Dark Knight Rises

[ZRod]

Saw the movie Friday night at the IMAX in Omaha, I liked it and thought it was a good movie. And the opening sequence just blew me away, was not expecting that. It wasn't as good as the Joker's introduction but it was pretty awsome. However I was a little dissapointed, like others have said the story was a little hard to follow and I only understood probably a quarter of what Bane said, but some of the editing/choreography was just lazy and the story felt rushed as it was reaching the climax point like it was reaching a limit and things were just thrown together to finish in time. The fights between Bane and Batman were excellent and bone crushing, but there were at least three seperate scenes that I recall seeing and just thinking really you left that shot in the final cut? This isn't necessarily the order they were in but how I remember them:

1) When Gordon and the others are tracking down the trucks they encounter a gun truck with a guy manning a 50cal machine gun. They jump on the truck and kick the guy in the face commandeering the truck. But the man on the gun just sat there and waited to get kicked in the face, never moved off the gun or acted like he was going to fire, just sat there and waited for them to climb aboard. It was made even worse because he was basically the focal point of the shot.

2) This scene was a fight between batman and some thugs (I believe when he was saving Blake). He beats the crap out of everybody and as he's finishing off the last few guys you can clearly see a stunt man in the background on his knees waiting for his cue. He looks up and then back down when he realizes he's not up yet and just hangs around till the other guy is downed. And then when Batman is finished Blake remarks "you missed a spot" and we hear someone get hit (pretty sure you never see it) and I assume it was supposed to be this guy waiting around.

3) This one I probably only noticed because it was on the IMAX and I can be picky, but when the cops charge on the thugs I followed a cop in front for the continuous shot(he was a heavier set black man). Anyways when the crowds meet he runs into two separate people and just pushes them aside nicely, possibly a third I can't recall that well, and finally picks a guy to pansy fight with.

I'm the kind of person that likes to be immersed in the movie the first time I see it. I don't care to figure out the plot just like to enjoy the emotions you get the first time around, but these little things took me out of the movie for a time because they were so obnoxious.

 

[Blackshirts007]

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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.

With regards to the first part, what you said I saw on Rotten Tomatoes on all the negative reviews (the minority that were there).

I was really just curious as to how the despair in Gotham was contradictory. I usually don't get into these conversations because it ruins the movie for me...like video games...I don't want to know their flaws, because then I'll constantly focus on them.

Not a bash on anything you said at all, if you thought that was my intentions.

 

[Landlord]

I still think Batman Begins is entirely better than The Dark Knight. It goes BB, TDK, TDKR for me, but it's really 1A, 1B, 1C.

 

['SkersRule]

I went to see TDKR last night and WOW! It was absolutely awesome. There were a few quibbles though: Bane's voice = awful, Bane's mask = dumb, the bat plane looked too cartoonish and not real, and I thought the movie started a little too slow.

I have to say I kinda had the feeling that Levitt's character would become the new Batman...

But I totally did not see the other twists at the end. I mean I kinda suspected that the woman was altogether too goody-goody to be real. But she, and the film, did such a great job of selling her character as a genuine and helpful person concerned only with helping others and giving back. There's a life lesson in there for real somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find it. :wink

And Anne Hathaway:

Oh my... :leghump:

 

[Chaddyboxer]

I plan on seeing it again this Thursday. I think it is very close to being better than the 2nd, but just misses. It was an amazing movie that actually got me close to tearing up a few times....and I never tear up at movies. ha

 

[Landlord]

I still don't agree that The Dark Knight is a better movie than Batman Begins. It's impossibly hard to make an amazing third movie of a trilogy, and Nolan made it the best it could absolutely be, but I still think it's the worst of the three. I don't like saying that because it sounds as if I'm not a fan, and I am a huge fan - I absolutely loved it and thought it was unbelievably well done. But Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were just barely moreso, in my opinion.

 

['SkersRule]

I plan on seeing it again this Thursday. I think it is very close to being better than the 2nd, but just misses. It was an amazing movie that actually got me close to tearing up a few times....and I never tear up at movies. ha

I thought the movie made an interesting point: The people at the top are definitely corrupt, crooked, and use the system to enrich themselves while screwing everyone else. But when "the people" are put in charge, society devolves into an even worse state.

 

[ZRod]

I plan on seeing it again this Thursday. I think it is very close to being better than the 2nd, but just misses. It was an amazing movie that actually got me close to tearing up a few times....and I never tear up at movies. ha

I thought the movie made an interesting point: The people at the top are definitely corrupt, crooked, and use the system to enrich themselves while screwing everyone else. But when "the people" are put in charge, society devolves into an even worse state.

But it didn't make that point. I sincerely wish the film had gone there it could have gotten pretty deep, but it didn't. "The people" in charge are simply the League of Shadows left overs and criminals. In fact the only people from Gotham we really get to see, and sort of experience, are the orphans that Blake is trying to get off the island.

 

[sd'sker]

i loved them all, but am surprised how underrated 'batman begins' is. it is just a good movie that does not feel superhero-y, but totally is in all the best ways.

 

[Apathy]

Agree with Minny.

2>3>>>>1.

I agree with you. It went The Dark Knight followed by a close second of The Dark Knight Rises and then Batman Begins for me. Batman Begins was a great movie showing us how Batman started out training and everything but Scarecrow was meh as a villain but Liam Neeson played a good villain its just I thought Batman Begins was kindof boring at times but still a good movie.

This is probably my favorite movie trilogy ever. I wasn't even a Batman fan before these movies came out but Nolan has made me one and I thank him for that.

 

[sd'sker]

Agree with Minny.

2>3>>>>1.

I agree with you. It went The Dark Knight followed by a close second of The Dark Knight Rises and then Batman Begins for me. Batman Begins was a great movie showing us how Batman started out training and everything but Scarecrow was meh as a villain but Liam Neeson played a good villain its just I thought Batman Begins was kindof boring at times but still a good movie.

This is probably my favorite movie trilogy ever. I wasn't even a Batman fan before these movies came out but Nolan has made me one and I thank him for that.

you should read some of the graphic novels. i would recommend 'the dark knight returns' and 'batman: year one' as starters. 'the killing joke' is good, as is 'joker'.

The 25 Greatest Batman Graphic Novels

or just start at one and work your way down.

 

[sd'sker]

in defense of 'batman begins', it is a lot like tdkr when you think about it. i think a lot of people loved tdkr (such as myself) because they were still riding a high from 'the dark knight'. not really worth the debate because i do agree with how everyone is ranking them; 'the dark knight' is definitely the most enjoyable. however, i just like enjoying it as a b.a. trilogy.

 

[Enhance]

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.

Kinda difficult to respond in this format but I'll try my best.

First, the length of the movie isn't the problem. It's the quality of the movie in the specific amount of time. It could have been 3 hours long and great, or 2 hours and 30 minutes long and great. The film had gaping plot holes and inconsistencies, making it appear like Nolan and Co. simply didn't give a damn.

Second, perhaps I missed it, but how do we know that the officer hadn't been at his home the whole time? I didn't remember seeing him once after the cops were trapped under ground. That's five months that this guy evaded capture - how, why? Again, maybe he did play a role in that five month period that I missed, but I don't think I missed it.

Third, I think I understand the film just fine, and that's exactly the problem. Think about a few other plot holes and inconsistencies. Bane sets off a bomb with a five month timer. Why? If he really wanted to blow up Gotham he would have done it. The five month time period was basically put in to give Batman time to save the day. Consider Batman's Batwing, sitting on top of a skyscraper, in desert camo, avoiding detection in a completely overrun city for five months.

Arguably an even bigger issue is Wayne's escape from his jail. He leaves his jail with something like 24 hours until the bomb goes off, makes it back to Gotham and infiltrates a completely remote and zoned off island entirely undetected, with 18 hours remaining until the bomb explodes. I know he's Batman, but come on. How did he get from (presumably South America, if it's relating to the comic books) and back to Gotham in eight hours after being off the map for five months?

An even smaller detail. After the stock exchange scene where the movie specifically says it will take 10-15 minutes to complete their download, it goes from being early evening to complete effing darkness, just in time for Batman to make his glorious comeback.

 

[sd'sker]

Third, I think I understand the film just fine, and that's exactly the problem. Think about a few other plot holes and inconsistencies. Bane sets off a bomb with a five month timer. Why? If he really wanted to blow up Gotham he would have done it. The five month time period was basically put in to give Batman time to save the day.

this is the biggest problem for me, why did bane go to all that trouble to setup his revolution if the bomb was going to go off regardless? just to punish the elite separately? there are plot holes, no doubt. i can forgive most, but enhance makes a compelling argument. i still loved the movie. my biggest compliant was the pacing. but like others said, it was a good movie, just not a good batman movie. the joke made the last one, and we were spoiled.

also, maybe he escaped way earlier, but we just say it as a dramatic buildup? i know that is a stretch, but it works for me.