Batman: The Dark Knight Rises

[Prolescum]

Just saw this...

Fuck me it's noisy!


Seriously, not as good a plot as the last one, but still pretty fuckin' good. Need to watch it again so I'm not biased by my adrenalin, but well worth the ticket price.

Although it does feel like there's a significant amount of stuff on the cutting room floor.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

In Colorado, someone walked in with a mask and shot up the place while throwing tear gas into the crowd.

I guess they wanted the series to end in a bang.

 

[WarK]

Seriously, not as good a plot as the last one, but still pretty fuckin' good.

I watched the previous one, it was so incredibly boring I had to fast-forward. I won't fall for it again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Seriously, not as good a plot as the last one, but still pretty fuckin' good.

I watched the previous one, it was so incredibly boring I had to fast-forward. I won't fall for it again.

Agreed. In my opinion, the second movie was cared by the hype of that one actors death.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

^
I have no idea what these two are talking about.

I'm going to see it at the IMAX in Bradford tomorrow evening. Looking forward to it immensely.

 

[Prolescum]

Lol, do I seem like someone who buys into hype, he_who_is_nobody? I don't recall ever hearing of this chap before he played the Joker.

I humbly offer this analysis. If you still assert that the film was carried by the co-star's death, well, we'll have to sit on opposite sides of the fence on this one.


I'll wait a few days before waffling on about the new one.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Lol, do I seem like someone who buys into hype, he_who_is_nobody? I don't recall ever hearing of this chap before he played the Joker.

I humbly offer this analysis. If you still assert that the film was carried by the co-star's death, well, we'll have to sit on opposite sides of the fence on this one.


I'll wait a few days before waffling on about the new one.

An analysis? Why read an analysis when I watched the movie? In addition, I am not sure if you are one to buy into hype or not.

The Joker alone carried the second movie. Nothing else about that movie was any good. In addition, the ending of the movie made no sense. First Batman has a heart-to-heart with the Joker about how he could never kill anyone, than in the next scene, Batman kills Two-Face by jumping off a building with him.

I also hate the fact that Nolen did not respect the villains enough to keep them the same way they are in the comic books. Two-Face and Ra's al Ghul are nothing like that. Furthermore, Bain does not seem anything like he is in the comics.

It was also upsetting to see a story where Batman's only reason for supporting Harvey was so he would not have to be Batman anymore (that is so not Batman.). They never touch on the fact that they were friends in school and that Harvey had multiple personality disorder.

 

[Prolescum]

An analysis? Why read an analysis when I watched the movie?

Well, when you stated that "the second movie was carried by the hype of that one actor's death", it suggested to me not only that you hadn't seen the film, but that you also thought its success and its reviews were due to that event (dead dude's death).

This is why I linked that rather spiffing analysis (which is a video). It is now clear that you didn't actually mean what you said at all, it was an attempt to be pithy. I hope you can see where the confusion arose.

In addition, I am not sure if you are one to buy into hype or not.

Fair enough.

The Joker alone carried the second movie.

Well it does centre around him, but as a twisted reflection of Batman; the consequence of Batman's existence.

Nothing else about that movie was any good.

Not even Gary Oldman's 'tache?

In addition, the ending of the movie made no sense. First Batman has a heart-to-heart with the Joker about how he could never kill anyone, than in the next scene, Batman kills Two-Face by jumping off a building with him.

Yes, and that's the point. The Joker wins, no matter the outcome (he even states it about twenty minutes from the end). Both of Gotham's knights corrupted. That's why the third installment is set 8 years later. (probably not a spoiler)

I also hate the fact that Nolen did not respect the villains enough to keep them the same way they are in the comic books. Two-Face and Ra's al Ghul are nothing like that.

I have to disagree here too, Bob Kane's Batman isn't the same as Frank Miller's Dark Knight, who isn't the same as Adam West's anti-shark-spray-toting world's greatest detective, who isn't the same as Chris Nolan's souped-up vigilante.

Are they all crap because they don't follow a (at this point) pretty arbitrary continuity? If you can accept Crisis on Infinite Earths and Final Crisis, I don't think you can argue with any validity about differences between the different media versions of these characters.

Personally, I have no problems with variations on the theme if it's well thought out (see Hush, don't see Batman vs Aliens).

Furthermore, Bain does not seem anything like he is in the comics.

His character is about as consistent as a British summer in the comics...

It was also upsetting to see a story where Batman's only reason for supporting Harvey was so he would not have to be Batman anymore (that is so not Batman.).

But it is consistent with this Batman.

They never touch on the fact that they were friends in school and that Harvey had multiple personality disorder.

Did they touch on it in the Schumacher version (honestly can't remember, actually - now there's a crap Batman film...)? How about the Adam West version?

Point is, these aren't very good criticisms, much like "the second movie was carried by the hype of that one actor's death".

 

[australopithecus]

The Batman films from Burton to Bat-nipples reflect the comics to a greater degree that the Nolan films. Those films are shite. Nolan's trilogy is everything I want a Batman film to be.

 

[Prolescum]

That comes across as harsher than I intended, he_who_is_nobody, and for that I apologise.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I have to agree with Prole. If these movies were an interpretation of a specific story from the comics then I can see that one might get annoyed with inaccuracies, but Nolan has clearly taken characters and ideas and moulded his own story, which is a perfectly valid thing to do with such a long-running franchise.

As to the film, I enjoyed it immensely. Possibly the weakest of the trilogy but only marginally. The "science" was more than a little dubious but that's to be expected in a comic book movie and it was certainly nowhere near Prometheus levels of ridiculousness. Also I did see the "twist" before the climax coming, but on the whole it was still very much worthy of our trip across Yorkshire to the IMAX.

 

[australopithecus]

I was underwhelmed by the ending, other than that it was fantastic. Tom Hardy was superb.

 

[Go4th&X]

Was it just me who thought Bane sounded like Victor Meldrew as Darth Vader?

 

[australopithecus]

 

[bluejatheist]

In Colorado, someone walked in with a mask and shot up the place while throwing tear gas into the crowd.

I guess they wanted the series to end in a bang.

 

[CEbbesen]

So I just watched it yesterday and I can finally read what this thread is all about!

 

[Logic-Nanaki]

An afterthought I had at the end was "Sometimes it's just impossible to get rid of a bomb"

 

[Noth]

I was very pleased with the outcome of this film

Granted, the plot was not as good as the previous one, but I immensely enjoyed it nonetheless.
I suppose I am a bit of a heretic ( <this is me not caring about that) in that I never really read DC comics. I was always fed Marvel instead. However, even had I read the comics I would still have found plenty about the film to enjoy, as I generally accept that films based on comics don't become good just because they follow the comic precisely. And in the case of Batman, I have to agree with Prole that at this point any Batman a film maker makes needs only be internally consistent within its trilogy.

I hope they release a DVD version where Bane's voice is reduced to the original volume. I wouldn't have had any trouble understanding him and I thought the added booming ambience of his voice was a good bit overdone. Tom Hardy played him superbly though. One must also consider how difficult it is to portray emotions when the lower half of your face is hidden. IMO he did so excellently.

*throws 2 cents onto the pile*