The Dark Knight Rises - Page 47

Finally got around to a 2nd viewing. I think it was more enjoyable this time. The pacing didn't seem so off, as I watched it with more patience to pick out the nuances to the movie. I think the problem with my first viewing was the sheer expectation of being blown away. The bar was set high after TDK. So it was natural for disappointment to set in when it wasn't hitting all the right points right away. It's a decent and entertaining movie. Just expecting it to outdo TDK was an impossibly high expectation.

The sequence that demonstrates how worn and battered Bruce Wayne's physique has become (to even reprise the duty of Batman as an elite fighter) was an element that aggravated the piss out of me the 1st viewing, as well. I don't mistake myself as being particularly in shape or Batman caliber, but I can certainly relate to when you get older and realize your physical abilities are only a mere shadow of what you used to be able to do. That severely harshed my mood as far as enjoying the remaining content. After sitting through the Bane vs Batman brawl, I was probably thoroughly depressed about the movie, altogether.

The cerebral quote that I pick out of the movie was unexpectedly from Alfred..."Maybe it's time to stop dancing around the truth and just let truth have its day!" In a literal sense of the dialogue, it was just in the context of Bruce Wayne's departed true love, but in movie sense it was announcing the central theme of the entire movie. As in, let's see how "Power returned to the People" (with the concurrent populous theme of just re-equalization of wealth), as offered Anarchist style, really turns out. Everything after that point shows how this idea unfolds.

It is also interesting to dissect the introduced paradox of much-desired justice and order befalling Gotham for a persistent period, but built on the foundation of a lie that was unavoidable. I suspect I will appreciate this theme even more as I understand it more. I've only "identified" it as a distinct and interesting element to the movie, so far, not so much understanding it.

I think I will come to enjoy this movie with additional viewings. I still think TDK was much better, but I am coming around to the notion that TDKR wasn't "that" bad, after all.
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 1/6/13 at 6:27pm

I posted in the BD software thread I'll jump on here as well. I finally got around to seeing this over the weekend and thought it was great. And I know had I seen it at the theater I would have felt it was worth the price of admission. To the point of seeing it in the theater, after watching TDK I remember leaving the theater exhausted but in a good way. The movie gripped me in such a way as I was still involved in the movie well afterwards. It was that good. With DKR, I know had I watched it at the theater I would not have had the same experience. But my opinion on this is that TDK set the stage and started the "psychological thriller" aspect of this trilogy. DKR simply continued it. So in my opinion the movie was, at worst, consistent. Heath Ledger was the great "un"equalizer as his performance was so in the stratosphere that there really would have been no way to top TDK. And the actors in DKR did a fine job for sure. Side note: I haven't been keeping up on the buzz but Michael Caine certainly deserves a nod for some hardware for this one. Anyway, the idea of anarchy was already introduced and took us for such a ride in TDK. Well the anarchy returned in this movie and while Gotham was "cleaned up" it was more of an eye to the storm as opposed to a different, bigger storm.

You mentioned your expectation of being "blown away" and I think many have that same expectation. While I suspected DKR to be a big movie I never expected it to be bigger than TDK. It just wasn't realistic to me. All I wanted it to be was consistent and complete a good story. And I felt that I got that, even with the ending that many didn't seem to like.

You speak of the physical deterioration of Wayne/Batman and for me that's what I thought was a strong quality for this movie. As I hit on in on the other thread, we tend to see superheroes as immortal, I'm no different. This is largely because most are mutated or alien. Batman was never that, which is what always appealed to me. So showing him getting his a$$ kicked was no fun to watch but actually made sense to me and furthermore added a sense of realism to this particular portrayal. But the way the movie ended kept the notion of Batman alive so it all worked for me.

Cerebral quote from Alfred....agreed....but not surprised it came from him in the least.

I'm really late to this party, but my wife and I finally got to see this movie last night, and we both loved it.

While not perfect, it was a great send off to Nolan's trilogy, and for me, much more satisfying than The Dark Knight. While some found the running time too long, it was always engaging. Action was tempered with character development and greater themes. Most of the acting was spot-on, with a surprisingly good performance from Joseph Gorden-Levitt. Even with his face half-obscured, Tom Hardy impressed with his menacing portrayal of Bane.

As far as shortcomings go, there weren't many, but a few worth mentioning. I didn't really buy Anne Hatheway as the Catwoman (she looked especially ridiculous in her first fight scene), but she wasn't bad enough to ruin it. While Hardy's performance was fantastic and his dialog was clear, the way it was presented was distracting, it didn't feel natural, and was completely unaffected by the surrounding environment. Lastly, I'd prefer that Christopher Nolan pick one aspect ration and stick with it. The shift from 1.44:1 to 2.35:1 was distracting, but not as much so as in The Dark Knight.

None of those elements hurt the movie, though. The story was so involving and resonate, that they were easily dismissed. The ending was as fulfilling as I had hoped it to be, both poignant and hopeful.

I thought this was the best superhero movie of the year, passing The Amazing Spider-Man, and leaving The Avengers far behind.

Scott

I could have used 1-2 more "TDK's" before the TDKR finale. I just wanted to see Batman kick butt a few more times, after being all spun up about the franchise with TDK, before it was all over. I guess Hollywood can only think in terms of trilogies these days.

The ending scene with Batman taking the bomb away really peeved me. So conventional. And just before that we see the most cliche kiss ever between Catwoman and Batman. It seriously wasn't needed and it made me cringe.

The Dark Knight thrived on Originality and TDKR didn't cut it that way.

Worst quote of the movie was by Batman when he comes back to Gotham and sees Bane.

Bane: "So you came back to die with your city."

Batman: "No, I came back to stop you." (Wow?)

Apart from those concerns and many others, I did nevertheless love the film.

Just finished watching DKR for the 47th time. But for this veiwing, it was like popping her cherry all over again for the first time. Just got my Panny plasma 60" GT 50!!! What effin crazy display. And what an amazing movie. Not one second of that movie was boring. Can't wait to see where the franchise turns....

LET'S GO ISLANDERS!!!

Yogi Berra would be proud.

Maybe at age 87 he is. He won't be dead until he's dead.

Is that a serious comment? The first scene of the whole trilogy is a flashback of Bruce as a child falling into the hole where the cave is.

+1! The author of the post to which you responded opined in an earlier post that The Dark Knight Rises is "third best" in Nolan's Batman trilogy. I understand that there are some who don't like even acknowledged classics like The Dark Knight Rises but it makes me wonder if they saw the same film most of the rest of us did. Like you, his savaging of this great film left me wondering if there might be a different agenda than fair minded criticism involved here.

Ahh, yeah! Go read the definition of a flashback. Batman Begins opening is not considered a flashback.

I agree with all of the negative feedback this movie has received and I'm baffled that it has garnered such a glowing positive response. Considering how much flack other movies get for having similar faults, how can people overlook the glaring ridiculousness of this one. Reaching well beyond the far over hyped TDK (a movie I like, but don't see as the reinvention of cinema as some do), TDKR commits so many sins of suspended disbelief in its dialogue, character motivations, continuity, and even the laws of physics. In what way is this grounded in reality? It's as if everyone is so lovestruck with Nolan and Co. that he is excused from being held accountable for this unnecessarily awful film. Now, Nolan has delivered amazing films in the past (Memento, The Prestige, Inception), so I know he is a great filmmaker. However, you rarely get a glimpse of that in this movie.

On a technical note, the IMAX scene transitions clearly weren't planned out in this movie. As someone noted earlier, Nolan basically used the IMAX camera whenever he could and told the editor(s) to use literally every second of the footage, even if the shot only lasted half a second.

Here's where I'll catch the most flack, but I personally wonder what people would have thought of the movie had Christopher Nolan's name been swapped out for say... Michael Bay... How would this film have been received...
Edited by Dbuudo07 - 4/27/13 at 3:06am

I agree I just watched it the other night again, I loved every minute of it. My favourite bit is when he makes his presence known chasing Bane and his crooks on his bikes, the accompanying audio and sfx is amazing. Love it.

The overwhelmingly positive response to The Dark Knight Rises from both moviegoers and critics, coupled with my high regard for the film, leave me scratching my head at the negative, indeed even emotional, antagonism expressed toward the film by several posters. Given that at least a couple of those posters are folks whose judgment I respect, I am now ready to concede that The Dark Knight Rises doesn't appeal to everyone and some who don't like it really don't like it.

Pretty accurate my good fellow.

It is the result of Internet Nerd Sequels Syndrome, which randomly strikes posters who have too much time on their hands and not enough intimate contact with women.

INSS is very common on this site and others on the web.

Do you mean those afflicted with "INSS" are biased for or against sequels? I am puzzled because I ordinarily hate, hate, hate sequels. Nevertheless, I was blown away by the last two films of Nolan's Batman trilogy, both of which were significantly better than the first. In short, I am pleasantly surprised anytime a sequel doesn't disappoint me and when two sequels are generally regarded to be great films, as was the case with Nolan't second and third Batman films, I become positively giddy.

I'm just glad I see most movies (especially ones based on comic books) for what they are, that is a few hours of entertainment and escape from the real world (you know, that real world where there really is no Batman, or Superman or Spider-Man etc. lol). I actually feel sorry for the people who just want to find fault after fault and obviously can't just enjoy something for what it is. Yeah there are plot holes and things that don't make sense in all 3 of the Nolan Batman films, but seriously it's about a guy in a rubber bat suit fighting baddies, just that fact would be enough that if it were real life he would get laughed off the streets by everyone. No, I will continue to enjoy this wonderful trilogy for years to come despite some of its failings, just like when I was a little kid reading comic books and knowing this stuff couldn't happen, it's still cool

For me Nolan's Batman is the best each movie still has plenty of replay value though like you gwsat I did enjoy the sequels better than the first. The actor who has to replace Bale in Justice league will have to shine or expect plenty of criticsim.

I wonder why people aren't so forgiving of other movies. No offense, but I've seen movies panned in this forum for the same faults as this film. Somehow though, this one is immune. Very interesting... To each their own.

Dark Knight Rises is the epitome of "Turn Off Your Brain" cinema. It's presented in a way to leave an impression of being deep and profound, but only so long as you don't actually think about any of it. If you apply even the slightest amount of critical thought to it, no more than you would apply to any other movie you watch, the whole thing falls apart. But the film actively discourages you from doing that.

The plot of the movie does not make sense on any level. From scene to scene, nothing makes any logical sense. At all. It's incredibly lazy, sloppy filmmaking. There's just no excuse for that.

A couple of excuses for having made The Dark Knight Rises might be that (1) by mid December it had made nearly half a billion dollars at the box-office and (2) has received overwhelming acclaim from both critics and moviegoers. Other than that, of course, you could be right.

It's worldwide gross was also higher than THE DARK KNIGHT. (Not that it matters.)

Especially if it's simply based on higher ticket prices....as is the problem with comparing grosses across the years.

Well, it's only 3 years. Anyway, while it was higher with the worldwide earnings, within the U.S. alone it did not outgross DK.

The last Transformers movie handily outgrossed Dark Knight Rises and currently sits as the #6 highest grossing movie of all time, which I suppose means that, ipso facto, it is also the #6 best movie of all time. Because that's how it works, right?

Arguing that box office somehow equates to quality is a fool's game.

Still wouldn't surprise me that higher prices were in effect for TDKR even after only 3 years. I'd still like to see a head count instead of a gross $ amount...

Will anything ever come close to the headcount achieved by GWTW? With the prevalance of home viewing, probably not...although maybe some breakthrough in technology and theaters will change that some day.

This list is interesting http://mrob.com/pub/film-video/topadj.html

You oddly ignored the reaction of moviegoers to the last Transformers film, which was tepid, 6.3 Stars out of 10 on IMDb, and also ignored the critics, who hated it, only 36 percent of the reviews collected at Rotten Tomatoes were positive. I agree that money isn't everything but when a film is a box office blockbuster and is loved by moviegoers and critics alike, as The Dark Knight Rises was, that seems to me to have been reason enough to make it.

I don't remember critics universally hating Transformers 3. Actually, most of them aknowledged it was a huge and welcome improvement over TF2, if that's saying anything, with the most spectacular action scenes of the whole franchise. As for the moviegoers, I bet most of them liked it but they are too ashamed to admit it. Me, I like these films, they are silly but I still enjoy them - what am I gonna do?

This conversation reminds me of Jack Nicholson's Joker..."Would someone tell me how a man who dresses as a bat can steal all of my press"

Good grief. Sometimes I wonder if some people actually enjoy movies or even get their purpose. Give me any movie and I certainly can find something wrong with it. Sure, some flaws are more glaring than others but I don't ever remember going to a movie wanting to be anything more than entertained for two hours for my $15. Sure, if I go see, say, The Godfather, I'm going to want something that's a bit more intellectually complete in terms of storyline and scripting versus Batman for example. But that's because The Godfather is based on some level of reasonable factual history so it has to make a bit more sense. Batman (TDK, TDKR) is not, so for me, I can give it a little leeway if the scripting isn't as tight. Why? Because it's about a guy who dresses up as a bat. Instead of riding a Suzuki he rides a "Bazooki". That batwing thing? Yeah, I don't know about the feasibility of the tech but it sure was fun to hear and watch (in that order). Catwoman was kind of hot, Alfred made me feel a little something and they left everything with a bit of a thought that there could be something in our future (stated that way for those who haven't yet seen it just in case). After a busy week at work, I personally enjoyed getting out of the house for a couple hours to decompress with TDKR and enjoyed it again at home after it's BD release.

And as far as the box office comparisons are concerned, TDK, TDKR, Transformers (and many others).....all made a boat load of money! Pretty much only one reason for that. A lot of people are going to watch it! Shakespeare didn't make as much money as , say, John Grisham or Judy Collins has made and while many people may say MacBeth was the greatest, I never hear anyone saying they're going to rush to the bookstore to buy the new hardback version of it. People are going to buy or buy into what entertains them more and further more discuss it. Now whether this represents the downfall of society is another discussion entirely