, Bruce probably wanted to lose.

I would argue that both fights were lost mentally rather than physically. Bruce in the first fight due to the reasons I mention, and Bane because Bruce had achieved something he never could: climb the pit.

phil1nj

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Well, I can only speak for myself, but you are wrong. The hype was annoying, and I did my best to avoid anything about the film for fear of spoiling it. .

I fell foul of the hype for Promethus this year, even went so far as to go to a midnight showing. Swore that wouldn't happen with TDKR and my expectations were suitably tempered when I went on Friday and I enjoyed it as a film emensely. I'm a huge comic book fan (and a bigger Batman fan) and whislt I could see the shortcomings of TDKR I still thought I got my moneys worth from the 2 3/4 hours I was in the cinema.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

My expectations were not too high, I thought it might sit somewhere between the first and second. I didn't think TDK could be topped, not wihtout Ledger. What amuses me is how people are being swept away by the hype, being told what to think by the mob. It's basically Avatar (remember that hype over nothing? Best film ever!) all over again. Two out of three good films is not bad for a trilogy, but the last one simply fell short.

So you wanted to see the Batman take on the Joker AGAIN? This to me is what I don't understand. Most sequels/trilogies these days are rehashes of what worked the first or second time. I actually prefer to see movies go in different directions (BB was an origin story, TDK was the Jokers show but TDKR were more about Bruce Wayne/Batman than the other 2). I, personally didn't want to see Batman go up against the Joker again (Ledgers performance was brilliant in TDK, why sully it or rethread it??).

Anyway, each to their own I suppose.

jaykhunter

bb12 wrote: »

why did everyone keep refering to him as "The" Batman? all the other films he was just called Batman yeah?

I think the thinking behind it is "Batman" is a bit overly familiar, and "The Bat-man" is almost a descriptive term for this masked vigilante they're seeing.

I did love Cillian's enunciation of "it's the Bat-man" in Batman Begins. And Joker's "It's simple. We kill the bat-man" in TDK.

Edit : in this clip he does both

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tATf94uDH8Q

Chazz Michael Michaels

phil1nj wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Well, I can only speak for myself, but you are wrong. The hype was annoying, and I did my best to avoid anything about the film for fear of spoiling it. .

I fell foul of the hype for Promethus this year, even went so far as to go to a midnight showing. Swore that wouldn't happen with TDKR and my expectations were suitably tempered when I went on Friday and I enjoyed it as a film emensely. I'm a huge comic book fan (and a bigger Batman fan) and whislt I could see the shortcomings of TDKR I still thought I got my moneys worth from the 2 3/4 hours I was in the cinema.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

My expectations were not too high, I thought it might sit somewhere between the first and second. I didn't think TDK could be topped, not wihtout Ledger. What amuses me is how people are being swept away by the hype, being told what to think by the mob. It's basically Avatar (remember that hype over nothing? Best film ever!) all over again. Two out of three good films is not bad for a trilogy, but the last one simply fell short.

So you wanted to see the Batman take on the Joker AGAIN? This to me is what I don't understand. Most sequels/trilogies these days are rehashes of what worked the first or second time. I actually prefer to see movies go in different directions (BB was an origin story, TDK was the Jokers show but TDKR were more about Bruce Wayne/Batman than the other 2). I, personally didn't want to see Batman go up against the Joker again (Ledgers performance was brilliant in TDK, why sully it or rethread it??).

Anyway, each to their own I suppose.

Erm, one assumes that since The Joker lived at the end of TDK and since The Scarecrow made a comeback after being freed from prison, that The Joker may have showed up? In fact, it is not too much to think that perhaps the third film would have been written very differently had Ledger not died. Who knows, but that's what I was referring to. I never said I wanted to see this, to answer your sort of question/shout. In fact, I would have rathered he not come back, so the rest of your post is a waste. My point was that, without a Ledger-esque performance, the third was never going to reach those heights. That is all. Still, to address your subsequent text, I think the third was like a half-baked attempt at mixing the first (fall from grace, and comeback) and the second (a seemingly unstoppable, ruthless baddie). So yeah, it was a rehash.

phil1nj

Handsome Bob wrote: »

3. Too many subplots

I'd agree that Gordon and Talia were short changed, and that Foley was a pretty pointless character (the article didn't hit on that).

I don't think Gordon got a fair crack of the whip in this one myself. He's also left to hold the baby so to speak (I'm assuming his arse is going to get nailed to the wall for all that stuff with Harvey Dent and the Lie). Also, he has no allies left since Bruce Wayne/Batman are now missing.

The Foley character can be taken to represent another aspect of the Gotham story though. He starts out as a career policeman with one-eye on Gordon's job, shows no backbone when it comes to the sewer searches, hides behind his wife when the city is under-seige and then leads the cops in a charge dressed in his dress-blues against the LOS/prisoners. A tad clunky in its execution but it shows how certain gotham-ites can rise to the occassion when called upon. I might be talking bollocks here so sorry about that but that's how I saw it.