[JLV]

Illuyankas, on 23 July 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Spoiler

I won't be able to see this movie for at least a fortnight, all these spoiler boxes are killing me

Spoiler

dicks, bags of them

[Sir Thursday]

Spoiler

I was not blown away by this movie. It was generally well put together, and for the most part had the same skein of tension running through it that make TDK such an excellent film. But unlike TDK, it was unable to keep that up the whole way through and as a result it couldn't keep myself on the edge of my seat enough to stop me picking at plot holes and irritants. Once that happens, the quality of my viewing experience is rapidly degraded by the presence of inconsistencies, and this is not a sufficiently watertight film to be able to stand up to a critical viewer's eye in that regard.

My main complaint (and what jarred me out of the film) was that the whole occupation subplot felt empty. When you watch TDK, you get a real sense of the emotions of the population of Gotham as the Joker carries out his plots. You see the city in gridlock after the bomb threats, you see people reacting with horror to the Joker's broadcasts. These work to convey the mood of the city and it sort of bleeds through the screen, leaving you tension filled and breathless. This did not happen in DKR. You had the stadium scene, but the crowd did not react in a manner I found remotely believable (and in any case we were only given glimpses of them in the background when this was happening). After that, the rest of the occupation takes place on empty streets. The only people we see who side with Bane are the criminals he frees. But we don't see any resistance either. One or two shots of anarchy, but not enough to properly establish the tone. Was there any of the hope that Bane was trying to instil? I didn't see any on display. Nor was there anger, or depression, or fatalism, or any of a myriad of things that would have been engaging and kept the pace of the film going. This was the section of the film that lost me.

I also felt like the character of Bane was shoehorned into trying to be too many different things. In the first act he is ruthless and efficient. We see this in the way he holds up the stock exchange, or how he deals with his minions after they let Gordon get away. But then once he holds the city hostage he seems to develop a dramatic streak. There are long speeches about leading a people's rebellion and lots of standing menacingly out in the open where any lunatic with a gun could have shot him. Some of that seemed a little manic in a way that reminded me of the Joker, but Hardy was nowhere near as dynamic in his portrayal as Ledger was, and thus it felt like a pale imitation when he was in that mode. That's not to say Hardy was bad - I thought he brought a gruff, physical presence to the role that fit his initial persona very well - but he didn't quite pull off the transition between the two modes in a way I could appreciate.

I initially welcomed the Talia reveal - it made Miranda Tate make a lot more sense as a character. Prior to that point she had seemed like a very one-dimensional presence in the film, especially when compared to Hathaway's Catwoman. But her being Talia made her character's existence make sense where it hadn't before. Unfortunately, they did not do enough with her once she became known as Talia. She had one chase scene and a mediocre send off. Ultimately, that cheapened what otherwise had the potential to be a stunning reveal.

I had no real problem with the send-off or Batman not being dead. It had the potential to be corny and tone-wrecking, but I thought the set-up with the Florence cafe was very tastefully done. The Batman we knew is dead, even if the character who played him isn't. We get closure for the stories of Alfred and Catwoman without lingering too long on them, plus a hook for the Robin character to continue the mythology should they wish to go in that direction.

So overall, good, but not great in the way TDK was. Had no desire to go back and see it again in the cinema like I did with that film.

ST

This post has been edited by Sir Thursday: 24 July 2012 - 12:21 AM

[Macros]

Just out of the cinema.
Great film, like ST, the dark knight is still my favourite of the three but this was a grand conclusion to the trilogy.
Really liked Blake, Micheal caine is always good and oldman is a legend.
Catwoman/selina Kyle she was ok, but there's not real explanation as to where she got her kickass skills, last a I checked it wasn't a prequosite for burgalry.
That basically my only complaint. Because Anne Hathaway is hot.

[champ]

Cocoreturns, on 23 July 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Just a point but.......

Spoiler

why are you all so convinced that the ending was "real"? Personally I think that the ending could just as easily be interpreted as Alfred's wishful thinking, and that Bruce IS dead.

just my 0.02.......

Spoiler

Mainly because they threw the scene in about the auto pilot but aye, its possible

[blackzoid]

Loved this film. Have to see it again but it may be the best of the trilogy for me.
Probably because it is so unlike other superhero films in tone and execution.

[Defiance]

Between Dark Knight and Rises:

Spoiler

It's a little early to say for sure, but I think Rises might be my favorite. It just felt like such a well-rounded movie to me. This is what made Rises so great for me:

-Loved watching Bane as a villain. Tom Hardy was excellent, but no one will ever measure up to Ledger's performance, but that's not a bad thing. The Joker made The Dark Knight for me. Bane is simply a part of what made this movie so great.

-Gotham being held hostage. Bane's takeover was extremely epic and intense. Really caught my by surprise, which is great. Definitely the highest stakes out of all 3 movies.

-Batman's journey and development as a hero. We had a little tension on TDK with the whole Harvey-Rachel choice, but not to the degree that we saw here.

-Awesome supporting cast. I was nervous as hell about Catwoman being in the movie, but Hathaway was amazing. I love the fact that while we all know she's Nolan's representation of Catwoman, people don't go around calling her that. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a solid addition to the cast, and honestly this is the first time where hearing "Robin" in a Batman movie actually didn't fill me with dread. That in itself is an amazing accomplishment. All the other returning actors was great as well. The scenes with Alfred were really touching.

-The fact that the movie successfully built on and incorporated aspects from the first two movies. Too often, we see the final movie of a trilogy deviate from what made the first two so great, some examples being Spiderman 3 and Return of the Jedi. The fact that Gordon was still coping with the lie about Harvey Dent was great; you could really tell that it was eating him inside. It's rare to see movies carry over aspects from previous installments like that. Also, jumping forward 8 years was pretty ballsy and a fun surprise.

-The movie was very bleak. This is just a personal preference, but I love movies like this. It reminds me of Malazan in a way; things are incredibly tragic, but there are glimmers of hope (the prevailing theme in this movie) throughout.

[Brujah]

I've had an inner battle trying to decide which I like best between II, and III.

But I have to say I still rank II slightly higher just because of Ledger's performance.

I think

Spoiler

Hardy's Bane may have came across better if his facial expressions weren't blocked by the mask the whole time. Although I am not taking anything away from the mask's effect. It helped make the villain, just not seeing facial expressions takes a bit away from the acting, imo.

I still thought it was amazing. I like all 3 very much. The scarecrow from I was brilliantly done, and the viewpoint of people under the trippy LSD gas stuff was amazing.

Overall excellent series. Great ending.

[blackzoid]

Defiance thats a very good point. In its catarsis and lots of povs and "fantastic-end-iness", this film was very Malazan like I thought.

[McLovin]

Well, I saw it and...

IMO, the best of the three. A long film, but unlike TDK, it didn't feel too long. There was some crappy editing here and there, but everything else was 100%.

And you can consider me officially shut up about casting Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. She did a phenomenal job.

A worthwhile conclusion to Nolan's trilogy. Bravo, sir.

One shocking point...

Spoiler

Alfred drinks Fernet? I pegged him as a sherry man.

[Aptorian]

No spoilers for the film in here. It's just a large picture.

Spoiler

[Morgoth]

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 23 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Spoiler

The theme of the 3rd film is "hope". The point is that Bruce/Batman died to fully redeem Batman from his status at the end of TDK, saving the city he loved. But WE don't want Batman to die. I especially didn't want Batman to die. But beyond that, having him die and stay dead removes HOPE from the ending...regardless of Blake taking up the cowl (or becoming Nightwing or Robin or whatever)...Gotham's hope was Batman saving them from the worst villain they's encountered...but OUR hope...the audience hope was in the fact that Alfred hadn't failed, and in the end Bruce chose to allow the mantle of protector to pass to someone else and have a life...but to do that he had to die (as Bruce Wayne as well, so no one would look for him) in everyone's eyes...but our hope lies in the fact that he GETS to have a normal life.

Spoiler

I'm not really sure that was 'the' theme at all - it was an element, sure, but personally, the thing I took most from it was redemption. And Bruce didn't need to live to redeem himself.
That's secondary though; as I say, my gripe isn't with the story itself, it's with the telling. If we'd known all along he wasn't really going to die, it wouldn't have bothered me, but asking us to mourn him then showing he isn't dead seconds later was cheap manipulation; Nolan trying to have his cake and eat it.
I had the exact same problem with the end of the last season of Doctor Who...

Spoiler

The theme of "hope" comes from the lips of Nolan and his screenwriter themselves. So it was the theme. Just as Fear was the theme for the first and Chaos the theme for the second. You also imply (using the word "redemption") that Batman did something wrong and NEEDS redeeming. He doesn't. Sure he needs the city to see him as a hero again, but that's not redemption.

And PG, no offense, but there is a whole segment early on in the film with Fox talking to Bruce about the autopilot feature of The Bat and how it would require fixing to work. That was the key that told me right then that whatever happened Bruce would live. It's not cheap manipulation at all, and the "resurrection" aspect of comic characters has been around for nearly a century. He never meant to hoodwink the audience who were paying attention...there is no less than 3 things (including the above-mentioned autopilot conversation) that lead us to believe that Bruce is alive. Plus, add the fact that no one...not even Christopher Nolan would kill Bruce Wayne on the big screen...no one. If you thought that was going to happen, then I'm afraid you don't know comic movies or their point. It's about heroes, not martyrs...If Batman dies (even saving Gotham) then you have removed the fact that he is a hero who overcomes evil and have made him simply a martyr instead...and while a martyr is honorable and even sometimes useful...it serves little purpose for the future.

I doubt theme can be considered a spoiler, so I'll skip the tags.

I'm curious as to where you have this idea that the theme of Rises is hope. From a quick google search I can only find Nolan stating the theme to be 'pain' or perhaps 'consequences'. Additionally, though fear, chaos and pain might be the main themes of the trilogy, it's obvious that there are many other themes to be found within the films as well. Trying to limit the discussion to the main theme seems a little silly.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 27 July 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 23 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Spoiler

The theme of the 3rd film is "hope". The point is that Bruce/Batman died to fully redeem Batman from his status at the end of TDK, saving the city he loved. But WE don't want Batman to die. I especially didn't want Batman to die. But beyond that, having him die and stay dead removes HOPE from the ending...regardless of Blake taking up the cowl (or becoming Nightwing or Robin or whatever)...Gotham's hope was Batman saving them from the worst villain they's encountered...but OUR hope...the audience hope was in the fact that Alfred hadn't failed, and in the end Bruce chose to allow the mantle of protector to pass to someone else and have a life...but to do that he had to die (as Bruce Wayne as well, so no one would look for him) in everyone's eyes...but our hope lies in the fact that he GETS to have a normal life.

Spoiler

I'm not really sure that was 'the' theme at all - it was an element, sure, but personally, the thing I took most from it was redemption. And Bruce didn't need to live to redeem himself.
That's secondary though; as I say, my gripe isn't with the story itself, it's with the telling. If we'd known all along he wasn't really going to die, it wouldn't have bothered me, but asking us to mourn him then showing he isn't dead seconds later was cheap manipulation; Nolan trying to have his cake and eat it.
I had the exact same problem with the end of the last season of Doctor Who...

Spoiler

The theme of "hope" comes from the lips of Nolan and his screenwriter themselves. So it was the theme. Just as Fear was the theme for the first and Chaos the theme for the second. You also imply (using the word "redemption") that Batman did something wrong and NEEDS redeeming. He doesn't. Sure he needs the city to see him as a hero again, but that's not redemption.

And PG, no offense, but there is a whole segment early on in the film with Fox talking to Bruce about the autopilot feature of The Bat and how it would require fixing to work. That was the key that told me right then that whatever happened Bruce would live. It's not cheap manipulation at all, and the "resurrection" aspect of comic characters has been around for nearly a century. He never meant to hoodwink the audience who were paying attention...there is no less than 3 things (including the above-mentioned autopilot conversation) that lead us to believe that Bruce is alive. Plus, add the fact that no one...not even Christopher Nolan would kill Bruce Wayne on the big screen...no one. If you thought that was going to happen, then I'm afraid you don't know comic movies or their point. It's about heroes, not martyrs...If Batman dies (even saving Gotham) then you have removed the fact that he is a hero who overcomes evil and have made him simply a martyr instead...and while a martyr is honorable and even sometimes useful...it serves little purpose for the future.

I doubt theme can be considered a spoiler, so I'll skip the tags.

I'm curious as to where you have this idea that the theme of Rises is hope. From a quick google search I can only find Nolan stating the theme to be 'pain' or perhaps 'consequences'. Additionally, though fear, chaos and pain might be the main themes of the trilogy, it's obvious that there are many other themes to be found within the films as well. Trying to limit the discussion to the main theme seems a little silly.

Why is the theme even interesting? If we're talking original scripts or society critical stuff like Pedro Almodóvar used to make, we might be on to something, but this is essentially a (apparently extremely good) translation of a floppy that is forced into certain paths by fan expectation and villain selection. As such, there is, apart from atmosphere, very little that can be done to impress a distinct stamp onto the movie, the only thing that can surprise is the conclusion (or perhaps the inclusion of Marion Cotillard's revelation as ...).

To project a theme onto it other than 3/3 for Nolan and therefore, conclusion of an arc, is over-complicating the issue. Nolan may have wanted to impart a certain feeling as he wrapped up the project. That's fine. But that's not a theme, imho.

[QuickTidal]

PG and I were just having our usual back and forth. He and I walked away from it with different flavours about a theme.

I was unaware that we weren't allowed to talk about a theme for fear of being smacked down...and laughably neg-repped. LOL

Morgoth, I don't know where I read it that Nolan and Goyer said that, what with all the articles I've read over the months. If you choose to believe I didn't read it anywhere that's fine by me. Whatever blows your skirt up.

[Tapper]

Not being allowed to is a bit rough, but I personally don't see the point to assign a theme to it, anyway

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 27 July 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Not being allowed to is a bit rough, but I personally don't see the point to assign a theme to it, anyway

Must we have had a point?

[Macros]

Yes

[worry]

I had hope that Matthew Modine would feel excruciating pain at some point.

[QuickTidal]

No one asked you Macros.

[Macros]

The people wanted a hero, someone had to full fill that role.
that someone was me

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

Aptorius, on 21 July 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Just came back from the Cinema. Not quite sure what I think of the film yet. Much of it left me feeling sort of... cold. But the very end saved it for me.

Spoiler

Mainly it was the "convergence of events" towards the end that bothered me and I don't like Banes motives, because he has none it seems, but I also thought Batmans "breaking" and rising was sorely miss-portrait. (Portraid? Portraited? How the hell do you spell that word?)

As a part of the Ra's Al-Gul(sp?) cult I do not understand the point of setting the criminals free and arming them. They should have been killed in their cells. Likewise I do not find it believable that the cult would punish people showing courage and a will to fight back. Now, this could be explained away by Bane being insane and his personal view diverging from the cults beliefs but if that is the case, they should have given us a proper monologue or exchange of ethics/world view between Batman and Bane. Knowing as we do that he was working for Talia and that it was the full force of the cult he had behind him, I found their actions and motivation illogical. But I guess you could chalk it all down to the whole attack on the city as one big revenge act holding every citizen accountable for the death of Ras. I still don't like it and it smacked of "look at how evil and twisted the bad guy is " instead of the deliberate psycological and anarchistic motives of the Joker in the Dark Knight.

If it was the actual cult behind this whole mess then it was preposterous that Batman, let alone the civilians and police should have stood a chance against groups of these guys. They are super-ninjas. Trained to fight "a thousand men". They would be almost supernaturally keen on their environment, nearly impossible to take down in hand to hand combat, superbly gifted in tactics and planning. Yes, Batman is very special, he is how ever also a broken husk of a man, severally damaged physically and mentally and 8 years out of shape.

Which leads me to my other complaint that they didn't do enough with that "pit". This should have been Bruce Waynes return to his roots. Friendless, pennyless, raw and desperate. He should have been shown fighting to survive in that hole. Scraping for food. Fighting some "pit-boss" and his buddies. It should have been hell. Instead it was just some rocky scenes and then some ridiculous jumping scenes that probably should have snapped his spine and ruptured his vital organs every time he failed. I wonder if there is a whole bunch of scenes that have been cut away from this part of the film.

Lastly, where all those side characters and their little roles sort of brought the story together for me in The Dark Knight, it didn't really work in this one I felt. It felt more like tagged on stories and sort of distraction characters than vitals parts of a story about Gotham. It's probably because in this third film the focus returned to Batman where in The Dark Knight it felt like Batman was just one of the important characters. It felt sort of like this movie was unsure if it wanted to be like Batman Begins or The Dark Knight and I feel it was shipwrecked somewhere between those two points.

This whole spiel of complaints makes it sound like I didn't like the film, which is far from the case but I feel it missed the mark. Still, it is a great film. Somehow I never saw the revalation that "environmental billionaire" chick was Talia coming. I thought she was a completely missplaced character and a waste of film reel until she suddenly stabbed Batman. I was all "WTF!?" which is probably the only place in the film that surprised me. I was all ready to have temper tantrum when Batman died in a nuclear explosion but the final scenes and the passing on of the role to Robin was great in my opinion. It was a good wrap up.

And I guess it leaves it open for somebody one day either making a Robin sequel or a new set of Batman films. I would love it if in 20 years time Nolan and Bale reunited to make the Frank Miller miniseries about the Old batman a reality.

Defiance, on 22 July 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

I loved the movie.

I don't think anyone will be able to top Ledger's performance as Joker, but Tom Hardy did an excellent job as Bane. Comparatively:

Spoiler

Bane is the worst thing that Gotham has ever faced (in Nolan's vision, that is). He not only puts Batman out of service for nearly five months, he also manages to hold millions of people hostage for several months. Him and his cronies are so effective in their plan that they manage to ward off any rescue attempts until Batman returns.

The Joker leaves a big mess in his wake, but ultimately there's no real path to what he does. That is, of course, the point, but it also means he wasn't able to achieve as much as Bane.

To take the copout answer, it's not really fair to compare the two. If Nolan had been silly enough to try to put someone like, say, The Riddler in the movie, then there could have been some comparisons between two psychological villains. As others have stated, though, Bane is physical (although he is very intelligent).

Spoiler

There is definitely a psychological aspect to this movie, which is the result of Bane dislodging the disc in Batman's back, but it's more of a personal journey for Batman than anything else. It was really great to see a superhero movie that confronted what happens when a hero gets old, and what it really takes to keep on fighting. The whole message about needing to be afraid of death in order to fight, and just the stuff about rising in general, was really well done. I disagree about needing to see Bruce fighting people in prison, scrounging for food, and all of that. Bane specifically wanted to keep Bruce alive to see Gotham die. Seeing Bruce fight would have been unnecessary in my eyes, because his ascent out of the pit was not a physical journey but a spiritual one.

Oh, and yes, I know Watchmen confronts the idea of heroes getting old. But I thought that movie was shit, it was supposed to be a human take on heroes just like in the graphic novel, and yet we were treated to ridiculous, over-the-top 300 action. The only thing that movie did well was getting rid of the giant killer squid.

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

polishgenius, on 23 July 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Defiance, on 23 July 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Spoiler

I have mixed feelings about killing Bruce. The problem with killing him is that it would have been very predictable. I think most people went into the movie expecting him to die. By allowing him to live, it shows that you don't have to give your life in order to truly make change and become a symbol/ideal. On the other hand, well, predictable isn't always a bad thing.

Spoiler

My issue wasn't that he didn't die, it's that they 'killed' him and then yoinked the rug.

Spoiler

The theme of the 3rd film is "hope". The point is that Bruce/Batman died to fully redeem Batman from his status at the end of TDK, saving the city he loved. But WE don't want Batman to die. I especially didn't want Batman to die. But beyond that, having him die and stay dead removes HOPE from the ending...regardless of Blake taking up the cowl (or becoming Nightwing or Robin or whatever)...Gotham's hope was Batman saving them from the worst villain they's encountered...but OUR hope...the audience hope was in the fact that Alfred hadn't failed, and in the end Bruce chose to allow the mantle of protector to pass to someone else and have a life...but to do that he had to die (as Bruce Wayne as well, so no one would look for him) in everyone's eyes...but our hope lies in the fact that he GETS to have a normal life.

QuickTidal, on 23 July 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

And PG, no offense, but there is a whole segment early on in the film with Fox talking to Bruce about the autopilot feature of The Bat and how it would require fixing to work. That was the key that told me right then that whatever happened Bruce would live. It's not cheap manipulation at all, and the "resurrection" aspect of comic characters has been around for nearly a century. He never meant to hoodwink the audience who were paying attention...there is no less than 3 things (including the above-mentioned autopilot conversation) that lead us to believe that Bruce is alive. Plus, add the fact that no one...not even Christopher Nolan would kill Bruce Wayne on the big screen...no one. If you thought that was going to happen, then I'm afraid you don't know comic movies or their point. It's about heroes, not martyrs...If Batman dies (even saving Gotham) then you have removed the fact that he is a hero who overcomes evil and have made him simply a martyr instead...and while a martyr is honorable and even sometimes useful...it serves little purpose for the future.[/spoiler]

Spoiler

A lot of what you say Apt rings true with me too- there was so much crammed into that movie that certain storylines lacked time and space to be developed with more depth. Maybe it was too ambitious a project.
I also agree with Defiance and QB in the quoted comments.
I haven't made my mind up really - I think it is fine how they deal with most of the aspects, but some stuff is not overly convincing. Also, for the first time in my life I have an issue with the timeline. ??!! Did all of that happen within 57 days or what?
Generally I couldn't follow the plot as well as in the two other movies, mainly Bane and Talia, if they wanted to blow up Gotham to finish off Raz plan and restore balance, why first cause havoc? In particular because Bane was excluded from the League of Shadows. Is it because he loves Talia and still wants to protect her?
I haven't yet made up my mind whether I think some of the dialogues between Albert and Bruce and Blake and Bruce were a bit cheesy. Even though both of them were right. And it wasn't too bad.
Batman's extremely quick recovery from his badly healed injuries which he sustained in TDK.
I didn't like at all that the outside world got involved (army) and Catwoman's sidekick. She was a nuisance, didn't add anything as a character to the movie and suddenly disappears.


Besides all of the above, I think it is an impressive movie.
The main cast is outstanding, the acting is fantastic, every single one of them and I take back my earlier moaning about Anne Hathaway and Catwoman. She is drop dead gorgeous, and delivers a superb performance. Where seduction meets high-tech.
I was gutted I didn't see Talia coming and was fooled into thinking Bane climbed up that wall- despite the fact I knew that Raz had a daughter. Bruce/Batman only survived because he climbed out of the pit without a rope, the cathartic event he had to go through in order to match Bane, find his will to live and move on, only to get stabbed in the back by Talia, who was actually the only other one who climbed out there before. That's kind of wicked, and they totally led me on there.
In this particular movie they create a kind of palpable intensity or tension which has never been possible before because of Bane/Hardy and his immense physical presence (the other villains were wimps, and even Raz didn't have this feel to him). Bane is not only an intellectual match for Batman, but also physical. The fights between the two of them are raw animal power, brute force even more so in the second fight, where Batman is back in form. I thoroughly enjoyed that. It sent shivers down my spine.
I love the contrast of Bane's eloquence and his powerful voice - and the way it is encumbered by his mask.
I like how in the first part of the movie Bruce/Batman is miserable with a no future attitude, and it takes the shock of Albert leaving him, Catwoman's betrayal and the pit to wake him up and realise that there's a live for him after all. When he returns, he returns with the will to live. I thought that comes across really well- and I agree with you, QT, about heroes and martyrs. I was so scared Nolan was going to kill Bruce/Batman I could hardly wait for the end to find out, despite the fact that after Batman returned from the pit I kind of knew he was going to live.

And the end- I think it is one of the best parts of the movie. Reconciliation. It was just beautiful how Albert's dream comes true. I am so happy for all of them.
I'll have to watch it again I think.

This post has been edited by Miss Savage: 29 July 2012 - 04:08 PM