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

jpm4

seraphimvc wrote: »

guys, ill just take it from imbd: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/faq a good read there if you have any other 'common' questions.

John Blake discovered as a child when Bruce came for a charity donation to the orphanage Blake resided in. Upon seeing Bruce, Blake worked out he had severe suppressed emotions that would give him a motive to become The Batman who appeared years later. He challenges Bruce with his suspicions of his alter ego when visiting. Though Bruce does not confirm his theory, he doesn't deny it either giving Blake the evidence that Bruce really is The Batman.

In short, He wasn't 100% sure when he first visited him.


Regarding some hate posts earlier in the thread, I found it funny about the 'plot holes' people are talking about. A lot of things are just there and even explained very quickly and precisely. Sometimes i understand why movies nowadays spoon feed the viewers everything. every fcking thing.

This is a super hero movie and is loosely based on the KnightSaga and Nolan is a very practical director that did some amazing job for everything in the film. If people wanna whine about it please do it in smart way eg. starting from the physics in the film, or lets say specific medical knowledge of getting recover from that spine injury in such a short period of time and in such condition is closing to 0.00000000001%. Batman's strong body+ mind of steel made everything happens, a superhero, alot comical relief, fighting = pow pow pow, cheesey scenes/ending, bam, done. How can anyone not enjoy this film is beyond me.

gonna cook up my review tomorrow.

Re: The explanation of Blake knowing - fair enough. It's a clunkly, exposition heavy explanation that sounds stupid to me but considering the amount of stuff that they had to get through in the film I guess that all the time they could give it. It would have been cool if we could have seen scenes of Blake actually deducing Batman's identity though, rather than just being told about it.

Otacon

jpm4 wrote: »

Re: The explanation of Blake knowing - fair enough. It's a clunkly, exposition heavy explanation that sounds stupid to me but considering the amount of stuff that they had to get through in the film I guess that all the time they could give it. It would have been cool if we could have seen scenes of Blake actually deducing Batman's identity though, rather than just being told about it.

Personally I thought it worked. It showed 1. Blake was an orphan like Bruce, 2. it told the story of his parent's deaths and how it affected him and 3. it showed he is intelligent enough to work out something that, as has been mentioned, people like Gordon could not.

Noobjockey

nix wrote: »

Seen it twice now and only plot hole i cant fill is how does Blake know Bruce is Batman?

Well he said he figured it out as a kid. I can see why it's annoying that that's all there was to it but I've seen and heard worse excuses! When I saw Blake, it was fairly obvious that he was going to be "Robin" and be the next one to take over the mantle. I didn't think of him as Dick Grayson, though, I assumed he was more of the Tim Drake character from the comics (especially with the whole Blake rhyming with Drake thing.. world's greatest detective right here, folks ). Also, Tim Drake is the only Robin from the comics who figured it out on his own and was always thought to be a better detective than Dick or Jason. Again, there is a bit of a nod toward this when Comissioner Gordon makes him detective in the movie.

Anyway, getting back to the actual movie, I'm extremely happy. I knew this movie would never reach the heights of TDK but I think given that Nolan never intended on making a third movie and was forced to come up with as engaging a villain as Heath Ledger's joker, he didn't do half bad. Bane (IMO) was terrifying. The first fight scene, no music, just the sound of Batman's destruction, was chilling. Really fantastic. I think they captured elements of Knightfall, No Man's Land and The Dark Knight Returns perfectly. Yeah there were plot holes and some cheesy dialogue. But as realistic as Nolan has tried to make these movies, you're still watching a film about a man who trained as a ninja, dresses up as a bat and fights people who have half their face blown off or wear a special mask that aleviates pain and apparently gives him super strength!

The only things I could complain about in this movie were, firstly, the fact that at times (I stress "at times", I was very happy for the majority of the movie) I didn't feel like I was really on the edge of my seat, biting my nails etc. When it first turned to winter, I felt that the movie was turning a bit hollow and starting to lack in intensity. Maybe that was the point, though? All hope is lost and Gotham is a shell of the great city it was. Just an opinion.. Secondly, I wasn't happy with Bane's downfall. Fair enough, having Catwoman intervene at an appropriate time to help Batman, but giving her the final shot? I thought that was disappointing. That was Batman's fight and should have been Batman's victory. Overall, though, not complaining. This movie was an excellent end to a phenomenal trilogy.

Sorry for the long, rambling post!

Bullseye1

If anyone is interested in owing a 1/4 scale replica of Batman.

cap70 wrote: »

whatislife

A whopper of a movie, easily 8/10.

Yes there are minor plot holes and inconsistencies but with the story Nolan had to tell, he did it as close to perfection as anyone could do it. The David Statue is a perfect sculpture but even that has little chips in it.

The way I see it, people who don't like this movie are akin to hipsters. With the amount of tripe forced down our throats, you should embrace what is, and it is, a near perfect film.

nbar12

batman was good but it was all about Anne Hathaway in a catsuit! Meow

folan

whatislife wrote: »

The way I see it, people who don't like this movie are akin to hipsters. With the amount of tripe forced down our throats, you should embrace what is, and it is, a near perfect film.

kinda in the vein of :

I really liked the Adam West Batman. You've probably never heard of it!

or what? The film just didnt hold up to the quality of 1&2 to me.

However, considering the amount of tripe out there, you are right, i should embrase the film for being near perfect. Apologies for getting my experience of the film wrong.

Grimebox

Can someone explain to me why that woman wanted to destroy Gotham in the first place?

whatislife

folan wrote: »

kinda in the vein of :

or what? The film just didnt hold up to the quality of 1&2 to me.

However, considering the amount of tripe out there, you are right, i should embrase the film for being near perfect. Apologies for getting my experience of the film wrong.

Explain to me how and why you found this movie inferior to The Dark Knight?

Some people went into this movie determined not to like it.

Grimebox

whatislife wrote: »

The way I see it, people who don't like this movie are akin to hipsters. With the amount of tripe forced down our throats, you should embrace what is, and it is, a near perfect film.

Yet it gets 8/10? Very forgettable film in my opinion. It would be average if it wasn't for the ending. It felt like it was on for four hours. I was getting bored towards the middle of the film. A friend of mine fell asleep about 3/4 the way through, what a hipster!

folan

Grimebox wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why that woman wanted to destroy Gotham in the first place?

to complete her fathers legacy & to get vengence on Bruce Wayne for his death.

folan

whatislife wrote: »

Explain to me how and why you found this movie inferior to The Dark Knight?

Some people went into this movie determined not to like it.

1) I went to this movie expecting it to be the best in the trilogy. from the cast to plot, i thought it would be, and it was building on a solid story.

2) I found the story less than compelling, more comic book ish than the past films, removing some of the gritty realism i had enjoyed in the past 2.

3) im not sure how to explain why.

seraphimvc

jpm4 wrote: »

Re: The explanation of Blake knowing - fair enough. It's a clunkly, exposition heavy explanation that sounds stupid to me but considering the amount of stuff that they had to get through in the film I guess that all the time they could give it. It would have been cool if we could have seen scenes of Blake actually deducing Batman's identity though, rather than just being told about it.

Nolan's movies have always been like that if you think about, he doesnt like to make everything crystal clear. Personally i think is acceptable and I like it actually, love some brain exercise lol. Mind you I am not an easy viewer to be pleased, I was whining so hard on Prometious lol

Grimebox

folan wrote: »

to complete her fathers legacy & to get vengence on Bruce Wayne for his death.

Forgot about revenge but I still think that's utterly weak motivation to destroy an entire city. What was her fathers motivation? Didn't work for me whatsoever. Its hard to care for batman's struggle when the "bad guys" are so one-dimensional.

Professey Chin

Grimebox wrote: »

Forgot about revenge but I still think that's utterly weak motivation to destroy an entire city. What was her fathers motivation? Didn't work for me whatsoever. Its hard to care for batman's struggle when the "bad guys" are so one-dimensional.

Gotham was corrupt and a world example of it.
Ras explained in batman begins that the league exists to create balance when too much power resides in the hands of very few and went through their history (burning london, sacking rome, etc)

whatislife

folan wrote: »

1) I went to this movie expecting it to be the best in the trilogy. from the cast to plot, i thought it would be, and it was building on a solid story.

2) I found the story less than compelling, more comic book ish than the past films, removing some of the gritty realism i had enjoyed in the past 2.

3) im not sure how to explain why.

Gritty realism? Riiight. All three movies were gritty, the first two more so than the third but realistic they were not.

If you didn't find the sub plot and little stories such as Wayne/Batman having to find his belief again compelling then that is your business.

The last two movies were cheesy. The Dark Knights chessyness was disguised very well but in this movie not so. So if you have a problem with the cheesy scale of the movie, I direct you to the fact that it is a comic book movie. Comics are inherently cheesy.

*I don't mean to appear condescending and respect your opinion even though I totally disagree with you.

seraphimvc

folan wrote: »

saw this last night, was very very disappointed.

Plot wasnt strong. Im not sure of plot holes etc, but when it comes down to it, the first 2 films in the franchise were much stronger in that i believed them. this one just caught me as not quite. it felt more like a comic book movie than the first 2, if you get me.

and the score was terrible, imo. I can remember cringing in places when it got as steryotypical and predictable as possible.

JGL was brilliant, the high point of the film for me. An ever improving actor.

In your case of high expectation on the plot i guess you should have a look of the KnightFall and KnightEnd, may be after reading them you will change your mind.

I thought the score is brilliant.......Hen zimmer is in this again made me feel like now nolan+zimmer is like sakaguchi+nobuo (if you are a Final Fantasy series fans you'd know haha).

Of course it is predictable if you wanna put it that way, we all know batman is gonna save gotham in the end of day! Is about how nolan delivered it. And he handled it too well.

This movie is stuck in my brain now like Inception did.......

folan

Grimebox wrote: »

Forgot about revenge but I still think that's utterly weak motivation to destroy an entire city. What was her fathers motivation? Didn't work for me whatsoever. Its hard to care for batman's struggle when the "bad guys" are so one-dimensional.

the way to think of it is that the LoS was a radical group intent on distroying what they saw as an evil, Gotham city. I agree its 1 dimensional, but it rings true in modern times too, bringing the terrorist type of the Ra's and Talia Al Ghul, and their followers who are willing to die for the cause more realistic.

however, when stacked up to the criminal insanity of the Joker, i can see why you would prefer that. However, I enjoyed the idea of Bane, the intelligence making him so formidable coupled with his incredable size

abouttobebanned

A few sporadic thoughts. Upon reading through this thread from the beginning I was amazed at questions like "how did bane find the letter", when we clearly are Gordon being searched and the letter taken from him. I'm left wondering if people saw a different cut of the film from me.

Anyway, Bane - brilliant. Stole every scene he was in. I loved the voice too, in a cinema it was like it was coming from behind you, creeping up on you and adding to the menace of the character. Someone who dominated the pre-release marketing and someone who arrested so much attention on screen deserved a better demise. Was too rushed and was the weakest part of the film for me.

Favourite scene was batman's introduction. Lights down, quip from the cop, Hans Zimmer at his best. Awesome. I think the theme wasn't used enough in this film so I'd probably prefer TDK's score.

It was very slow to get going and I'm pretty sure there was about a half hour in the film where we don't see batman or Wayne. No other super hero film would get away with this and its down to the sub plots, of which there were too many. However, people who have seen and enjoyed the first two films will forgive that, and the slow beginning.

Re: robin - I dunno...it was done well but robin is a trusty side kick...are we supposed to belive that without any of the training that batman went through he's now going to be Robin: The Masked Crusader. No money for gadgets, no fight training. Well he's just gonna be "kick ass" isn't he?

No problems with the ending. I think more people would have complained if he died, it's not how you end a super hero film.

Overall I thought it was very enjoyable. Some lazy editing spoiled the viewing somewhat and it could easily have been a half an hour shorter but it's the most epic trilogy I've ever seen.

The trailer for superman showed before this and I can't wait to see what they do with that.

faceman

Folks, to remind everyone this thread discussing The Dark Knight Rises, it is not a platform for snide remarks or outright attacks on other posters just because they have a differing opinion. I have already deleted some posts but from here on in anything off topic may result in an infraction or ban.

Remember, this is just a film we're discussing and this film has received a mix of reviews from critics and cinema goers. Respect one another's opinions regardless of whether you agree with them!

Thank you

Mr Benevolent

My girlfriend and I went to see it on Monday. She's well up and the canon and story, and yet we both were laughing ourselves silly at the pure crapness of this Batman. It is, to be blunt, a large steaming bucket of horse manure.

krudler

Boo Radley

I've just been thinking that it was a shame they didn't bring back Ramirez in some capacity. That would have been a simple and effective subplot having her deal with the guilt of her actions in TDK.

Could have had her instead of shoehorning in a couple of new characters that the film didn't really need.

Grimebox

Confab wrote: »

My girlfriend and I went to see it on Monday. She's well up and the canon and story, and yet we both were laughing ourselves silly at the pure crapness of this Batman. It is, to be blunt, a large steaming bucket of horse manure.

I didn't like it that much but you are just trolling here. It still has merit and can stand on its own two feet to a degree.

Mr Benevolent

Grimebox wrote: »

I didn't like it that much but you are just trolling here. It still has merit and can stand on its own two feet to a degree.

Ok, it was terrible. Is that more acceptable to you?

seraphimvc

Grimebox wrote: »

I didn't like it that much but you are just trolling here. It still has merit and can stand on its own two feet to a degree.

The guy posted that after the warning from mod :pac: i see that flame/trollbait from 20miles away. Don't bite it!

Grimebox

whatislife wrote: »

Gritty realism? Riiight. All three movies were gritty, the first two more so than the third but realistic they were not.

If you didn't find the sub plot and little stories such as Wayne/Batman having to find his belief again compelling then that is your business.

The last two movies were cheesy. The Dark Knights chessyness was disguised very well but in this movie not so. So if you have a problem with the cheesy scale of the movie, I direct you to the fact that it is a comic book movie. Comics are inherently cheesy.

*I don't mean to appear condescending and respect your opinion even though I totally disagree with you.

You pretty much take the words right out of my mouth! The first two films also sold me gritty realism. This one failed as you have pointed out to a degree. The cheesyness really does come across in this and it feels like a comic book film, the other two did not. This is a huge problem for me. I believed in the world that was created in the last film. My disbelief was truly suspended. You have to relate and believe in characters to enjoy their struggle. The fights between Bane and Batman were ridiculous. I was just watching to men in costumes duking it out. The beauty of the previous films is that it didn't feel like a comic book film. It felt as if they could have happened in the real world. This is aside from plot holes, they don't bother me to be honest.

All that said, I actually don't like super hero films. Batman was an exception because of how "real" it felt. This was a disappointing return to form for comic book films.

folan

whatislife wrote: »

Gritty realism? Riiight. All three movies were gritty, the first two more so than the third but realistic they were not.

If you didn't find the sub plot and little stories such as Wayne/Batman having to find his belief again compelling then that is your business.

The last two movies were cheesy. The Dark Knights chessyness was disguised very well but in this movie not so. So if you have a problem with the cheesy scale of the movie, I direct you to the fact that it is a comic book movie. Comics are inherently cheesy.

*I don't mean to appear condescending and respect your opinion even though I totally disagree with you.

I understand where your coming from here. you've outlined some of my main issues here, the increased cheeseyness and lack of grit (?) of DKR.

it may be a comic book movie, but not all comics come across like that. It should have fit in with the series first, and this seems to be our biggest differing point. You feel it does, and have pointed to its context in the comic book world to back that up. I feel it doesnt (for reasons similar to Grimebox), though i will conceed it fits into the Batman universe.

I didnt think you were being condescending, by the way. Its been an interesting conversation on opposing viewpoints. we dont agree on this, thats fair enough.

phil1nj

Grimebox wrote: »

All that said, I actually don't like super hero films. Batman was an exception because of how "real" it felt. This was a disappointing return to form for comic book films.

You don't like super-hero films? Sound to me like you were always going to be disappointed by this then. I'm actually surprised that you liked the other 2 Batman films consdiering the central premise of both - an ordinary guy, with almost super-human athletic abilities decideds to don a high-tech costume and wage a one man war on crime only to come up against a host of equally outlandish villains? Gritty realism or not, this is the very essence of many super hero movies just with the various elemenst toned down or amped up. There are plenty of unrealistic situations from both BB and TDK (a guy gettting pulled along by a train through a major city, another guy walking around with half his face burnt off etc). As for the comment about two gusy duking it ot whilst wearing costumes, both previous films also had that to a certain extent (more so TDK but there was ninjas and the Scarecrow in BB).

whatislife

folan wrote: »

I understand where your coming from here. you've outlined some of my main issues here, the increased cheeseyness and lack of grit (?) of DKR.

it may be a comic book movie, but not all comics come across like that. It should have fit in with the series first, and this seems to be our biggest differing point. You feel it does, and have pointed to its context in the comic book world to back that up. I feel it doesnt (for reasons similar to Grimebox), though i will conceed it fits into the Batman universe.

I agree that this movie doesn't slot easily in with the other two but after a poke and a prod I think it squeezes in and can hold it's head up high sat next to the other two before it.

Batman and TDK have flaws but their flaws are disguised better than those of TDKR and that is why I think the movie falls down in some peopls opinions.

Grimebox wrote: »

All that said, I actually don't like super hero films. Batman was an exception because of how "real" it felt. This was a disappointing return to form for comic book films.

I can totally see where you are coming from with the first part of your post. Maybe I have sycophantic tendencies toward Nolan's Batman and the romanticism I find myself having for the film trumps all naysayers.

However just with the bit in bold. I am going to try and be as objective and unbiased as possible. Have you seen the new Spiderman? If not I implore you too, not because it is a movie of quality but so that you can compare it with TDKR. Nolan's Batman franchise set a new standard for comic book films and it's Spiderman that is the disappointing return to form for comic book films, not TDKR.

The TDKR has disappointed you compared to the rest of Nolans franchise, but to compare it poorly to other comic books films is blasphemy.