Dark Knight Rises

[HuskerBacon]

Movie was pretty good, only problem i had with it was:

*SPOILER*

How did Bruce wayne get back into gotham after getting out of that prison? He didn't have any money and the city was blocked off. And i guess he found time to shave and style his hair. Maybe it was explained and i missed it.

*End SPOILER*

 

Other than that it was pretty good.

['SkersRule]

I'm going to see it either tomorrow afternoon or Monday evening. It looks incredible from the previews.

[Blackshirts007]

Movie was pretty good, only problem i had with it was:

*SPOILER*

How did Bruce wayne get back into gotham after getting out of that prison? He didn't have any money and the city was blocked off. And i guess he found time to shave and style his hair. Maybe it was explained and i missed it.

*End SPOILER*

 

Other than that it was pretty good.

Uhhh he's batman, no explanation needed

[Enhance]

Saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday. It's definitely not as good as the second and I would probably rather watch the first one again over this. The problem is with the movie's flow and presentation. As soon as we get to the point where Bane has gotten the better of Batman, the movie falls into this predictable and disjointed meshing of different time instances and events. Although we find Bruce Wayne's 'rise' and return to Gotham enjoyable, we get no full understanding of what's going on where he is and what's going on back in Gotham. Sure, we know bad things are happening, but the despair in Gotham is misunderstood and contradictory. There's enough story to leave people with a general understanding of what happened, but it's kind of like reading a book and skipping every fourth chapter.

 

Michael Cain is by far the best performer, even though he isn't seen for most of the movie after an early scene. And although Christian Bale still plays a good Batman, his performance just wasn't as powerful as The Dark Knight's. Anne Hathaway is clever as Catwoman, but doesn't play as interesting of a role as I would have thought, excepting two prominent scenes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt did well as John Blake too.

 

Simply put, I'd give it three stars out of five. Enjoyable, fun and with enough action scenes to leave your head spinning, but the script and overall flow of the movie was less than desirable.

['SkersRule]

[Apathy]

Guess what guys.......I'm in the theaters right now for my sloppy seconds for The Dark Knight Rises movie

[Apathy]

Just got back from the movie and I enjoyed it even more and here's why:

 

First of all I went to the same movie theater today as I did at midnight on Thursday but the theater room on Thursday night was smaller and it wasn't presented with Dolby Surround Sound which is weird because I thought all of the rooms were presented in Dolby. I went with one of my buddies againt today that I joined with for the midnight screening on Thursday and before the previews started it showed us that our movie experience was going to be presented with Dolby Surround Sound and right off the bat my buddy and I could tell a HUGE difference in sound during the previews and the movie.

 

Second knowing what happens in the movie made it easier to understand what was going on with the story. There were several things I missed with the first screening that I picked up on the second time mainly because of the sound. I could understand Bane a hell of a lot more too and the way his voice sounded after he got done talking was eerie but awesome.

 

Last but not least I still got goosebumps at the end of the movie not only because of what happened but because of the music. I'm downloading some of the music off of iTunes right now....just brilliant work in what Hans Zimmer has created during this trilogy.

 

I will be seeing this movie again tomorrow (Sunday) with the wife and family

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday. It's definitely not as good as the second and I would probably rather watch the first one again over this. The problem is with the movie's flow and presentation. As soon as we get to the point where Bane has gotten the better of Batman, the movie falls into this predictable and disjointed meshing of different time instances and events. Although we find Bruce Wayne's 'rise' and return to Gotham enjoyable, we get no full understanding of what's going on where he is and what's going on back in Gotham. Sure, we know bad things are happening, but the despair in Gotham is misunderstood and contradictory. There's enough story to leave people with a general understanding of what happened, but it's kind of like reading a book and skipping every fourth chapter.

 

Michael Cain is by far the best performer, even though he isn't seen for most of the movie after an early scene. And although Christian Bale still plays a good Batman, his performance just wasn't as powerful as The Dark Knight's. Anne Hathaway is clever as Catwoman, but doesn't play as interesting of a role as I would have thought, excepting two prominent scenes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt did well as John Blake too.

 

Simply put, I'd give it three stars out of five. Enjoyable, fun and with enough action scenes to leave your head spinning, but the script and overall flow of the movie was less than desirable.

 

Since when do you write for Rotten Tomatoes?

 

Though I understand where you're coming from, I think that if they added all the filler the movie would've been close to 4 hours long. Do tell me how the despair in Gotham is contradictory.

[Enhance]

Since when do you write for Rotten Tomatoes?

 

Though I understand where you're coming from, I think that if they added all the filler the movie would've been close to 4 hours long. Do tell me how the despair in Gotham is contradictory.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part.

 

Here's the thing - the script is a movie's foundation, and the foundation of TDKR is extremely weak. You don't have to make a film four hours long for it to make sense. In fact, there were several ways they could have cut scenes or reworked them to add more with the same amount or less. We get an idea of what's going to happen in the first half of the film, and then the second half does not deliver on what the first half promises.

 

Here's an example, specifically relating to the despair in Gotham. How is it a high ranking police official is nestled cozily in his home, while thousands of criminals/mercenaries roam the streets? You don't think with Bane's prowess and the hundreds of criminals on the street they wouldn't have found him in five months? Why are people running for their lives in one scene, then freezing outside of a building the next? Why are a bunch of people getting warm in an open atrium when the special forces guy shows up, only to have a full on shootout take place moments later? Christopher Nolan shows us mayhem and serenity in disjointing sequences.

 

I'm going to have to see the movie again so I can be more specific with my examples. Nolan, a director who eloquently disturbs time in many of his films, came out looking like he had no idea what to do with the second half of his film. I don't think the movie was terrible, like several critics do, but it's definitely not what it should have been. Given Nolan's previous work, I expected a lot more, to put it simply.

[sd'sker]

Since when do you write for Rotten Tomatoes?

 

Though I understand where you're coming from, I think that if they added all the filler the movie would've been close to 4 hours long. Do tell me how the despair in Gotham is contradictory.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part.

 

Here's the thing - the script is a movie's foundation, and the foundation of TDKR is extremely weak. You don't have to make a film four hours long for it to make sense. In fact, there were several ways they could have cut scenes or reworked them to add more with the same amount or less. We get an idea of what's going to happen in the first half of the film, and then the second half does not deliver on what the first half promises.

 

Here's an example, specifically relating to the despair in Gotham. How is it a high ranking police official is nestled cozily in his home, while thousands of criminals/mercenaries roam the streets? You don't think with Bane's prowess and the hundreds of criminals on the street they wouldn't have found him in five months? Why are people running for their lives in one scene, then freezing outside of a building the next? Why are a bunch of people getting warm in an open atrium when the special forces guy shows up, only to have a full on shootout take place moments later? Christopher Nolan shows us mayhem and serenity in disjointing sequences.

 

I'm going to have to see the movie again so I can be more specific with my examples. Nolan, a director who eloquently disturbs time in many of his films, came out looking like he had no idea what to do with the second half of his film. I don't think the movie was terrible, like several critics do, but it's definitely not what it should have been. Given Nolan's previous work, I expected a lot more, to put it simply.

i agree with you. 'the dark knight' had better pacing and was more compelling, but i still loved every second of tdkr. not having a heath ledger joker caliber character really makes any flaws less forgiving.

[Ratt Mhule]

Would have been nice to actually understand half the stuff Bane was saying. I don't think I understood one word spoken that entire opening scene...from any of the guys on the plane

[Apathy]

***Spoilers***

 

Since when do you write for Rotten Tomatoes?

 

Though I understand where you're coming from, I think that if they added all the filler the movie would've been close to 4 hours long. Do tell me how the despair in Gotham is contradictory.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Because critics at RottenTomatoes are a bunch of idiots who when critiquing a movie make a bunch of silly remarks to down play the movie. I'm not saying that you're making some silly remarks about the movie but I'll try and answer your questions that concerned you about the movie in what I gathered from the movie.

 

Here's the thing - the script is a movie's foundation, and the foundation of TDKR is extremely weak. You don't have to make a film four hours long for it to make sense. In fact, there were several ways they could have cut scenes or reworked them to add more with the same amount or less. We get an idea of what's going to happen in the first half of the film, and then the second half does not deliver on what the first half promises. I watched this movie for the second time yesterday and it went extremely fast. I didn't feel like I was sitting through a 2 hour and 45 minute flick. I don't think a lot of us saw what was going to happen at the end because there were a lot of people who didn't know whether Batman would live or die at the end nor did A LOT of us think a certain sidekick would appear in this movie.

 

Here's an example, specifically relating to the despair in Gotham. How is it a high ranking police official is nestled cozily in his home, while thousands of criminals/mercenaries roam the streets? You don't think with Bane's prowess and the hundreds of criminals on the street they wouldn't have found him in five months? That officer you're talking about didn't go back to his cozy home until there was 24/48 hours until the bomb would go off I believe. Why would Bane go looking for one man when he's close from completing his objective?

 

Why are people running for their lives in one scene, then freezing outside of a building the next? Didn't you see the mercenary's/prisoners going through all of the rich peoples homes vandalizing and stealing anything and everything? Most of the people all grouped up a certain locations like the library (I think it was the library) or other locations.

 

Why are a bunch of people getting warm in an open atrium when the special forces guy shows up, only to have a full on shootout take place moments later? I would think that that Tate chick warned Bane (her guardian at the prison) about this upcoming meeting with the Gotham Police and Special Forces. Remember Tate was at that same location as everybody else.

 

I'm going to have to see the movie again so I can be more specific with my examples. Nolan, a director who eloquently disturbs time in many of his films, came out looking like he had no idea what to do with the second half of his film. I don't think the movie was terrible, like several critics do, but it's definitely not what it should have been. Given Nolan's previous work, I expected a lot more, to put it simply. I'd say see it again and you'll understand the whole story a lot better. I watched it again and caught some things I didn't see/hear the first time and the story made a lot more sense. Its weird because when I saw it the second time it didn't seem like it lasted almost 3 hours but like it was an hour an a half movie. I had to watch Inception a second time to understand the story a bit better.

Would have been nice to actually understand half the stuff Bane was saying. I don't think I understood one word spoken that entire opening scene...from any of the guys on the plane

My first experience was like this too but when I saw it the second time, the theater was presented with Dolby Surround Sound which made a HUGE improvement and I'm deaf in my left ear if that says anything. Try seeing it in a different theater that has a better sound system or wait till it comes out on DVD.

[Minnesota_husker]

Went and saw it today.. Excellent movie. It was long, but didnt feel long. The story was solid, and had me guessing the whole time.

 

I like dit. Dont think it was better than #2, but it was VERY close.

[tschu]

Agree with Minny.

 

2>3>>>>1. But it's an incredible trilogy, second only to LOTR in my book (sorry Star Wars fans!)

[Blackshirts007]

I want to go see it again!!