The Dark Knight Rises (Spoilers Be Warned)

Post Reply New Topic

Saw the movie today and it was awesome. One of the best movies ever, with a few tiny flaws that aren't even that bad that I would still give the movie 5 out of 5. Like Christopher Nolan's other film Inception (which is also good) it does get a bit confusing like with the whole bomb thing and the use of Bruce Wayne's finger prints but I went on wikipedia and I actually figured out that last part and a couple of other things. Also Tom Hardy was great as Bane but the only thing that kinda got to me was that most of the time but not all of the time is that I couldn't really understand what he was saying. Also I can't decide if I like it better than The Dark Knight. I think it's better than the other Batman movies but The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises are the top 2 Batman movies. Honestly I think maybe I still like The Dark Knight better, one of the reasons being that it had the best villain, Heath Ledger as The Joker, though I think even Bane could dominate him with his strength though Joker could have his laughing gas and acid to back him up but this version of The Joker doesn't have that stuff, but I think it could also be The Dark Knight Rises because it was much bigger and the stakes were much much higher, but I'll get back to you but truthfully when you also include Batman Begins you've got yourself one heck of a superhero movie trilogy. All 3 movies are awesome.

I really liked this movie too. It's a shame C. Nolan is done making Batman movies. I'd really like to see the Robin arc play out.

I saw it yesterday and loved it despite its imperfections. I knew that it would be facing criticisms like that going in since TDK was so darn good, that TDKR's greatest flaw would be a simple problem of it not being TDK. (kind of like Godfather 3's biggest problem was that it wasn't Godfather 1 or 2) The acting was good, the story was good, the effects great, and it felt like the satisfying wrap-up that was needed for the trilogy.

Sure there were some nitpicks, but what movie doesn't have those? I know that the film had a pretty full plate to digest, I felt that it (to a lesser degree) suffured the same problem with the antagonists that Spider-Man 3 had: the "two's company but three's a crowd" syndrome. Thankfully, better acting and directing kept everything afloat through this flaw. It just felt like it was a little unnecessary, that's all.

Obviously, Bale, Freeman, Oldman, and Caine are always going to turn in good performances, but I felt Caine stepped up his game during the first act. He wasn't in the film much in the other two acts, but he made his scenes count when he had them. JG-L and Colitard were good as well, although I felt that twist involving her character could've been developed better. Hardy made for a great Bane even though the bar for improvement regarding Bane's portrayals in films was set pretty low (Batman & Robin anyone?)

Going in, I was actually worried about Hathaway the most due to Nolan's track-record with actresses in high-profile roles. But thankfully, she pretty much steals the show. She was fun to watch and her character, despite not actually using the Catwoman name, was interesting and well-developed. Naturally, the best scenes with her are the scenes with Bale as either Bruce or Batman. Comparing her to Batman Returns' Catwoman, Nolan's version felt more real and accessable. Pretty much what Burton got right with her look, Nolan got right with her psyche and her inner character. And no, there's no point in comparing her to Halle Berry's Catwoman.

Overall, I give the movie a 4.5 out of 5. As for the debate over which is better, Avengers or TDKR, I'm going to say that Avengers was a better movie. Don't get me wrong, I love both of them. It's just that where it felt like TDKR had some parts it could've done without, there were virtually no unneeded parts in Avengers.

I gave it my highest rating for comic book movies: "I didn't hate it." (Actually, V for Vendetta scored higher, but maybe it was just an outlier.)

Christopher Nolan has continued his particular vision of Gotham--more realistic than Tim Burton's (we shall not speak of the unfortunate dalliances with Joel Schumacher), which allows for the much stronger bridge between the comic book world and the viewer's world. As Sheldon Cooper says, "I couldn't be Green Lantern unless I had been summoned by the Guardians of Oa--but with the right amount of capital, I could be Batman." This gives Nolan a great starting point to create a story that does not compel us to overly suspend our disbelief. And Nolan is quite prepared to tell his story, bending the comic book world to suit his needs. His refusal to rely on CGI is enormously to his credit, too, creating a photorealistic world in which most of his pallette is created by real imagery.

Among the performers, Anne Hathaway's is far and away the most compelling performance in the piece. This is a much more complex, layered Selina Kyle than we have been treated to before, and she deserves every minute of screen time that she has--except, perhaps, the faux-climax with Bane. If that was meant to close off a circle, it was a circle that was not particularly well drawn.

Tom Hardy is a close second. It takes a courageous actor to perform with only half of his face, and Tom Hardy did so exceptionally well. Bane is a villain worthy of the prefix, "super-"--until his penultimate scene in which he is completely emasculated. He is completely undercut by the revelation in that scene, and his final confrontation is reduced to mere irrelevancy, because we already know that the real story has already moved somewhere off-screen. He is reduced to being an obstacle. This is a contemptible piece of writing, and Hardy's performance deserved a far better end to Bane's arc.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also worthy of note. He is an extraordinarily talented performer--but he was given nothing to work with. There is potentially the setup for a new story, to be sure. But who's going to tell it?

Christian Bale was entirely as promised--but no more than we expected. He is a fine actor who is confined to a very limited character. Bruce Wayne's apotheosis--where he finally chooses life and rejects death--seems awfully trite for a man with as complex a backstory as his.

Marion Cotillard has the advantage of giving us a new character in a unique relationship with Bruce Wayne. She performs well in a tricky role, where the screenwriters have often left her out on a limb (particularly the scenes that immediately follow Bruce Wayne's "downfall").

Weepy Alfred was appalling. Clearly Nolan's decision, since Michael Caine can give any director exactly what the director wants. I hope that Sir Michael gets a nice new summer home out of the deal, because he certainly couldn't have been motivated by any artistic reasons.

The rest of the above-the-line talent gave fine performances, but really didn't show us much new. Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are both great peformers, but they simply give us the same characters that have already been well established and certainly nothing fresh.

The real disaster in this movie is the screenplay. At 2 hours 47 minutes, it is excessively long--and the editors have been forced to skip over huge amounts of territory. What did Bane create in Gotham--did he merely set it in motion, or was he a puppet master? What was Catwoman's link to Bane? Whence Jonathan Crane--merely coincidence, or a deliberate act on Bane's part? A vast story has been forced into a single motion picture, leaving the audience to simply accept as unspoken that certain events are within someone's compass, and it doesn't really matter whose. And the screenwriters have created a clunky, and frankly completely unbelievable device with which to engineer Bruce Wayne's downfall.

Hopefully I have avoided any spoilers. Even if it does not match The Dark Knight, it is still a movie well worth seeing.