The Dark Knight Rises - Page 36

In preparation for the final episode of the trilogy, I re-watched BB tonite.
Every time I watch this movie my opinion of it goes up.

Tomorrow night is The Joker, and Tues. is an IMAX presentation for the final chapter.

Good, 'cuz TDKR draws more from BB than TDK.

So I will comment on something related to this movie from an A/V presentation and not including any plot at all. (And I too watched Batman Begins beforehand since I hadn't seen it in years)

Watching it on a true IMAX.... I completely hate that Nolan again went with the mixed aspect ratios of Imax and 2.35:1. Not only will it again screw over my zoomed scope screen at home, it made the widescreen scenes in the IMAX theater look like a cheap projector setup.

Here is what I noticed on the "6 story" IMAX. Full screen IMAX-filmed shots looked beautiful. Widescreen shots looked washed out muddy. This is something I have seen in the past with my previous home theater, having a 16:9 screen and watching a dark movie in widescreen. The projection of the bars would cause a problem with contrast that washed out the image, making some dark scenes hard to see. However, due to the fact that virtually no movies ever switch aspect ratios, you always have the movie fill the entire screen and have masking systems in place to properly fit the image when you go to the theater. With multiple aspect ratios, this wasn't able to be done with this movie. When the widescreen scenes were shown, especially if they were dark, the picture just looked... well... bad!

I liked the movie, it was a little slow in places, but the story and acting was good. I just don't like the fact that my movie experience was partially taken down a notch because I felt like I was watching a poorly projected film in a theater which has some of the most expensive projection systems in the world. I hope the "Filmed in IMAX" fad dies quickly, or that any director who decides to use this format does it for the whole picture.

I'd say it draws on both equally.

I DIDN'T see it in IMAX, so I wondered about this; I DO have the BD of TDK, so I know what you mean about "switching aspect ratios". While I can see how the effect would be magnified (literally) in a movie theater, I kind of thought it was cool in my home theater (about 90"). However, what I really think I like is the more "open" look of something like Avatar, so maybe the AR switching of TDK was just a tease of what I really like. Having said that, I know that other movies (like MI:4) chose NOT to do switch the aspect ratios on the BD, so maybe this will be a short-lived trend. I guess we'll find out when the BD of TDKR comes out.

Another vote for hating mixed ARs here....

Unless it's Brainstorm. It's okay if it's Brainstorm.

Maybe that's because it's frakkin' awesome. TDK? It didn't move me very much; perhaps I need to re-watch..

To all those who watched TDKR at a normal theater, did the IMAX scenes appear horribly cropped or not? Unfortunately, I guess you would have to know which scenes were filmed in IMAX, to know what to look for.

Not really. Only because I had seen it first at IMAX did I know when and where I was missing stuff but it was pretty well composed when fixed at scope.

After tonite's viewing, I noticed two things really work well in this movie: Heath Ledger and the multiple Bad Guy scenario.
What doesn't work well is the casting of MG as Rachel.
Bruce and Rachel are supposed to have grown up together.
Unfortunately, MG looks 10 years older than Bale.
NOT so good.....

It was a stupid idea to replace KH, a big blow to continuity and ye ol' Suspension of Disbelief.....IMO.

That offers some relief. I only asked this because after mapping out the nearest 15/70 IMAX theater to me, it's going to be about 6 hours round-trip (to get there and come back home). And this is still not taking into account the movie length, gas, and food yet. That's an entire day right there just to watch one movie, which seems a little far fetched IMO. Now I'm not saying it isn't worth it, but just trying to keep things in perspective since gas isn't cheap.

Plus, the Rave Cinemas in my local area has $5 Discount Tuesdays on all normal shows, all day long! They also have a digital LIeMAX theater as well, but who wants to pay for fake IMAX anyways?
Edited by Mr Fusion - 7/31/12 at 1:26am

If you have a true 15/70 print available in that day trip I'd mildly suggest it simply because once TDKR is gone, it's gone. Never again to be seen in it's full screen glory. The resolution is incredible! The regular scenes look like dvd going from the IMAX shots.

I realize that. But I also never watched TDK at an IMAX 15/70 theater either, back in 2008.

Since my finances are kind of tight right now, I will more than likely take the more affordable and closer route. As long as the IMAX scenes are not too badly cropped as you posted earlier, hopefully I'll be satisfied with the normal scope version instead.
Edited by Mr Fusion - 7/31/12 at 2:16am

Ah. Well obviously if you can't swing the trip then you shouldn't just for a movie.

6 hours traveling for a 3 hour movie... For this movie....

Unless you're a Batman fanboy extraordinaire, I'd say a regular theater or IMAX digital is fine...

Thanks for that! After some more addition, I'd have to plan around 9-10 hours overall without any unforeseen problems. Looks like I will be watching the movie locally today then for five bucks.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is three years younger than Christian Bale, and about a thousand times the actress that Katie Holmes is.

If your complaint is that Bruce and Rachel are supposed to have grown up together, Gyllenhaal is a far more appropriate fit. Katie Holmes still looked like she was 15 in Batman Begins.

Agree with Gyllenhal vs. Holmes as the previous poster states. But also agree that Gyllenhal looks older than Bale. In fact, IMO, she just looks older than what she really is anyway. I actually find it as a distraction with some of the roles she's played because it's not believable from a visual perspective.

Don't get me wrong; it's a good, solid, entertaining movie. One of the better thirds in movie history (saying much?).

But it isn't the 1977 release of Star Wars. Devoting a 10 hour trip to it, unless it's a getaway with a bunch of friends and more than just the drive and movie, probably is a bit much.

All around it's on par with Begins. TDK was much tighter and Ledgers performance really stole the show and the trilogy IMO.

Agreed. Gyllenhaal is only a year older than Holmes and is an exponentially better actress to boot.
I agree. Although Nolan's Batman Trilogy was a remarkable achievement, The Dark Knight is head and shoulders above the other two, one of the greatest films ever made.

She may be only a year older, but she LOOKS much older..
Hell, she looks like she could be 40 and that doesn't cut it as a superhero's babe.

Josh is right; Holmes looked too young, but she didn't look too old neither.
Edited by oink - 7/31/12 at 5:02pm

Totally agree. I just got back from watching the movie at a regular theater and, thankfully, none of the larger scenes looked badly cropped or out of view. Of course, this is after making my own educated guess as to which scenes were obviously shot in IMAX.

The movie was good though, just not as outstanding as TDK for sure.

Well, just got back from my TDKR IMAX showing.

First Complaint
I think I am done with IMAX.
I like audio louder than most, but this is frickin' ridiculous.
I am tired of the assault on my hearing in IMAX theaters.
Deafness ain't a desirable coda....IMO.

Second Complaint
Bane's dialogue was largely unintelligible (as was noticed in the first trailers).
Gee thanks, Christopher Nolan.

Third Complaint
Hollywood Ending is a serious cop-out.



First Compliment
Gary Oldman and CB and AH and MC are superb.
Terrific acting everywhere you look in this movie.

Second Compliment
Fast paced and time flies, absorbing story, good popcorn stuff.

Third Compliment
A fitting, concluding film to the series.
Other than the severe letdown at the end, I give it a thumbs up.
Left the theater with a good taste in my mouth.






Oh...FWIW, here are the people behind The Tumbler:
http://www.lotusf1team.com/Stand-Back-The-Tumbler-Takes-On.html


No, not really....
Edited by oink - 7/31/12 at 7:02pm

I was not really bothered by the final scene in The Dark Knight Rises because I thought it was another example of Nolan's patented ambiguity. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I confess that I liked Maggie Gyllenhaal in The Dark Knight. Although she was not as spectacularly beautiful as the typical young leading lady, she was nonetheless very attractive and is a wonderful actress. I never thought of her as looking too old for the role but that may have been a function of my own somewhat advanced years.

That is true, but I don't think that's the case here.

There is a better way for Nolan to express "ambiguity" and here's how: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Come on, one look at her and you can see why the two most powerful men in Gotham were after her.

I don't think Nolan is ambiguous; not in this movie, not in 'Inception'. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

true

Like they say....beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Thank you for saving me some typing...