I thought, after a few weeks, it was time to have a thread for full reviews by board members. Mine is taken, word for word, from my post on BOF, so references to my being tired and it being late can be explained thus.
QuoteI really tried to avoid spoilers for Rises. After the first trailer hit, I went into lock-down; I didn't watch any of the other trailers, I didn't follow news on the film, I didn't go to this section of the forum (or really to the forum in general) - I had it out of my mind. When the film finally premiered, I still kept away; I'm the kind of guy who'd rather wait for the crowds to die down than rush out on opening day, and I didn't want to run into spoilers while I waited. But sadly, this was not to be. I stumbled upon a thread in another forum, and all the major surprises were blown for me, though the details were still to be discovered by a proper viewing. I can't say that I had a positive reaction to all that I read in that thread, but I tried to keep an open mind going into Rises.
And with that open mind, and having seen the film once (I will see it again, though that may not be possible for a while), I'd give the picture a "C-" grade. It falls somewhere between Begins, which I don't really care for anymore, and Dark Knight, which I like very much despite some (often overlooked IMO) weaknesses. The following review may be harsh at times, and may give the impression that I'm less impressed by the film than I actually was; I think it's fair to say that the praises of Rises have been sung plenty and loudly by others, so I'm trying to offer a different look at it.
The Bruce Wayne/Batman of the Nolan trilogy has never been "my" Batman. If you want to know "my" Batman, look at the Burton films, TAS, and the Loeb/Sale collaborations, and find the point on the graph where they all meet. I've mentioned this in past discussions about the Nolan films, Begins especially. But this is the first time - in any Batman film - where the portrayal of Batman himself is my chief complaint against it. This is in part a simple matter of preferring a different take on the character, but I do think there are inconsistencies within the film and the trilogy with the Batman they chose to depict.
Throughout the Nolan films, we have characters stating, through dialogue, that Bruce is consumed by Batman, that Batman is his true face, and that the day will never come when Bruce won't need the mask. Most of these lines are said by Rachel, and let's set aside for a moment the fact that Rachel is never privvy to any incident or conversation that would provide evidence to support this opinion of hers. Whoever was saying the lines, I never felt that the films supported them. The Bruce Wayne of the Nolan films, upon his return to Gotham, has IMO always come off as a rational, sane, idealistic person who has come to terms with the deaths of his parents (if not right away, then by the end of Begins), and simply defends his city and honours his family's legacy in his own way. Batman is not who he truly is; it's a disguise, it's a choice, and something he could hang up whenever he wanted to, in fact makes plans to do just that. As Batman, he keeps a sense of humour while on the job. While I don't prefer the character this way (why not become an activist instead? You can become a symbol without creating a disguise), I don't consider it invalid and I don't hate it. Unfortunately, there's all that dialogue claiming that this isn't the case, and there are also statements from the filmmakers. From Christian Bale: "He's a messed-up individual, as well. He's got all sorts of issues. He's just as twisted and messed-up as the villains he's fighting, and that's part of the beauty of the whole story." "You couldn't pull it off unless you became a beast inside that suit." From Christopher Nolan: "Batman is a marvelously complex character-somebody who has absolute charm and then, just like that, can turn it into ice-cold ruthlessness (emphasis mine)." If this was the type of Batman they wanted to portray, then I'm afraid to say that I think they failed. I've rarely felt the beast in Bale's Batman, nor has his Bruce ever seemed as disturbed as Ra's, or Joker, or Bane. And I don't get any sense that these sorts of contradictions between the dialogue and the performance are intentional; they just seem like contradictions.
This makes it very hard to know whether or not it's believeable that Bruce would hang up the cape and cowl for eight years. If this Bruce is the sane man who does this by choice, it's more believeable (if not acceptable, but more on that in a minute); if he's the man lost inside his monster who can't cope without the suit, it's not believeable at all. But either way, I just cannot accept this premise. The only story told thus far that has Bruce hanging up the cowl that I've bought is the one told in Batman Beyond - in his old age, with his allies all gone and his heart very bitter, he's left with the choice of retiring or resorting to measures he despises. Giving up the mask because he made himself a public enemy doesn't cut it IMO. Even with the Dent Act taking care of the Mob - after Scarecrow, after Ra's, after the Joker, why on Earth would Bruce assume that some other threat like that wouldn't rear its head one day? But that's what the plot says has happened, and it also says that, after the loss of Rachel, Bruce felt that there was no hope for him to lead a normal life and so withdrew from the world into his manor. This is rather hard to reconcile with Batman's comic history, full of dead and tortured friends and loved ones, but we're not talking comics, we're talking films. I never got into the romance between Bruce and Rachel. I felt it was very poorly established in Begins, which affected how much weight it carried in Dark Knight. I've never liked Rachel as a character, and I don't think Bale had much chemistry with either actress who played her. So this notion fell like a lead balloon in my eyes. Though I will say that Bale's performance as the Howard Hughes-type Bruce was very good, and it did a fine job of selling Bruce's broken-down state (making Alfred's exposition rather unnecessary.)
The decision to pick back up the mantle - strange goings-on and the pleas of Blake and Gordon and the prodding of Fox - was alright, but Alfred's fear that Bruce wanted to fail seemed to come out of nowhere. If I may shift gears for a minute to Alfred, the decision to have him leave was a bit of a sticky spot for me as well. I realise that there is some precedent for Alfred leaving Bruce in the comics (in Knightfall no less), but the decision in the comics to have Alfred leave Bruce after he's crippled and still continuing to push himself made much more sense IMO. Alfred's attitude toward Bruce's life has varied considerably throughout this series. In Begins, he's concerned that Bruce is losing himself in Batman and damaging his father's name while helping him create Batman. In Dark Knight, he encourages Bruce not to give in to the Joker's demands to reveal himself, defends Bruce to Rachel, and advises Bruce to remember what "we" stand for. Some time has passed between Begins and Dark Knight; I don't consider this change in outlook a flaw or an inconsistency. But in this film, Alfred seems to view Gotham as a place of misery, without a chance of rising above its checkered past. I'm not sure why he thinks bringing up Rachel would deter Bruce from what he thinks is a suicidal course. I won't go so far as to say it rang false, but his decision to leave did not feel entirely earned.
Back to Batman - I hate the notion that "anyone can be Batman," and I'm rather surprised at some of the support and defences this concept has gotten. If the symbol is what matters, if anyone can be the man inside the suit, then why didn't Bruce recruit the imitators from Dark Knight, train them, instill in them the rejection of firearms (more on that later), and enhance the mystique of the symbol by spreading this army throughout the city? This whole notion of interchangeable mantle-bearers seems not unlike Batman, Inc., or the decision to have Dick in the cowl for such a long time. This notion is strikingly at odds with the fact that Batman came into being through a very specific set of circumstances happening to a very specific person. Saying that this is a more realistic take on the world, that realistically this Bruce would have to retire at some point, doesn't cover the flaw in this line of thinking. Bruce is Batman; the latter isn't just a costume to be passed along to another person. I don't think this is a case of me projecting my preferences; any version of this character must inherit this notion or lose a huge piece of his core. This is why I cannot accept Bruce's retirement at the end either. On this issue we go back to the contradictions in this trilogy's depiction of Bruce - it's more believeable one way, if not enjoyable. But I don't understand why Bruce lies about the auto-pilot in the Bat. Why not fill Lucius, Alfred, and Gordon in? Lucius especially - as important as Fox has been to Batman in this series, why wouldn't Bruce at least leave word that Fox should work with Blake? How's Blake supposed to maintain all that equipment? Why leave Gotham at all? It's his home, and he's saved it, brought it back like he planned in Begins; couldn't he stick around to enjoy it?
On the subject of Blake - I'm sorry, but "Robin" was corny IMO. I hesitate to say that they should have named him after one of the Robins, as that would mean a drastic re-working of the origins of any of them. Maybe "Terry McGinnis" could have worked as his moniker. Hell, Jean Paul Valley could have worked. But for all the reasons listed above, I couldn't get behind the ending to his arc. And I'm not sure his disgust and rejection of institutions like the police is entirely earned. His anger at the Dent cover-up and the idiot army guy are palpable, but I just don't know if it was enough. I'll have to look for that thread again next time I see the film.
(Speaking of that idiot army guy: this is more of a nitpick, but after the exhibition of goodness by the people on the boats in Dark Knight, I kind of wish we would have seen the army display such morality when it came time to decide whether to blow up a bridge full of children.)
Not much I can say about Gordon, except that I wish he had a bit more to do. Had the Blake character not been in the film, he could have. And I don't know why they needed to lose his family.
Bane. I don't really agree with the complaints that he was hard to understand; in a few spots, maybe, but I found his voice pretty clear and more intelligible than Bale's Bat-voice. I did think his accent sounded like a bad Sean Connery impression at times, and this led to my laughing at inappropriate moments in the film. One of those moments was the first Bat/Bane fight, which I have to say I found underwhelming. The image of Bane breaking Batman was powerful (and a pleasant surprise, that Nolan would choose that staging), but as a whole the battle wasn't all that impressive IMO. Part of that was due to the music, and part of that was the lack of visible damage to either combatant. I wasn't expecting or wanting a bloodbath, but we could have at least seen some scuff marks and grime get on the suit or Bane's arms. The second fight was an improvement. This Bane is rather prone to megalomaniac-type speeches, which sometimes are quite eloquent and entertaining and sometimes hammy and hokey. With the changes made to his origin story and the absence of Venom, I'm tempted to say that Bane could have been swapped for an original villain. However, I'm not a huge fan of Bane in the comics, and in many ways I'd call this version of the character a step up. It makes it all the more disappointing, then, to learn that, for the second time, Bane is ultimately the henchman of the villainess in live action, albeit a much, much, MUCH better henchman this time 'round.
I am actually surprised that Miranda ended up being Talia, but not because the film did a great job in setting up a shock. I'm surprised by it because, as soon as that character was annnounced, so many people guessed who she was, and it seemed so obvious, that I figured she had to be someone else. Turns out, she wasn't, and I agree with anyone who's objected to the way the legend of "The Child" was told and to the length of time it took to get the secret out.
The villains' plan, if I remember right, was this: first, break the Bat and leave him in prison. From prison, he would watch as the League siezes control of Gotham. They would instill a false hope of liberation in the people, encouraging them to commit lawlessness and therefore prove Batman's failure. At the end of the five months, that hope would amount to naught as the bomb would detonate, destroying Gotham. Then it becomes Bruce's turn to die. This is fine, except for the fact that we never see the general populace buying into Bane's deception. The whole "class" issue of the film has very flimsy support. The only Gothamite who expresses a distrust and hatred for the rich is Selina, and she does this at a charity hosted by Miranda, who paid for it out-of-pocket. The only poor that we see suffering are the kids whose orphanage isn't getting the funds it needs - from Bruce Wayne, who doesn't have the money because of something started by Miranda. We see some rich jerks, but we also see Bruce, Lucius, and that one Wayne board member who was also in Begins. Given that a big part of the plan was breaking Bruce's spirit, it's really shocking that Nolan devoted no time to showing the populace accepting or rejecting Bane's temptation. We're just left with the League, a bunch of criminals, and the cops. And I do wonder why Bane would've kept Lucius and the cops alive, given the danger they could pose.
Now, on to some positives. Anne Hathaway was wonderful as Selina. At the end of the day I might still prefer Pfeiffer, but Hathaway was tough, charming, dangerous, sexy, and compassionate, and even I'll concede that her interpretation has more comic support than her predecessor's did. The relationship between Selina and Bruce in this film had echoes of Hush, and while I think that story as a whole is a mixed bag, the Bat/Cat stuff was fantastic IMO, so I'm always happy to see that side of their relationship. I like the Newmar-esque costume, though seeing her alongside the very armoured Batman made for an odd mixture of looks. I can't fault anything in her performance, I thought she got her fair share of screentime, and for the first time, I think Bale has chemistry with his leading lady. I don't know that the story really provides a reason or a moment where Selina falls for Bruce. Romance is Nolan's great weak spot as a director IMO. The Stephen King criticism of Kubrick - that he thought too much and felt to little - I feel can be applied to Nolan, or at least to his films and to his handling of anything heartfelt and emotional in particular. His is a very cerebral style, and it doesn't handle love well. The way she casually disregards Batman's "no guns, no killing" rule - without reprimand - seemed a bit iffy to me as well (and for a guy who doesn't like guns, Bats sure has no qualms about letting Fox stick them on every single vehicle he uses.) And, as a minor nitpick - couldn't someone have said "Catwoman" in the movie? You could have just had it as a throwaway comment by a cop or a news reporter. You said "Two-Face" aloud in the last film!
(Another nitpick: the abundance of daytime scenes in Dark Knight was disappointing, but it just doesn't feel right to see Batman himself spend so much time in the daylight.)
The production design this time around is more interesting than previous Nolan entries, and the more "epic" plot and such elements as the Bat gave this film a touch of that wild, lavish, ludicrous fantasy that permeates so much of the comic. I was happy to see that. The music never really struck me at any point in the film; Hans Zimmer is just not my guy. The film throughout suffered from a tendency to explain too much in chunks of exposition, and the actors couldn't always deliver it without sounding stiff, but when they weren't reciting explanations for everything, they did very well. If you lost a lot of the dialogue, the final third of the film could have been the best climax out of any of the Batman films (aside from the ending). And for a good-as three hours' film, it moves along at a brisk pace.
I'm sure I've forgotten to mention certain things, but this has taken me two hours to write as it is, and I have an appointment in the morning. I may expand further, but for now, I repeat: a C-. Not bad, but I had a lot of problems with it, chiefly the depiction of the main character.
I've never been hip to Nolan's movies. I'd give Begins a C-, no question about it. TDK... eh, C, I guess. But honestly, even though I've only seen TDKRises once, I think it's maybe a B-. Or a C+. Maybe the formula is finally soaking in for me, I dunno. But you giving TDKRises a C-? Seems a bit harsh.
Anyway. I guess one major thing I liked about TDKRises is the conclusion. Not just "the ending" but the CONCLUSION. I think everybody comes up with how they see things ending for their favorite characters. Superman? Once he outlives all his peers, friends and family, I gotta go with the Grant Morrison school that says he'd leave Earth. That's it. Hasta la vista. Spider-Man? If ever there was a character who was destined to die in the line of duty, it'd be Spider-Man.
But Batman to me is the guy who'd wake up one morning somewhere in his early 40's and experience what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. He'd realize that his parents would never have wanted this life for him. He's done a lot for this city, he's saved it from threats innumerable and Gotham City is fundamentally a better place for him having been in it. He's fought the good fight, he's finished the race. I firmly believe he'd marry some chick (Selina seems like a good candidate), move away from Gotham and take his shot at happiness. He may or may not appoint someone to take his place as the city's protector but he'd be out of there one way or the other.
Granted, that's not precisely what we see in TDKRises, I get that, but it still brings Batman and, more importantly Bruce, to a place of completion.
Whatever problems the film may have (too much this, not enough that), the conclusion of the movie cuts through a lot of BS for me. A lot.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 11 Aug 2012, 03:59
I've never been hip to Nolan's movies. I'd give Begins a C-, no question about it. TDK... eh, C, I guess. But honestly, even though I've only seen TDKRises once, I think it's maybe a B-. Or a C+. Maybe the formula is finally soaking in for me, I dunno. But you giving TDKRises a C-? Seems a bit harsh.
Well, I'm harsher on
Begins than you are too - I give it a "D."
QuoteAnyway. I guess one major thing I liked about TDKRises is the conclusion. Not just "the ending" but the CONCLUSION. I think everybody comes up with how they see things ending for their favorite characters. Superman? Once he outlives all his peers, friends and family, I gotta go with the Grant Morrison school that says he'd leave Earth. That's it. Hasta la vista. Spider-Man? If ever there was a character who was destined to die in the line of duty, it'd be Spider-Man.
But Batman to me is the guy who'd wake up one morning somewhere in his early 40's and experience what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. He'd realize that his parents would never have wanted this life for him. He's done a lot for this city, he's saved it from threats innumerable and Gotham City is fundamentally a better place for him having been in it. He's fought the good fight, he's finished the race. I firmly believe he'd marry some chick (Selina seems like a good candidate), move away from Gotham and take his shot at happiness. He may or may not appoint someone to take his place as the city's protector but he'd be out of there one way or the other.
And I prefer a more self-deluded Batman, someone who regards his childhood vow as one that can only be broken by death and never fully accepts the damage being Batman has done to his life.
As I've said in other posts, the ending didn't do it for me. He lied about Dent 8 years ago, then lied again about his own death. Narratively that doesn't cut it. The 'end' is really only the last few minutes of the movie anyway - even if I did like it, it doesn't make up for the great majority of the runtime beforehand.
The rest of it is dominated by Blake and co, with Batman and Bruce reduced to being a side character. I'm not chomping at the bit to rewatch Blake deliver gas bottles, Gordon visit Foley's house, Blake arguing on a bridge and so on.
They could have cut out half of the stuff in there and y'know, given it to characters we care about. I'm fine with a long runtime if it's interesting to watch and not focused where I don't want it to be.
The movie felt like a John Blake set-up, as if he's going to get a movie after this. That's how much time they devoted to him. I don't really care about the what ifs, I'm more interested in the here and now, wrapping up Bruce's story that started in Begins. Instead of getting time dedicated to Bruce in prison, instead we're treated to a character introduced just in this movie driving around and running with shotguns.
I've seen it twice now, and second time around you really notice how little Bruce/Batman is in this. Both times when it came to the 'grand finale', I didn't care. The whole movie is about building things up, and it just left me saying get on with it already. First act - Batman hasn't been seen, will he come back? After a long while he comes back and is bashed. Second act - Batman's gone again and they build up Bane's terror. Third act - Batman's back for some brief, unsatisfying scenes and then it's over. And the last shot of the trilogy is Blake rising up on a platform. Oh joy.
To me, there's one word that describes the movie, and it's underwhelming.
here's the nostalgia critic review; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Tqg7BFPF8
For the most part i actually agree with his entire analysis on the Nolan films.
He liked the first half of Batman Begins but not the second, I feel the other way around. We both loved the dark knight and dislike the dark knight rises.
There's plenty of plot holes through the entire film. Including the fact that Bane's motivation is leaky and seemed to have a plan similar yet inferior to the Joker's. I was also bored out of my mind in the final sequence I stopped caring or cheering for Batman.
I agree with Nostalgia Critic. He is in line with my thinking on the matter.
It was interesting because he also did a 'Chester E Bum' review and usually those are actually only on good movies. But he did a good job illustrating the plot holes;
-any way you cut it Batman taking the rap for Harvey Dent is weak. Nolan defenders will claim that they had to cover up Dent going crazy but why would they? The guy's fiancee dies and he loses half his face, it doesn't undermine anything he did before hand. Even if he went crazy on his own without that, it doesn't undermine any previous convictions he got unless it's proven he tampered with evidence. Even though he was willing, the fact that it's proven Gordon framed Batman for those murders undermines gordon as now it's shown that he's no longer the 'good honest cop' he built his career on.
-What is the basis for Bruces physical health deterioration. He suffered no visible injuries in the dark knight and hadn't fought crime since. Now he can barely walk? And then once they no longer need that plot point, he magically heals going right from needing a cane to walking perfectly fine?
-as mentioned the Bale voice got worse in every film. You can go on all day about him masking his voice. Keaton did it fine and nobody complained. Even Kilmer did a decent job of it.
-Blake barely saw Bruce Wayne or Batman up close yet immediately deduces on his own that they are the same. Yet Gordon, Selina, and Dent never do?
-as mentioned they practically could have called the film 'John Blake' as he got more screen time
-the only character who's true motivation seemed legit was Selina Kyle's; a cat burgalar who is good at what she does. Alfred supported Bruce as batman the entire time, he knew Bruce was the best shot at saving the city against Bane, Bruce obviously picked an appropriate time to return to the cowl, why abandon him after all that?
-Bane's motivation for causing so much chaos is unclear. So the league of shadows needs to destroy a civilization to rebuild a new one from the ashes? Or is it about attacking Bruce Wayne?
-why is Tate/talia needed? Bruce seems to be driving his own company into the ground on his own.
"So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it." - Apparently he can't.
Looks like Nolan couldn't stop the threequel curse.
Rises was a fun movie, just not a good Batman movie. Plot Holes, weak villain deaths, a ton of crap to complain about... Its just that this movie was hyped up as as good or better than The Dark Knight despite Heath Ledger not being in the fillm, but the movie was mediocre. It was a fun popcorn movie. It didn't 'move' me in any way shape or form. And it felt like a different genre than the last one. TDK was a crime drama. TDKR was a comic book movie. Honestly, the main problem besides Batman being barely in the film, was the fact it took place mostly in the DAY. Batman is a night movie. Thats what I loved about Burton's movies. He is a creature of the night. Not a costumed hero like Watchmen! He comes out in the night and fights crime. Not save the world. And whats up with the bomb plot. Wasnt that the same plot as the Adam West Batman the Movie plot, 'SOME DAYS YOU JUST CANT GET RID OF A BOMB'. It was cliche. Felt like Rocky 3 meets Braveheart meets Die Hard meets The Simpsons Movie.
Batman 1989: A+
Batman Returns: A+
Batman Forever: B-
Batman & Robin: D-
Batman Begins: B+
The Dark Knight: A-
The Dark Knight Rises: B-
Apart from saying Nolan uses 3D, David Cronenberg gets it in the sense the movies are quite dull and are still about a guy dressed as a bat.
Quote''I don't think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it's still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don't think it's elevated. Christopher Nolan's best movie is 'Memento', and that is an interesting movie."
''I don't think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they're 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he's shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That's really tricky and difficult to do."
''I read about it in American Cinematography Magazine, and technically, that's all very interesting. The movie, to me, they're mostly boring.''
''A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, ''Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art.' I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about.'
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/david-cronenberg-nolans-batman-trilogy-is-mostly-boring_1392838
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 17 Aug 2012, 01:18
Apart from saying Nolan uses 3D, David Cronenberg gets it in the sense the movies are quite dull and are still about a guy dressed as a bat.
Quote''I don't think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it's still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don't think it's elevated. Christopher Nolan's best movie is 'Memento', and that is an interesting movie."
''I don't think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they're 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he's shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That's really tricky and difficult to do."
''I read about it in American Cinematography Magazine, and technically, that's all very interesting. The movie, to me, they're mostly boring.''
''A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, ''Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art.' I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about.'
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/david-cronenberg-nolans-batman-trilogy-is-mostly-boring_1392838
^ That's a very condescending comment for an
entire genre. Judging by the quote I highlight, I bet if they asked him about the Burton films he'd say "
cheesy cartoony stuff for kids". Sad but true.
For all his attempts at making Batman 'real', or 'pretentious high art' - at the end of the day we still have a man dressed as a bat. I agree with David in the sense Nolan hasn't elevated the art form. I also agree that the films are boring and full of speeches. Not the kind of thing I'd be watching over and over. As for his comments at the bottom, I get out of it that Cronenberg is frustrated at how dour Rises was. There were hardly any 'yeah, Batman!" moments to be had. You can have a movie that is dark, but it can still be fun. Selina lent fun to the movie but she's not in the movie enough and vanishes during the middle. A Batman movie that hardly features Batman isn't going to satisfy the adolescent inside us. You can have comic book references, but it's another thing to capture the overall vibe.
Still, I would be interested curious to see his opinion about the Burton films too. What I get from his words isn't that he's frustrated because Nolan "took the fun out of Batman", but because he (arguably) attempted to do something "more" using the superhero formula which, according to Mr. Cronenberg, is inherently adolescent and aimed at kids. He doesn't sound very different than Ebert in his opinion about superheroes in general, with the difference that Ebert liked what Nolad did, and Cronenberg didn't.
Yeah, it would be interesting to see what he thinks of the Burton flicks. I absolutely agree that Cronenberg should take a look at Batman's graphic novels if he thinks the comics are all aimed at kids. I do think though that Nolan probably views the genre as flawed - like trying to reinvent it so it's not so offensive or something, if you get my thinking.
This is entirely possible but still, Nolan made sure he paid his respect to the 1989 film and the comics, as seen in interview quotes available in the Gotham Alleys blog (thought this might just be careful PR talk, what else would the man say?) IMO Cronenberg's comment wasn't constructive criticism of the Nolan films, but condescending towards Batman/comics, using the final chapter of the most succesful and critically acclaimed series in the genre as a "vehicle". One can read it like "Comics are adolescent fare, what's the point of people thinking that some of the movies in the genre can be artistic?"
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 17 Aug 2012, 02:44IMO Cronenberg's comment wasn't constructive criticism of the Nolan films, but condescending towards Batman/comics, using the final chapter of the most succesful and critically acclaimed series in the genre as a "vehicle". One can read it like "Comics are adolescent fare, what's the point of people thinking that some of the movies in the genre can be artistic?"
I think that was his argument, actually. And by extension, the people who
DO see Nolan's movies as high art rather than "silly comic book fare like the Avengers" (although I'd be butt hurt too if I'd been expecting TDKRises to come anywhere
NEAR Avengers numbers) are missing the point. Sure, comics can be for adults (some great ones are) but I think at their core they're ultimately for kids. Or at least young audiences. Any blockbuster movie is ostensibly supposed to reach wide audiences and you'd expect of all things a Batman movie to exemplify what makes Batman great and what makes comic books tick. Cronenberg and others (ie, moi) question Nolan's approach in transforming this character into something other than a comic book.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 17 Aug 2012, 03:06
Sure, comics can be for adults (some great ones are) but I think at their core they're ultimately for kids. Or at least young audiences. Any blockbuster movie is ostensibly supposed to reach wide audiences and you'd expect of all things a Batman movie to exemplify what makes Batman great and what makes comic books tick. Cronenberg and others (ie, moi) question Nolan's approach in transforming this character into something other than a comic book.
Agreed.
Quote... it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Violence_%28novel%29
::)
Word is the audience at the Academy screening was equally unimpressed.
QuoteThe reaction is said to have been mixed-to-negative, with one Academy member telling The Hollywood Reporter: "People were kind of disappointed.
"It wasn't because of [Colorado]. I just don't think that this picture will get any nominations [beyond technical nods]."
Another audience member at the screening claimed: "There was nothing remarkable about the acting... I don't think it can be nominated as 'Best Picture'."
The disappointment was also noted by Academy member and novelist Bret Easton Ellis, who tweeted: "Not that it really matters, but there was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed academy screening in Los Angeles tonight."
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a395361/the-dark-knight-rises-to-be-snubbed-at-oscars.html
Neal Adams wrote his own review (very positive) for the Los Angeles Times:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/07/18/dark-knight-rises-a-guest-review-by-neal-adams/
Wow, not that is a big statement right there. If they'd said that about Avengers, I don't think any of us would be too surprised. But given who and what the dude is talking about... wowzers...
Didn't think this was worth a thread all by itself so...
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/dark-knight-rises-tickets-sold/9267
TDKRises is tracking to sell 10 million fewer tickets than B89. Speaking as someone who prefers Burton's movies to Nolan's, I'd argue that we need to account for how much the business has changed in the intervening years. The relative lower cost of tickets and the length of a hit movie's theatrical run then vs. now are considerations.
Then again, B89 opened on half as many screens as TDKRises so arguably those factors are already mitigated.
My review originally posted elsewhere.
"Some years ago, Dennis O'Neil made his first appearance at SUNY New Paltz, where I teach media courses. I invited him to discuss writing across media for select writing and production students.
Mr. O'Neil was asked about the current Batman comics, and he bemoaned, "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad -- but it has moved beyond my sensibility." Despite this, during a follow up visit, he referred to Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT as the best comic book film ever made.
At the time, I certainly agreed that TDK was the best scripted live-action Batman film to date -- no question about that whatsoever. The end of the film left us watching Batman making his escape on the Batpod, toward an uncertain future -- possibly residing in the shadows, protecting the Dent legacy.
Going into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I had some concerns -- mostly predicated on my own interpretation of Batman. For instance, when the premise of the film was revealed, that it takes place a whopping eight years after the events of TDK, I gasped. "Batman wouldn't give up the cape that easily, would he?" The chief concern, which I will unpack here for a moment, has to do with his eight-year absence. After, rather than a blow-by-blow of the plot and characterizations (I imagine everyone has seen the film by now), I would like to focus on a message the film seems to send out.
In the much (and in broad strokes, justly) maligned Jeff Matsuda animated series THE BATMAN, the protagonist utters the quotation above and finally gives the character an added sense of meaning. Though a more-often-than-not WEAK program, the fourth season as helmed by Alan Burnett with visitations from Timm-Verse alum Paul Dini and Kevin Conroy, proved to be something special -- and short lived.
There is a key episode that takes place in the future -- it's a bit of a frame narrative. The essential point is this: Batman is old. He climbs out of his THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS tank, assisted in the flesh by Nightwing and virtually by a wheel-chair-bound Oracle (Barbara Gordon) to square off against a nearly all-powerful Mr. Freeze. Seeing Batman a big wobbly, Nightwing gently suggests the old man sits this one out and allow he and Babs to finish off the frosty villain. But the mission isn't over. And Batman will continue. This is my Batman. One who does not so easily call it quits.
The notion of Batman hanging up the cape is not entirely new. In the aforementioned THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller (one of the basis of this current franchise), Batman hangs up the cowl. He is old. The world has outgrown him. There is an element of social-satire throughout the work, and new threats emerge at both a local and national level. Batman must return. In the Timm-verse, Batman retires shortly after his heart condition compels him to turn a gun (the established object that is the ire of all of his hostility) on a perpetrator during BATMAN BEYOND's preamble. Realizing what he has resorted to in order to be effective, he turns off the Bat-Cave's lights and utters "never again."
In order for Batman to retire -- hang up the cape and move on, there must be one of two scenarios. Scenario 1, the Mission is Over (and really, the mission is never over) or Scenario 2, he is too old to continue. Thus the conundrum of RISES premise: it has been 8 years since Batman donned the cowl.
Wait, what? The end of TDK implied that Batman would become what Gotham needed, and in this case took the fall for Dent's crimes. The Batsignal was shattered, and Batman went into hiding while Gordon and company had to chase him. The implication, it seemed, was that Batman would continue working from the shadows until such a time he needed to, well, rise.
The eight-year stasis as a recluse just doesn't jibe with me. We have seen Batman train (BATMAN BEGINS), become Gotham's Guardian (TDK), and protect the city's symbol of hope it's its hour of need--but the Mission Is Not Over.
That said, within the first hour of the film, this concern was well put to rest. During the exciting first act, I bought into the world of story, bought into his controversial retirement, bought into Alfred's concerns, and emotionally devoured every moment the vibrant Anne Hathaway was on screen. Man did she sink her claws into this role, and remains the film's highlight throughout
Congratulations to Nolan and company -- my main concern was put to rest nearly immediately, as the film move forward.
But this is where the trouble starts for me. The second half of the film -- a fusion of KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND does not quite hold together. It is here where I find myself echoing Dennis O'Neil. "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad. But it has moved beyond my sensibility."
A confession: I have never been a fan of the Bane character. It was an interesting experiment in the comics -- a character called Bane would free all of the inmates in Arkham Asylum. Batman would wear himself out bringing him to justice, and once he had done so, and was exhausted from his non-stop mission, Bane would show up and break The Bat once and for all. Interesting -- but the story on the page was a bit of a letdown. For a while Bruce was out of commission, but he returns and saves the day, and in the end what have we learned? It wasn't bad -- it was just clear that Bruce Wayne would never stop being Batman, so it was a bizarre little detour.
That said, I recognize these comics are close to 20-years-old and for many Batman fans Bane has grown to be an essential nemesis in the universe. I never saw him as anything other than a ploy to get Bruce temporarily removed from the cowl. No matter. Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance in the role, and is quite an imposing threat to Batman and Gotham City. While I would have preferred The Riddler or The Penguin, or even Black Mask, Nolan does do Bane's character justice.
The chief concern I have with the film walking out is entirely different than I had anticipated: I didn't mind Batman's eight-year absence, I had no problem at all with Nolan selecting Bane as the key villain. The concern I have is the message embedded in the second half. First of all, the McGuffin is a bit strange. The McGuffin involves a green energy device that in the wrong hands could be a weapon that destroys civilization as Gothamites know it. Much like the arc-light reactor in THE AVENGERS. In Tony Stark's hands, it could light up the city on renewable energy. In the evil alien's hands? It means an alien invasion and destruction. Why all this concern about destructive renewable energy as the thing that will destroy us? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the materials we currently use for energy?
In addition, there is a gross simplification in the second act, mixing both the War on Terror and the Occupy Wall St. movement/class warfare. When Bane appears and "liberates" Gotham, he invites the poor to attack the rich. Which they do. We see doormen and others attack people, drag them from their homes, and take their valuables. This seems like an over-simplistic and a bit crass critique of ...well, America. As though class warfare is nothing more than the have-nots waiting for somebody to give them permission to attack the haves. This nihilistic and xenophobic world, where brother turns on brother, cops turn on cops, is such a misfire -- though I suppose it gives a visualization to Frank Miller's assertion that the occupy movement is like the Taliban.
The third act takes place over a period of months. Bane rules the city and everyone cowers in fear -- except for some brave souls taking part in an underground movement. Nearly all of the city's police are imprisoned in the sewers underground except for a few good cops (specifically Gordon and Blake). Batman eventually returns to Gotham after being locked away in a foreign prison. How? His voyage back to Gotham is not shown, and stands out a bit given how much time they devoted to telling him his fate is inescapable. When he returns it's open warfare pitting Batman and the cops against the League of Shadows and their followers.
The strange message here seems to be that if terrorists invaded, the have-nots would side with them, and then it would be up to the haves (including the police) to defeat them all and restore order, so that the wealthy can return to their homes. It's not the intended message, perhaps, but it is there. Then there's the mishandling of the Miranda Tate character. For those who clearly understand her origin from the source material, you might be surprised that she has something rather violent in store for her "Beloved."
I had been prepared to leave the film disappointed that we would never see Dick Grayson, The Riddler, The Penguin, and a number of other characters in the Nolan-verse. After the magnificent TDK, I was prepared for an endless series of films that featured Batman as a detective -- analyzing crime scenes, finding material that the police may have missed, and then locating the costumed villain and bringing him/her to justice. I was prepared for a series of taught mysteries with twists, turns, and exciting third acts. I had hoped for Batman-as-mentor, as father figure to Richard Grayson -- giving him the childhood he never had. Yes, there are a few moments that attempt to substitute this, but Nolan keeps them at arms' length and attempts to substitute an easily missed (if your theater volume isn't set right) Easter Egg as a way of tossing some of us a bone.
Instead, I left the film pleased that Nolan's run with Batman is over. It's time for it to be in other hands. I'd very much like to see a trilogy that focuses on the elements I have mentioned above and does not keep its comic book origins at arm's length. Batman does not need to exist in a xenophobic nihilistic world -- he can exist in any world that requires a detective to see things from a different perspective. Somebody who notices things that the police may not notice, or may not have the resources to resolve. Somebody with a code of justice, a magnificent brain and brawn to match -- who takes in allies to the cause to save others the dark fate he has suffered. I don't need a war movie. I need a Detective Comic. Maybe next time.
That said, Nolan has some incredibly well-crafted action scenes, and has cast his entire series quite well. He is also the first filmmaker to extend his Batman film-making streak beyond two entries (as was the case with both Burton and Schumacher). He should rest easy knowing that the majority of fans will be well behind him. The rest of us will look to the horizon, speculating with great anticipation for the next series, when Batman begins again. This time, maybe with Grayson in tow. - Gregg Bray
GRADE: B- "
_________
Back again. To be honest, while I stand by my grade, I think I've played down how off some of the elements in the film are to me. Bane doesn't work at all. I could look past Batman's 8 year absence during the first viewing, but the more I digested it, the more it bothered me.
I still greatly enjoyed The Dark Knight and like BB well enough. It took some time as my aesthetic preference is Tim Burton, but I ultimately really warmed up to the films. TDK in particular--I felt that had captured the 'one bad day' message from TKJ with how Joker destroyed Dent.
But so much of this was undone in TDKR. I probably will not sit through it again, though I certainly bear no ill will to folks who enjoyed it. Like I said, again evoking O'Neil, "I'm not prepared to say it's bad. It's moved beyond my sensibility." I hope (perhaps selfishly so) that I am part of the intended audience for the next film.
Great review Gregg.
Quote from: greggbray on Sun, 26 Aug 2012, 21:00
My review originally posted elsewhere.
"Some years ago, Dennis O'Neil made his first appearance at SUNY New Paltz, where I teach media courses. I invited him to discuss writing across media for select writing and production students.
Mr. O'Neil was asked about the current Batman comics, and he bemoaned, "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad -- but it has moved beyond my sensibility." Despite this, during a follow up visit, he referred to Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT as the best comic book film ever made.
At the time, I certainly agreed that TDK was the best scripted live-action Batman film to date -- no question about that whatsoever. The end of the film left us watching Batman making his escape on the Batpod, toward an uncertain future -- possibly residing in the shadows, protecting the Dent legacy.
Going into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I had some concerns -- mostly predicated on my own interpretation of Batman. For instance, when the premise of the film was revealed, that it takes place a whopping eight years after the events of TDK, I gasped. "Batman wouldn't give up the cape that easily, would he?" The chief concern, which I will unpack here for a moment, has to do with his eight-year absence. After, rather than a blow-by-blow of the plot and characterizations (I imagine everyone has seen the film by now), I would like to focus on a message the film seems to send out.
In the much (and in broad strokes, justly) maligned Jeff Matsuda animated series THE BATMAN, the protagonist utters the quotation above and finally gives the character an added sense of meaning. Though a more-often-than-not WEAK program, the fourth season as helmed by Alan Burnett with visitations from Timm-Verse alum Paul Dini and Kevin Conroy, proved to be something special -- and short lived.
There is a key episode that takes place in the future -- it's a bit of a frame narrative. The essential point is this: Batman is old. He climbs out of his THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS tank, assisted in the flesh by Nightwing and virtually by a wheel-chair-bound Oracle (Barbara Gordon) to square off against a nearly all-powerful Mr. Freeze. Seeing Batman a big wobbly, Nightwing gently suggests the old man sits this one out and allow he and Babs to finish off the frosty villain. But the mission isn't over. And Batman will continue. This is my Batman. One who does not so easily call it quits.
The notion of Batman hanging up the cape is not entirely new. In the aforementioned THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller (one of the basis of this current franchise), Batman hangs up the cowl. He is old. The world has outgrown him. There is an element of social-satire throughout the work, and new threats emerge at both a local and national level. Batman must return. In the Timm-verse, Batman retires shortly after his heart condition compels him to turn a gun (the established object that is the ire of all of his hostility) on a perpetrator during BATMAN BEYOND's preamble. Realizing what he has resorted to in order to be effective, he turns off the Bat-Cave's lights and utters "never again."
In order for Batman to retire -- hang up the cape and move on, there must be one of two scenarios. Scenario 1, the Mission is Over (and really, the mission is never over) or Scenario 2, he is too old to continue. Thus the conundrum of RISES premise: it has been 8 years since Batman donned the cowl.
Wait, what? The end of TDK implied that Batman would become what Gotham needed, and in this case took the fall for Dent's crimes. The Batsignal was shattered, and Batman went into hiding while Gordon and company had to chase him. The implication, it seemed, was that Batman would continue working from the shadows until such a time he needed to, well, rise.
The eight-year stasis as a recluse just doesn't jibe with me. We have seen Batman train (BATMAN BEGINS), become Gotham's Guardian (TDK), and protect the city's symbol of hope it's its hour of need--but the Mission Is Not Over.
That said, within the first hour of the film, this concern was well put to rest. During the exciting first act, I bought into the world of story, bought into his controversial retirement, bought into Alfred's concerns, and emotionally devoured every moment the vibrant Anne Hathaway was on screen. Man did she sink her claws into this role, and remains the film's highlight throughout
Congratulations to Nolan and company -- my main concern was put to rest nearly immediately, as the film move forward.
But this is where the trouble starts for me. The second half of the film -- a fusion of KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND does not quite hold together. It is here where I find myself echoing Dennis O'Neil. "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad. But it has moved beyond my sensibility."
A confession: I have never been a fan of the Bane character. It was an interesting experiment in the comics -- a character called Bane would free all of the inmates in Arkham Asylum. Batman would wear himself out bringing him to justice, and once he had done so, and was exhausted from his non-stop mission, Bane would show up and break The Bat once and for all. Interesting -- but the story on the page was a bit of a letdown. For a while Bruce was out of commission, but he returns and saves the day, and in the end what have we learned? It wasn't bad -- it was just clear that Bruce Wayne would never stop being Batman, so it was a bizarre little detour.
That said, I recognize these comics are close to 20-years-old and for many Batman fans Bane has grown to be an essential nemesis in the universe. I never saw him as anything other than a ploy to get Bruce temporarily removed from the cowl. No matter. Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance in the role, and is quite an imposing threat to Batman and Gotham City. While I would have preferred The Riddler or The Penguin, or even Black Mask, Nolan does do Bane's character justice.
The chief concern I have with the film walking out is entirely different than I had anticipated: I didn't mind Batman's eight-year absence, I had no problem at all with Nolan selecting Bane as the key villain. The concern I have is the message embedded in the second half. First of all, the McGuffin is a bit strange. The McGuffin involves a green energy device that in the wrong hands could be a weapon that destroys civilization as Gothamites know it. Much like the arc-light reactor in THE AVENGERS. In Tony Stark's hands, it could light up the city on renewable energy. In the evil alien's hands? It means an alien invasion and destruction. Why all this concern about destructive renewable energy as the thing that will destroy us? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the materials we currently use for energy?
In addition, there is a gross simplification in the second act, mixing both the War on Terror and the Occupy Wall St. movement/class warfare. When Bane appears and "liberates" Gotham, he invites the poor to attack the rich. Which they do. We see doormen and others attack people, drag them from their homes, and take their valuables. This seems like an over-simplistic and a bit crass critique of ...well, America. As though class warfare is nothing more than the have-nots waiting for somebody to give them permission to attack the haves. This nihilistic and xenophobic world, where brother turns on brother, cops turn on cops, is such a misfire -- though I suppose it gives a visualization to Frank Miller's assertion that the occupy movement is like the Taliban.
The third act takes place over a period of months. Bane rules the city and everyone cowers in fear -- except for some brave souls taking part in an underground movement. Nearly all of the city's police are imprisoned in the sewers underground except for a few good cops (specifically Gordon and Blake). Batman eventually returns to Gotham after being locked away in a foreign prison. How? His voyage back to Gotham is not shown, and stands out a bit given how much time they devoted to telling him his fate is inescapable. When he returns it's open warfare pitting Batman and the cops against the League of Shadows and their followers.
The strange message here seems to be that if terrorists invaded, the have-nots would side with them, and then it would be up to the haves (including the police) to defeat them all and restore order, so that the wealthy can return to their homes. It's not the intended message, perhaps, but it is there. Then there's the mishandling of the Miranda Tate character. For those who clearly understand her origin from the source material, you might be surprised that she has something rather violent in store for her "Beloved."
I had been prepared to leave the film disappointed that we would never see Dick Grayson, The Riddler, The Penguin, and a number of other characters in the Nolan-verse. After the magnificent TDK, I was prepared for an endless series of films that featured Batman as a detective -- analyzing crime scenes, finding material that the police may have missed, and then locating the costumed villain and bringing him/her to justice. I was prepared for a series of taught mysteries with twists, turns, and exciting third acts. I had hoped for Batman-as-mentor, as father figure to Richard Grayson -- giving him the childhood he never had. Yes, there are a few moments that attempt to substitute this, but Nolan keeps them at arms' length and attempts to substitute an easily missed (if your theater volume isn't set right) Easter Egg as a way of tossing some of us a bone.
Instead, I left the film pleased that Nolan's run with Batman is over. It's time for it to be in other hands. I'd very much like to see a trilogy that focuses on the elements I have mentioned above and does not keep its comic book origins at arm's length. Batman does not need to exist in a xenophobic nihilistic world -- he can exist in any world that requires a detective to see things from a different perspective. Somebody who notices things that the police may not notice, or may not have the resources to resolve. Somebody with a code of justice, a magnificent brain and brawn to match -- who takes in allies to the cause to save others the dark fate he has suffered. I don't need a war movie. I need a Detective Comic. Maybe next time.
That said, Nolan has some incredibly well-crafted action scenes, and has cast his entire series quite well. He is also the first filmmaker to extend his Batman film-making streak beyond two entries (as was the case with both Burton and Schumacher). He should rest easy knowing that the majority of fans will be well behind him. The rest of us will look to the horizon, speculating with great anticipation for the next series, when Batman begins again. This time, maybe with Grayson in tow. - Gregg Bray
GRADE: B- "
_________
Back again. To be honest, while I stand by my grade, I think I've played down how off some of the elements in the film are to me. Bane doesn't work at all. I could look past Batman's 8 year absence during the first viewing, but the more I digested it, the more it bothered me.
I still greatly enjoyed The Dark Knight and like BB well enough. It took some time as my aesthetic preference is Tim Burton, but I ultimately really warmed up to the films. TDK in particular--I felt that had captured the 'one bad day' message from TKJ with how Joker destroyed Dent.
But so much of this was undone in TDKR. I probably will not sit through it again, though I certainly bear no ill will to folks who enjoyed it. Like I said, again evoking O'Neil, "I'm not prepared to say it's bad. It's moved beyond my sensibility." I hope (perhaps selfishly so) that I am part of the intended audience for the next film.
Nice review, though it's interesting that you don't plan to view it again. I gave it a lower grade than you did, and I would be more than willing to give the film a second look. I also didn't get the same political message you did; my impression was that the film wanted to have a story where not just Batman, but Gothamites would rise, and that it failed to support that by hardly showing average Gothamites at all. I completely missed the doorman; the only clear shots of Bane's supporters that I can remember were of the Blackgate inmates.
For whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure Bray and I are of vastly different ideologies... and I get a very similar political vibe from the movie. The movie was scripted and going into production before Loiter Wall St ever took shape so obviously it's not completely intentional. I'm saying that I'm not sure how appropriate it really is to connect it to TDKRises insofar as authorial intent is concerned... but at the same time I find it impossible to ignore what I truly think is political commentary (unintentionally timely or not).
EDIT- I should add that the political ramifications of the movie are partly why I think history won't look back favorably upon TDKRises.
Never say never but I can't imagine seeing it again for a while. Even films which i have on DVD/blu ray i see max once per year. And unless I get it as a gift it will NEVER be a part of that collection.
Looking at all 3 films collectively, has batman had a positive impact on gotham? What would gotham been like had Bruce never dawned the cape and cowl?
In Begins the scarecrow's fear gas could have given him more power.
In between begins and the dark knight, the mob does seem to be slightly less powerful and get 'scared' to work at night. Also as we see early on, the symbol including the bat signal scares off plenty of small criminals. You could easily argue though this causes the mob to use their inside resources (cops and the DA's office) more and use more of their own resources towards corruption.
The Joker likely still would have happened without Batman but his power was amplified in part due to Batman. The mob doesn't like him but in fear they go to him, without Batman they likely wouldn't. And of course quite a few of the Joker's terrorist attacks including the attack on the hospital and general slaughtering were to 'call out' Batman. Not sure if the Harvey Dent/Rachel kidnappings would have happened without Batman. Dent got into that predicament due to taking the fall for being batman.
In the dark knight rises, most of Batman's impact is negative. Yes he saved batman at the end but seems Bane and Talia's entire attack on gotham were revenge against Batman. Also Batman himself coming out of hiding forces the police to chase him over Bane. All those deaths would not have happened without the Bat.
I thought I had replied to this thread, but it looks like I haven't, haha.
I agree hands-down with zDBZ and greggbray's interpretation of how Batman's career would end. To me, I didn't have a problem with it being against my interpretation of the character as much as I felt annoyed that the film never gave compelling reasons for Batman to quit in the first place, making it feel like he quit just 'cause Nolan wanted this to be the final story.
As for giving the movie a second viewing, I'm with gregg in that I really don't have much desire either. Which is a shame considering that it was kind of my tradition to see the Batman movies a second time with my father in IMAX. We did this for both Begins and The Dark Knight. But I feel that I have much better things to do with my time and money than watch this in theaters again. And, after hearing my opinion of the movie, my dad's in no hurry to see it at all. Same goes for the rest of my family, barring my aunt and uncle, who saw it already and disliked it as much as I did.
I'll rewatch certain scenes, such as Bruce's climb out of the pit, but a full repeat viewing? Not going to happen for a long time, if at all.
I can definitely see buying the DVD. I'd want the complete set. I know me and this is how I think. "I bought the other two so by St. Bray I'll buy the third one!"
But it's really the Bruce/Batman stuff from the beginning and end of the movie that I'll come back to, I think. The last, oh, four'ish minutes? They also work for me.
The hour or however long in between... well, yeah, there are some good moments in there but that's the troublesome stuff.
Maybe what I'm talking around here is that this movie has a ton of fat that could've been cut out. Example? The Blake/Gordon scene about Dent's "murder". It's a good scene by itself but is it really necessary to the plot of Bane taking over the city? I don't think we needed another five minutes of screen time taken away from Batman.
I guess in the final analysis, Nolan didn't make Bruce the through line of the movie. Love or hate BB and TDK, Bruce provides all or most of the through line of those films. True, TDK could be viewed as more of a Joker movie but it still revolves around Bruce even if it's not completely about Bruce. But TDKRises... Bruce is lonely, Bruce gets laid, Bruce returns as Batman, Bruce gets the hell beaten out of him, Bruce is put in prison, Bruce escapes, Bruce saves the day, Bruce fakes his death. Call me old fashioned but I don't think it should take only 33 words to sum up the "arc" of the supposed main character of a three (?) hour movie like that.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Aug 2012, 07:39
I can definitely see buying the DVD. I'd want the complete set. I know me and this is how I think. "I bought the other two so by St. Bray I'll buy the third one!"
But it's really the Bruce/Batman stuff from the beginning and end of the movie that I'll come back to, I think. The last, oh, four'ish minutes? They also work for me.
The hour or however long in between... well, yeah, there are some good moments in there but that's the troublesome stuff.
Maybe what I'm talking around here is that this movie has a ton of fat that could've been cut out. Example? The Blake/Gordon scene about Dent's "murder". It's a good scene by itself but is it really necessary to the plot of Bane taking over the city? I don't think we needed another five minutes of screen time taken away from Batman.
I guess in the final analysis, Nolan didn't make Bruce the through line of the movie. Love or hate BB and TDK, Bruce provides all or most of the through line of those films. True, TDK could be viewed as more of a Joker movie but it still revolves around Bruce even if it's not completely about Bruce. But TDKRises... Bruce is lonely, Bruce gets laid, Bruce returns as Batman, Bruce gets the hell beaten out of him, Bruce is put in prison, Bruce escapes, Bruce saves the day, Bruce fakes his death. Call me old fashioned but I don't think it should take only 33 words to sum up the "arc" of the supposed main character of a three (?) hour movie like that.
I don't necessarily believe the hero has to have the entire film centre around him but generally comic films are a battle of good vs evil. I don't know if there's ever been a comic film with so much time spent away from the hero AND villain as this one. Add that to the fact that they only cross paths twice in the film and that's an awful lot of time spent on side characters. I'd compare this to Ang Lee's Hulk, seems an awful lot of 'when is this going to get started?'.... "oh it's over already"
Coming back to this. I usually loathe fan edits. LOATHE. Yeah, you're so GD "creative" that you can tear someone else's art to shreds, badly glue the pieces back together and, hey, that makes you an "editor", right? Asswipes.
Still, one fan edit I could possibly get behind is merging TDK and TDKRises into one movie. Yeah, TDK is arguably bloated and over-long already but, hey, what the hell. Basically flash forward eight years right after the cut to black of TDK, pick up with TDKRises but arrange it in a way that it looks like Batman confronting Bane in the middle of the police/Occupy Gotham battle is their first and only battle, and run it through to the end as it is. That's what, 30 or 40 minutes added onto TDK? An hour tops? It's doable.
*Here is my review I made after my second viewing. I posted this on SHH around the time the movie released. Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes. If I remember correctly, I was about 7-8 vodka tonics deep. I'll just cut/paste*
Let me get this out of the way right now: I'm completely split with this movie, I really am. When I love it, I really love it, but when I hate it, I really detest the thing. It almost reminds me of Batman Forever, again with the example of "when its good it's good, but when its bad....oh, it's rotten!". If you're already rolling your eyes at what I just said, and screaming "HYPERBOLEEEEEEEEE", do yourself a favor, save yourself some time and stop reading.
So, let's get the easy part out of the way: the things I like/love about it.
-First and foremost: Catwoman. I love Hathaway in this. She not only nailed the role, she blew it out of the water. I don't care what people say, but she is my favorite character in this entire trilogy. Yes, I just said it, I think she was better than Ledger. Was the character commanding all of the attention and trying to get most of the limelight during the movie like The Joker was in TDK? No, but I think she pulled off something truly magical and downright brilliant with what she had....which sadly wasn't much. But when she was on, goddamn, she was ON! When I was watching her, not once did I think "this version doesn't remind me of her counterpart", in fact, much of the opposite. Which may be why I love her the most, because it feels the most faithful out of all of Nolan's characters in his Bat-trilogy, and like I said, Hathaway performance blew me away! The very first encounter with Wayne completely extinguished any doubt I had with Hathaway, and that was her first few seconds on screen. Oh, and the score that accompanies her by Zimmer? Again, amazing! I could probably go on for hours about how much I lover her in this movie, so I'll just end it here...she's perrrrrfect!
-The fight/action scenes: Much of an improvement compared to the others! Anytime someone was fighting, I was totally invested into what was going on. That first fight with Batman vs Bane was BRUTAL, and I couldn't look away, cause I didn't want to miss a second of what was going on. It was fast, it felt natural....it was probably some of the best fight scenes I have seen in a CBM, let alone any movie for that matter. WOW! Top notch, IMO. And the action was just as good too. Whenever The Bat was flying around dodging missiles, or when the Bat-pod was rolling it's wheels, etc, I wanted more. Great stuff all around!
-Batman: I still have some minor issues/nitpicks with some things(which I'll get to in a bit), but overall I think Bale was great in this. And again, the same thing with Catwoman, there just isn't much of him on screen. But when he's on, I'm grinning from ear to ear. His first time back to Gotham - which is also his first appearance in the movie - was any fanboys wet dream. I couldn't get enough of Batman in this...but maybe for a reason?
-The gadgets/vehicles: LOVED them! I was never a huge Bat-pod fan in TDK, but after watching it in TDKR, I'm sold. That vehicle is so much fun to watch. The Bat? Another great vehicle in this trilogy, and is right up there with The Tumbler and now the Bat-pod. I also loved Batman's little Bat-shaped darts he used. I rather he used his batarangs, but when they pulled out the dart, and it was in the shape of a bat, I was very pleased with that. Also, the EMP guns he used throughout the entire movie was a great addition, and something I kinda wish was in the other movies. Good stuff all around.
-Bane: I have some issues with his voice, but overall, I like what Hardy brought to the character. I thought all of his fights were excellent, and I liked how much attention he was commanding. I'm not gushing over him as much as Hathaway, but he was good, nonetheless.
-Most of the acting: I think almost everybody in this movie did a good job with what they had. There's only a few things I didn't like, but again, I'll get to that in a minute.
<cracks knuckles>
Alright, now that the easy part is out of the way, I'm gonna get to the stuff I didn't like/hated about the movie. If you've hated what I've said so far, and got this far, again, just stop reading now. It's about to get ugly.
-Bane's voice: I was never a fan of what we heard in the original prologue, but wow, I wish that's what they stuck with. I would sometimes chuckle at how he sounded. Sometimes it worked, but for the most part, it was just off. And like many have said, the ADR was too apparent in it. When he was speaking, it's like he was on a loud speaker, while everyone else sounded natural. It was very odd how they mixed it.
-Minor aesthetic nitpicks: Still not a fan of the Batsuit, but I think it looks better in this than TDK. Not a fan of Catwoman's mask/goggle ears. I pretty much hate Bane's mask.
-Gordon: I hate to say this, but what happened with Gordon in this movie? He has been my favorite thing about these movies, but somehow, they wrote him in as a very weird/underused character in this. I wasn't really happy with how they brought up his wife, but never even explored it. What was the friggin point of bringing it up, if you're not going to brush up on it!?!? And why did I keep hearing Oldman's accent slipping throughout the entire movie? One minute he's an American, the next he's clearly screaming like a Brit. Did Nolan just say, "ummmm, Gary, we're trying to save money cause we used it on all of these IMAX cameras, so you only get one shot with your scenes....good luck"????? Remember how is accent slipped during the rooftop scene in TDK? Yeah, well, that's how he sounded during the entire movie! Maybe cause he had a lot of scenes where he had to scream/yell? I dunno......
-Foley/Holly: Can anybody seriously tell me why these characters were even in this movie to begin with? About a good 5-7 minutes were used on Foley, and he ended up not being integral to anything in this entire movie at all. And Holly? Cool, Selina has a friend, but at the same time, who cares, we didn't need to know that, when she brought absolutely nothing to the story whatsoever. Did Nolan loose a bet in poker, and in turn had to shove these actors in a role somehow? All that time wasted, could have helped advanced other character arcs, which this film desperately needed, even though its already running at 2:45.
-Bat-screen time: Wow, I don't know if it's an illusion, but Batman really felt shafted in his friggin last movie from Nolan! I seriously think there may be a total of 10.....maybe 15 minutes of Batman in this movie. And again, the running time is at 2:45. Could you not put in more Batman in a Batman movie? All the scenes you had with him were great, and I LOVED 'em, so why skip out on him so much in this movie?!?! His character is extremely vital, and yet, feels like he got put on the back burner throughout the entire movie, other than nods from Gordon or Blake about how much they love Batman. But that's not showing us The Goddamn Batman on screen! I'm not saying he needed to be in every scene, but damn, he was almost nonexistent in it!
-Miranda/Talia: Wow, I think I have a bruise on my forehead for how much I had to facepalm with this character. Underused, underdeveloped, and overall, extremely weak in any kind of real execution! Especially with the incredibly obvious plot "twist" at the end. Is it Nolan-101 to make any twist revolve around a character who's name is different, but at the end "SURPRISE! That's not the actual characters name. Fooled you, huh? I'm sooooo smart, aren't I"?!?!? Oh, and her death scene! If you thought Katie Holmes was bad in BB, just you wait until you see THE worst death in cinematic history! If Katie Holmes started out as a lead on Dawson's Creek, I wouldn't be the bit surprised if Marion started out as an extra on that show. Horrible horrible performance all around! I was seriously thinking she would pull a Scooby Doo at the end, and say something like, "I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids".
-Alfred: It feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone for saying this again, but what happened? Caine pulled off a GREAT performance with the scenes he was in, but the scenes he was in were puzzling to me. It completely contradicted EVERYTHING we knew about him in BB and TDK! In those other movies, he's telling Bruce that he needs to endure and push past any doubts he has of not wanting to be The Batman. But in this, he immediately starts off with "dude, why are you trying to be Batman? This isn't right. Being Batman is preposterous!'. And yes, I get it, time has passed, but the very last time we saw him, his character was the complete opposite of this! If Nolan wanted it to feel natural, he should have had him be adamant about Bruce being Batsy in BB, and then start to question his motives in TDK, then it leads into TDKR where he's against it. But we didn't get any kind of character arch with that! So to the viewers, it feels like one minute he supports him, and then the next he doesn't. It just feels wayy out of character from what we know about this series. A complete 180! Oh, and what happened there in the middle of the movie? He just upright leaves Bruce to try and prove a point, but we never see any reaction from him when Bruce is presumed missing or dead? Hell, not only do we not see a reaction, but we don't see him at all until the VERY end! For someone who is supposed to be loyal to Bruce, and even steered him along the way when Bruce doubted himself, he really jumped ship when it was his time to doubt. It felt completely selfish on his part, which didn't feel true to his character, yet, there it is.
-The plot: Do I even have to get into this? It's plagued with many many plot holes and contradictions. I could seriously ramble on forever about this, but basically, let me break it down for you. Have you seen BB? Ok, well, that's basically the same story, only different encounters and different villains. Oh, and let me tell you how much I HATED Bruce being retired at the beginning, to only retire at the end. How much more could you rehash a rehash with this goddamn plot? It's like the Nolan bros got bombed in a B&R drinking game when coming up with this script. "Heyyyy, mannnn, you know what would be original and cool? If the LOS tried to destroy Gotham! But in the beginning Bruce is retired, and at the end, Bruce retires. I mean, just give me an award right now, brahhhhhh...aaaaaaand drink". And as far as contradictions are concerned, does anyone else see the obvious ones throughout this series with what we got in TDKR? Apparently, Batman hated copycats in TDK with "that's not what I had in mind", yet, that's exactly what he had in mind with Blake or anyone in TDKR! From TDK's "What's the difference between me and you?", to TDKR's "I'm just a symbol, anybody can be Batman".....what the living **** is going on here?
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi698.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv349%2FTravesty7007%2FFunny%2Fjohnstewart_facepalm.gif&hash=c1da6900e7db3194041a368a1215647aec2beaa3)
-Blake: Again with all of my ranting, it seems odd to put these people down, cause they all did a great job of acting their role, but damn. Again, let me just say, it's the friggin scripts fault, not the actors(besides Cotillard), and Blake is a PRIME example of just that. Butttttttttttttt, let me just say, his first encounter with Wayne: HORRIBLE! For a second there I thought I was watching SM3 when Harry's Butler was explaining to him how his father died. Ok, cool, you sly detective, you! You figured out who Batman was, because you were an orphan too, and you have a face and he has a face, and everybody has a face face, now you can realize what is what. My only reaction to this would be-
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa353%2FTravesty70077%2Ftableflipfunny_random.gif&hash=c2683007ef7c2069b76c21ba8c2ee3e012022081)
Should I be "surprised" that he took up the mantle? NO! It was obvious with how much attention he had on him in the previews and how much he attended any kind of live event that had anything to do with the movie. Yeah, sure JGL just has a minor role, that's why he's standing next to Bale, Oldman, and Nolan at all the awards shows....cause you know, his role is minor.
-The ending: So let me get this straight! The nuke had a blast radius of 6 miles, and Batman was in The Bat with the nuke and there was 5 seconds to spare, and yet, he made it out alive?
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa353%2FTravesty70077%2Flaughing.gif&hash=23cbfdd57dcd89d9cf3cff2ce042a063daa69474)
I'm sorry, but that's the worst ending I have ever seen in my life! I seriously can't think of anything more stupid than that. At least with something like The Room, you know for sure that the character is dead. Now, if he shot himself in the face, and everybody was crying, yet, at the end, he was still alive, I would give it to The Room, just for being a horrible movie altogether. But a Nolan Movie? 5......5 seconds....FIVE seconds to spare, and somehow he bailed out of The Bat, and traveled out of the blast radius of the nuke to be free in 5 seconds?
What else could I say about the ending?
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa353%2FTravesty70077%2Fhowboutitsucked.gif&hash=b513b781e34df20398616b22c2d4706e547d126d)
Now, with all that said, and I'm sure there is MUCH more I could get into about how much this movie was a disappointment, but I'll leave it as such. Do I still stand behind my comparison of Batman Forever to TDKR? Yes, I think I always will. Is the quality exactly the same? No, BF is different in execution, and so is TDKR, but I view them in the same "I love/hate them" category regardless. Sooooo much wasted potential, to an otherwise really good Batman movie underneath. So close, yet, soooooooo far.
6.5/10 for me.
I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 18 Mar 2013, 23:27I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)
It's anything
but clear. But even if you buy that, what, he somehow escapes the blast radius in five seconds? That part of the movie will never work for me. Ever.
It's one of the worst implementations for a twist I have ever seen on film. It's laughably bad.
Great review, Travesty.
I agree with a lot of things you said and thought I should address this one:
Quote-Alfred: It feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone for saying this again, but what happened? Caine pulled off a GREAT performance with the scenes he was in, but the scenes he was in were puzzling to me. It completely contradicted EVERYTHING we knew about him in BB and TDK! In those other movies, he's telling Bruce that he needs to endure and push past any doubts he has of not wanting to be The Batman. But in this, he immediately starts off with "dude, why are you trying to be Batman? This isn't right. Being Batman is preposterous!'. And yes, I get it, time has passed, but the very last time we saw him, his character was the complete opposite of this! If Nolan wanted it to feel natural, he should have had him be adamant about Bruce being Batsy in BB, and then start to question his motives in TDK, then it leads into TDKR where he's against it. But we didn't get any kind of character arch with that! So to the viewers, it feels like one minute he supports him, and then the next he doesn't. It just feels wayy out of character from what we know about this series. A complete 180! Oh, and what happened there in the middle of the movie? He just upright leaves Bruce to try and prove a point, but we never see any reaction from him when Bruce is presumed missing or dead? Hell, not only do we not see a reaction, but we don't see him at all until the VERY end! For someone who is supposed to be loyal to Bruce, and even steered him along the way when Bruce doubted himself, he really jumped ship when it was his time to doubt. It felt completely selfish on his part, which didn't feel true to his character, yet, there it is.
I think Michael Caine's Alfred was one of the best elements of Batman Begins and it's a shame that his role got smaller and smaller as the movies went on. Really, if Nolan wanted to explore Alfred being opposed to Bruce's crusade, it would've made the most sense to do it in Begins when Bruce proposes the idea of beating the crap out of criminals in a Batsuit, since the average person would naturally think, "Are you nuts?" and then we could've seen Alfred won over and understand this was something Bruce needed.
I feel as if these conflicts, like Alfred opposing Bruce this late in the game in Rises, got forced in when the writers wanted them to pop up. They weren't exactly organic or consistent with their characterizations. The trilogy arcs for the main regular characters- Bruce, Alfred, Gordon- turned odd across the board once you get to Rises.
QuoteIf Nolan wanted it to feel natural, he should have had him be adamant about Bruce being Batsy in BB, and then start to question his motives in TDK, then it leads into TDKR where he's against it. But we didn't get any kind of character arch with that! So to the viewers, it feels like one minute he supports him, and then the next he doesn't. It just feels wayy out of character from what we know about this series. A complete 180! Oh, and what happened there in the middle of the movie? He just upright leaves Bruce to try and prove a point, but we never see any reaction from him when Bruce is presumed missing or dead? Hell, not only do we not see a reaction, but we don't see him at all until the VERY end! For someone who is supposed to be loyal to Bruce, and even steered him along the way when Bruce doubted himself, he really jumped ship when it was his time to doubt. It felt completely selfish on his part, which didn't feel true to his character, yet, there it is.
Nolan probably thought if Alfred reacted to Bruce disappearing, as well as even having him involved in helping Bruce's return to Gotham, it might have somehow spoiled the "surprise" in the end. And this is one of the many reasons why I really have no patience for Nolan's movies. He seems so determined to use plot twists to surprise the audience that it ends up creating sudden out-of-character moments and hurts the story. Alfred in one movie goes from saying "Endure. You could be the outcast. Gotham needs you!" to suddenly having a change of heart in the next one saying "Leaving you is the only way to get you to understand...you're not Batman anymore." Why the hell would Alfred even try to talk Bruce out of coming back from retirement when a new threat like Bane appears?
The Talia subplot was laughable too, especially her inadequate attempt to destroy Bruce Wayne. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to make her plot her revenge against Bruce by going to bed with him ( ??? :D), and have him sent to prison where there is a strong chance he could escape, and not simply demand Bane to just kill him and be done with it?!
Better yet, she could've stabbed him when she was finally alone with him in the Manor and not have to sleep with him at all!
??? WHOOPS! ???
...
Okay, wow, so I never thought I'd see the day where I have to defend Nolan but here goes.
I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become. In TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.
If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him. Outside of those circumstances though, Alfred saw no option except to walk out and not be party to the self-destruction of the closest thing he'll ever have to a son.
Of course, that analysis makes Bruce a colossal prick for faking his death like he did but I never argued I could defend everything.
Quote
I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become.
I realize what I'm about to say is a little beside the point of what we're talking about, but here it goes: I thought the way they presented the idea of Batman being a symbol that people could look up to was poorly done, as far as the first two films are concerned. Batman intends to become an "incorruptible" symbol, but not only do you barely see what sort of impact he has on the city, he ends up destroying the city every time he drives the Tumbler and Batpod. At least in movies like Raimi's Spider-Man or Donner's Superman, you are
shown - not told - how people react to the hero's impact they're having on their cities. Worse, Batman ends up corrupting his symbol anyway by covering up the Dent murders (which I find absurd, wouldn't there be more people like Blake questioning why would a crime-fighter turn into cold-blooded maniac despite all the times he saved the city? But that's another topic itself...)
Come to think of it, I personally have a hard time believing that Alfred would ever support Bruce's crusade in the first place, that's how much Batman's recklessness and stupidity bothered me. I understood that Batman being the "aspiring symbol" was supposed to be a theme throughout this trilogy and while the idea itself is good, I honestly thought its execution was poor. If he wasn't such a driving wrecking ball, I would have agreed with you.
QuoteIn TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.
Yeah, Bruce was out of shape, but his depression was because of his belief that Rachel would go back to him, until she died. Alfred, despite knowing the truth, kept it away from Bruce for eight bloody years. And as you know Bruce fell apart and became a recluse over time, yet Alfred conveniently decides to tell the truth about Rachel just when the city is on the brink of another crisis? Why not tell him a long time ago, if Bruce became shut inside and stopped living his life?
QuoteIf Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him.
I have a hard time believing that because Nolan and company thought it was a good idea to have the vengeful Talia go to bed with her father's killer instead of just simply whacking him. Look, I don't mean to be snob, I know all movies have flaws and lapse in logic (I even criticize the Burton movies for this too, not only Nolan's) but personally I thought the three latest movies, not just this one, could have been better thought out, to say the least. Especially if they're supposedly "elevating the genre" like I keep hearing whenever I go. I have nothing against anyone who enjoyed these movies, but I was extremely disappointed with all of them.
Quote
If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him. Outside of those circumstances though, Alfred saw no option except to walk out and not be party to the self-destruction of the closest thing he'll ever have to a son.
colors, I think your interpretation is 100% valid and what Nolan was going for.
It just seems inconsistent to me (as well as to Travesty and Laughing Fish) that Alfred would be so vocal against Bruce endangering himself in Movie #3 when, in hindsight, he seemed okay with Bruce risking his life night after night in the first place, picking up bruises and getting gassed by Scarecrow/stabbed by Ra's and Joker during the first two movies. (This could be more of a criticism of the previous movies than of Rises). If this was a recurring conflict that finally escalated in Rises to Alfred walking out, then I wouldn't have had a problem.
I realize they did something similar with Alfred leaving in Knightfall 'cause he couldn't take Bruce wrecking his body further, but the difference in my mind was that this was after Bane broke his back and Alfred had truly seen Bruce near death from his injuries and experienced the closest thing to his worst nightmare, as opposed to seeing him moping around Wayne Manor for years. Bruce was in a wheelchair now and a lot more messed up than he was in the movie. I know the Nolans were probably shooting for the same idea, but it came across differently to me.
Still, I had more of a problem with the fact that one of the best players in the trilogy was gone for most of the movie, than I did for his reasons for walking out, so this isn't as huge of an issue to me.
QuoteOf course, that analysis makes Bruce a colossal prick for faking his death like he did but I never argued I could defend everything.
Don't worry, I haven't been able to find anyone who can defend it either. :)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 19 Mar 2013, 01:14
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 18 Mar 2013, 23:27I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)
It's anything but clear. But even if you buy that, what, he somehow escapes the blast radius in five seconds? That part of the movie will never work for me. Ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohQY7kpOc50
2:09 Close up of Batman
2:14 Sea
2:19 Timer
What I meant is that this shot of the sea between these two brief shots might imply that several seconds, or even a full minute, passes between them, it's not necessarily real time, there are even shots of Blake intertwined before and after, like a montage. Yes, it's left vague, but it's not explicit that Batman sitting in the cockpit and the timer reaching 0:05 are a mere 5 seconds apart.
I've heard that argument before, and I just don't buy it. The only thing I'll give you with that, is Batman might of had 5 more seconds to bail, because that's about how much time was left before they showed us the clock. Either way, 5-10 seconds to bail out of a vehicle before it explodes with a nuke is pretty ridiculous.
^ Especially since he probably didn't have access to a bat-refrigerator.
Yea, several fans of the film have argued it, and it holds water.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 20 Mar 2013, 19:49
^ Especially since he probably didn't have access to a bat-refrigerator.
Priceless.
The best end to the movie would've been Bane blowing up Gotham, himself and everybody else once Batman so pointlessly lit that fire emblem.
Quote from: zDBZ on Fri, 10 Aug 2012, 18:01
From Christian Bale: "He's a messed-up individual, as well. He's got all sorts of issues. He's just as twisted and messed-up as the villains he's fighting, and that's part of the beauty of the whole story." "You couldn't pull it off unless you became a beast inside that suit." From Christopher Nolan: "Batman is a marvelously complex character-somebody who has absolute charm and then, just like that, can turn it into ice-cold ruthlessness (emphasis mine)." If this was the type of Batman they wanted to portray, then I'm afraid to say that I think they failed.
Their description of Batman is closer to what Ben Affleck portrayed in BvS.
(https://breakinggeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review-ben-affleck-steps-on-henry-cavill.jpg?w=620)
"ice-cold ruthlessness"? lol, not even close to what I saw in TDKR.
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 26 Jul 2016, 15:08
"ice-cold ruthlessness"? lol, not even close to what I saw in TDKR.
It's amazing, isn't it? I remember for a long time how people described Bale being the darkest Batman, and people described that as a positive. But then comes Affleck and "dark" suddenly became a dirty word. Hmmm.
Despite how brutal Batman was in BvS, he's a guy who learns from his mistake for becoming this cynical beast and regains some faith and compassion once again in the end. That's quite a positive and redeemable trait. When has Bale ever learned from his mistakes?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 8 Mar 2017, 11:47It's amazing, isn't it? I remember for a long time how people described Bale being the darkest Batman, and people described that as a positive. But then comes Affleck and "dark" suddenly became a dirty word. Hmmm.
Despite how brutal Batman was in BvS, he's a guy who learns from his mistake for becoming this cynical beast and regains some faith and compassion once again in the end. That's quite a positive and redeemable trait. When has Bale ever learned from his mistakes?
That's the straight plot of TDKR. I think you miss the difference between 2 different kinds of dark. Heath Ledger's Joker is a dark character, but he's not Ben Affleck Batman dark or Christian Bale Batman dark. He's his own character version of dark. Christian Bale's Batman is a dark character in the nature of his character conflicts. Ben Affleck's Batman is, well, he's multiple purposeful killing dark. His character conflicts are really no darker than Baleman's. Batfleck's character is a purposeful killer with no remorse. Baleman is a troubled angry man who makes mistakes, big and small. Though Batfleck learning from his mistakes means nothing, because he still did them and will never be put in the position to face real consequences personally or legally as a character. The movie had his character be that way for no reason. And his character is still that. Baleman was never innocent as a character. But he was at least a character who tried to not be that. It was apart of his conflict as a character. Batfleck had no conflict like that and then the movie decided to throw it in at the last minute. He doesn't learn anything. He's just given the lesson at the end to excuse his character. It's cheap and poorly done. The movie doesn't care and no character cares that Batman kills people. MOS did something similar. This is why Beaton is generally accepted. His character was doing what he was doing and that's that. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
https://www.inverse.com/culture/dark-knight-rises-10-year-aniversary
A puff piece including quotes from Matthew Modine and Michael Uslan. It gets pretty flowery at times.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, 09:31
The best end to the movie would've been Bane blowing up Gotham, himself and everybody else once Batman so pointlessly lit that fire emblem.
Funny how time changes viewpoints. Now I don't feel so negative about this scene. Is it feasible for Batman to pour petrol so intricately to create the logo? Is it the best use of his time? No on both counts. But I appreciate the spirit of theatricality. Batman can make things happen in unexplained ways. Bane's remark of "impossible" could refer to more than just Batman's return to Gotham. It's just that the prior trend of real world explaining made content like this stick out.
I've been banging the drum in support of Hardy's Bane for a while now, and it seems like that viewpoint is increasing. When you look back, I don't think many comic book movie villains since 2012 have dominated a film so strongly apart from Joaquin Phoenix's Arthur. And in general, I think TDK Rises looks better with the passage of time when you compare it to other films that have been and gone.
I still don't like this movie.
Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 22 Jul 2022, 15:17
I still don't like this movie.
I get that. Honestly, it's only time that made me appreciate all of Nolan's Batman films. His story has a beginning, middle and ending. And my interpretation of TDKRises has become Batman sacrificing himself for Gotham City. I find that far more palatable than him somehow escaping a nuclear blast.
The idea of a Batman who can die, whose story can end, just works for me. I enjoy that.
But yeah, the movie might not be to everyone's taste.
I enjoy it as a dominant villain showcase. The hero being in serious decline and having just enough petrol in the tank to save the day is a byproduct of that and makes the journey satisfying in a deeper manner. When you cut Bruce back to the bone - no Alfred, no gadgets, no suit and no money, what is he? He's a man who has to overcome trauma, believe in himself and beat seemingly impossible odds. That's why the pit climb resonates. He suffers depression, but when push comes to shove he would prefer death than living an aimless life of imprisonment. When push comes to shove he would also die to save Gotham. Thematically, Rises is one of the most important.
Sometimes it's the smallest details that make you enjoy something.
With TDKRises, about nine or ten minutes in, there's a bit where Alfred becomes The Boss and gives orders to the caterer and his staff at the stately Wayne Manor event for Harvey Dent.
Don't mistake me for an expert on the hospitality industry. But as far as I know, this is just about the way it would go down.
For the purposes of this catered event, the waitstaff would answer to the caterer/manager, Mr. Till. And Mr. Till would answer to Alfred.
So, if the waitstaff are using the main staircase (a BIG no-no), Alfred would notice and then he would take it up with Mr. Till.
It's a small detail, like I say. But it rings very true. That's how it really would play out in real life. I appreciate that someone was paying attention to details like this with the movie.