The Dark Knight Rises (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review - Page 4

The itunes version is constant aspect, so what they mean is these scenes have been cropped from the IMAX footage, but the scenes are still there.

Needed to add one more (HONEST) trailer...

 

 

Great review, Ralph--pretty much spot on to my feeling about the movie and PQ and AQ. I watched this last night and did play it quite loud in my rather small theater room--it is indeed an awesome sound track--I should have had my DB meter in there. My SVS PC13 Ultra really had the room shaking--and my Marantz 6005 was really working hard for this one. I would recommend this as a must buy reference disc--this is certainly one movie where you want that lossless audio to experience all it has to offer.

Underwhelming and overrated, from the Alfred's tepid philosophical ramblings, the film's subverted physics (including the SLOWEST heat seeking missiles ever fired) and a host of ridiculously convenient, unrealistic characterizations and Deus Ex Machina plot-safety nets, to the poorly choreographed/executed (ahem) "fight scenes", Bane's cornball "origin" and that inane "prison" sequence (Hey Bruce! Hows-about throwing a rope down for the rest of us to climb out, now that you've escaped your metaphorical cell!)! Sigh...

You know, he did actually throw a rope down once he climbed out.  

Sheesh! I must've fallen asleep during that part..

Once you accept the plausibility of a grown man donning a bat costume with a can-get-caught-or-tangled-in-anything cape in order to fight criminals, you've suspended enough belief to be able to go with anything else the movie might throw at you - impossible physics, bad acting, plot holes, knick-of-time out-of-nowhere rescues, etc. In fact, they enhance the movie.

Once you accept the premise of Batman or any other superhero movie, you are no longer watching a serious movie. Then the only sins such movies can commit are to be boring or have their stupidity index go beyond a certain level or have really bad CGI effects.

And, yeah, him throwing down the rope is a blink-and-you-might-miss-it scene.

Use a full stop every once in a while.

I'm asked to suspend disbelief for a movie that prided itself on being realistic? How does that work? Strangely enough, the Batman premise is the ONLY "superhero" premise that isn't entirely implausible or impossible!

The movie didn't pride itself on being realistic. YOU prided it on being realistic.

..no. It did. Read an interview once in awhile.

Since it's not a documentary, how realistic it is does not matter.  Just enjoy the movie for what it is.  

I'm with Daniel.

My screen area is 5 1/3 feet high by 9 1/2 feet wide. 16:9 material exactly fills it, 1.33:1 material fills the height with narrow black bars on the sides, and any of the multitude of Cinemascope/Cinerama aspect ratios (2.2:1, 2.35:1, 2.4:1 - couldn't they have come to some sort of standard in the last fifty years?) fills the width with varying amounts of black bars above and below - typically the image is four feet tall, give or take a few inches.

This is without any adjustments on my part - I set it for 16:9 to fill the screen and I then leave it alone. No zooming, motorized masks, or distorting lenses are used. Neither Daniel or I are reducing the image to fit on a tiny part of the screen.

Using CIH, to get a 5 1/3 foot high image you'd need 12 to 13 feet of screen width. I envy you if you have a room that big.

However, if you're working within the same screen area as I am, you're putting a lot of effort into shrinking films released in 16:9 - which are becoming the majority - down to 4 feet tall by 7 1/8 feet wide, just so you can say you have achieved Constant Image Height.

Why is that more important than seeing films as big as possible?

I'd rather just watch all formats as large as possible in my theater.

PS Your request for a CIH version is, ironically, a request for what amounts to a "pan and scan" version, just throwing away the tops and bottoms of the images in the 16:9 sections instead of the sides.

Procrustes' bed has become your screen!
Edited by Philnick - 12/10/12 at 10:46pm

Hi Philnick,

I am using a 2.35 screen using the zoom method so 2.35 films fill the screen perfectly and 1.78 has bars on the sides. A variable aspect film does not work in this situation just like it would not work in a non IMAX theater which is why they also created a CIH version for these theaters. Yes I know the top/bottom are being cropped which is the best overall solution in this situation. The movie was filmed with CIH in mind since not all theaters are IMAX so it frames very well in 2.35 because of this. All I am asking is for the option to view this how it was presented in non IMAX theaters which was CIH. Transformers 2 on blu gave us the choice and it would be great if all variable aspect films gave us this option so CIH users could see these films in the best presentation possible.

As far as watching large as possible, that is part of the reason why I went 2.35 in my room over 1.78. I run out of height before width so I get the same size 1.78 pic either way, but by going with a 2.35 screen and taking advantage of my extra width I get a MUCH larger 2.35 pic that way.
Edited by Toe - 12/10/12 at 10:53pm

LOL at this guy getting upset. Show me an interview where Nolan said these movies were supposed to realistic. Like I said YOU took these movies too seriously and now you want explanations because they didn't match your definition of what's real.

Sniff. I smell a troll.

Not a great movie, but a pretty good one which I found entertaining. It also did a decent job of tying up the open threads of the story arc as a whole.

And yes, the movie is definitely on the loud side. I have ~200 titles in my home library, and this is the first movie I've received a noise complaint for from a neighbor in the 5 years I've lived here - it was during the chase scenes when Batman resurfaces. I don't think any single instance was louder than other movies I have, but it was moreso the extended duration of scenes with high LFE (the soundtrack playing during the action sequences, in particular).

I watched Batman Begins the day after, and it wasn't anywhere near as loud.

I'm a bit on the fence about this one.

I felt like Nolan was cramming the remainder of a bigger story arc into this movie.
The IMAX scenes looked so good on my calibrated VT50 that it made the 35mm scenes look soft at times.
The dark scenes were really dark, I wouldn't use velvety as an adjective, more like crushed velvet to go along with that soft look.
The effects soundtrack was loud but clear, but there was too much loud. We were literally tired by the time the movie was over.
The music soundtrack was mediocre, especially at the end. It added no extra emotional punch to the movies climax. Sunshine and Paranorman are two immediate examples of how frentic audio+visual can really amp up your emotional investment in a scene.

However...

The performances, all of them except for Cotilliards (sp) were outstanding. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) The IMAX shots were amazing at times.
The costume and set design work was outstanding.
The plot reveals were a bit predictable, but well executed, and I like the inclusion of characters from the previous films in this one.

I'll rewatch it a few times to see what I may have missed that would change my opinion.

Not to side with the Troll but Nolan did say in an interview that he wanted people to feel like this Batman was going on in the here and now, a super hero that we could see as a real flesh and blood human, with flesh and bone that can be cut and broken not a super hero that never gets hurt or heals instantly, I cant recall if he said realistic but by his wording its pretty much what he was implying and for the most part he was successful at it.

I think the term "realistic" is due to it being the fact that Batman is a superhero who doesn't actually have any super powers. That's all. In the history of comics, Batman's always been considered 1 of the most "realistic" characters due to him being just a normal guy. He's still a comic book hero though! So with that in mind, you still have to suspend your beliefs in realism due to that fact. Just like you would with any movie or comic book, and especially any movie that is based off of a comic book.

I finally saw this the other night, and I had 1 major issue with the movie. The fact that at no time, was it ever made known, the fact that Bane has super human strength. Due to the gas he's being fed through his mask. I thought it was great that Nolan held true to alot of what we know of him from the comics. I just really wish he let audience members know that a main reason why Bane is such a bad ass is because he's extremely strong. Just that people see Bane kicking Batman's but and Bane acting like he's so big and bad, when in reality he's got a huge advantage over Batman. Sorry but that just really pisses me off.

Thanks Ralph for the review, just watched this the other night for the first time. I think this was the best one of the 3. I've never seen a super hero get a bet down like BM took in this one. I wish they would stick to one aspect ratio. I have the PT-AE4000U using a 135'' 2.35:1 type screen and the going back and forth is very distracting. But my question to you Ralph is the Robin character. Do you think they will try to continue down that line or do you think they will skip the Robin character and go to when he gets older and becomes Night Wing? I think that would be great for the franchise. Robin has always been a played out character.
Edited by HiDef Lover - 12/11/12 at 3:02pm

 

If they do, Nolan won't helm the project.  I believe they both MIGHT be present in the upcoming Justice League movie though.  Check out this fan-made trailer to Grayson:

 

Edited by thebesthereis - 12/11/12 at 8:01pm

Actually you know what I wold love to see, I would love to see a Batman Beyond live action movie ^_^ and yes a Justice League movie would be Epic!

Well if you even looked deep enough into the movies you probably wouldn't be asking this question.
In The Dark Knight (The 2nd movie of the trilogy) There is the conversation between Fox and Mr. Reese. In a way Fox points out how unrealistic Batman is. How could such a powerful man be someone like batman. It shows how implausible/unrealistic the whole possibility of it is.

Here is the convo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwKxK3N2_no

I watched my BD of The Dark Knight Rises last night and loved it even more that when I saw it in an IMAX theater. I gave it 10 Stars out of 10 on IMDB. I think The Dark Knight Rises is the best of Nolan's Batman trilogy. That said, I agree that the other sound on the soundtrack often drowned out the audiotrack. Even so, I agree with Ralph's 100 rating for the overall quality of the audio. After all, that's what subtitles are for. More seriously, I always intended to watch my BD of the film with subtitles because of how much trouble I had understanding Bain's dialog when I saw it in the theater. Anyway, The Dark Knight Rises is a great film. Buy it, you won't regret it.

Finally, I have a feeling that those posters here who have savaged the film, have seen it only once. Typical of all Christopher Nolan films, The Dark Knight Rises is incredibly dense and complex. I was amazed at how much vital information had passed over my head when I saw the film in the theater.

Lol.
I just saw this with my wife...we loved it. Now she wants to see #2 which she missed.
I must go check the walls!!
I guess no.4 will be... "Robin...." ?

I found it to be the best of the 3 as well. And this was on my first viewing. I had no issues with the audio, understanding Bane, and felt the mix worked incredibly well on my system. Funny how this one polarized fans, as we can all agree that #2 is great.

And for a giggle...

I bought the BDs of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight when they came out. After I first saw The Dark Knight Rises in an IMAX theater, I continued to rank The Dark Knight a bit higher than The Dark Knight Rises. As noted in an earlier post, though, when I saw the Dark Knight Rises BD on my own system, I gave it 10 Stars out of 10, as I had done earlier with The Dark Knight. In stark contrast to my experience in the IMAX theater, except for one instance, I had no trouble understanding Bane's dialog. That one instance required me to go back and actually read the subtitle to figure out what he had said. Other than that, though, I mostly ignored the subtitles.

I sure hope the decision makers for the Batman franchise don't try to turn Joseph Gordon-Levitt into a Caped Crusader. I admire the guy's talent but think he is so devoid of screen presence, there is no way he could credibly portray an action hero. Gordon-Levitt is at his best in stuff like (500) Days of Summer, in which he plays an ineffectual but rather charming doofus.

Nice to see that I'm not alone in my appreciation for DKR. Yeah, there were plot-holes (most movies have 'em) and things I could quibble with. But for me, it just was more substantial then DK (which was filled more with explosions than character,, except for the Joker). Anyone think that Bane sounded a lot like Patrick Stuart? (Maybe it's because Hardy previously played Capt Picard's clone)