The Dark Knight Rises

[CmdrSlack]

And, since I didn't throw the kitchen sink into this post yet:  I wonder why this kid in CO chose this movie.  Maybe because that would be a guaranteed full house.

Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

It's now sounding like he told cops he was the Joker.

Oddly enough, I was reading The Dark Knight Returns this morning before I heard the news. I had just finished the theater shooting scene and then read the news. Then, many hours later, a friend of mine posts this article on Facebook.

I wonder who was given that job. "Ok, intern, go to the comics shop and FIND A CONNECTION."

[sickrubik]

I deeply enjoy the irony of this sentence in this context.

"The passage concludes with the media blaming Batman for inspiring the shooting, though he is not involved in the incident at all."

[Surlyboi]

[Mattemeo]

Watched it last night; sadly not at an iMax as I wasn't able to go this morning with friends due to taking a trip down country.

I'm going to leave the spoilers for another post, but just wanted to note a few things.

Firstly, the movie is superb. I'm saying this in the same year that Joss Whedon knocked The Avengers out of the park - the level of spectacle, the sheer scale of TDKR is beyond breathtaking. I can't think of another movie on this level. Is it better than The Dark Knight? It's almost an unfair question, really. The Dark Knight was a cinematic sucker-punch. This character and his roster of allies and rogue's gallery who had been so dreadfully misrepresented up until Nolan's own Batman Begins was suddenly brought thrillingly into the real world - eschewing even the slight comic-book notes of Begins. This was Batman in HEAT. TDKR continues in this vein but allows itself to slip some elements of the fantastical back in and in that way, perhaps its impact is diminished in comparison to the previous movie. The other thing The Dark Knight has in its favour is time - time enough to be watched over several times and for it to implant itself further into your conscious - I watched it again on thursday night and was so absorbed all over again that I felt I'd just done something terribly unfair to the movie I was going to watch the next day. In the end though, it was alright.

So, if I'm being honest, TDKR is not as good as The Dark Knight. It suffers from being a little bloated (bloated in comparison to The Dark Knight?!) and it suffers from a lack of Heath Ledger's Joker. Tom Hardy (incidentally I went to school with him, haha) is brilliant as Bane, even stripped down to being essentially an ordinary man with conviction stronger than any drug. But he's not the elemental chaos and charisma that encapsulates Ledger's Joker. A huge hand should be given to the Ledger-like casting of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (never actually mentioned as 'Catwoman'), tearing critical assumptions based on her less than stellar back catalogue apart and relishing her every moment on screen as an icon. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also fantastic to watch, it's easy to see why Nolan wanted to work with both him and Hardy again. His John Blake is essentially the audience's 'in' on the goings on, which is a hard task given the level of horror that descends upon his rookie shoulders.

I'm in danger of getting too far into this for now so I'll stop here and just say that The Dark Knight Rises might not reach The Dark Knight in terms of being a near masterpiece, but it is a phenomenal end to a trilogy, gives a wonderful sense of closure and thanks to a lot of heart is every bit the film I wished Inception could have been.

[UnSub]

I agree with Mattemeo - I think "The Dark Knight Rises" is as good as (and suffers a lot of the same flaws as) "The Dark Knight". But it lacks the mesmerising villain that was the Joker.

"... Rises" talks too much, as well. It does have some good nods to the comics though and some nice revisions of existing Batman characters - Anne Hathaway is very good as Kyle while Bane's backstory is a good adaption.

[KallDrexx]

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, although there were some WTF moments like


The other confusing thing that all of us in the group were confused at was
.

Oh, and IMAX showing was blah.  Maybe I haven't seen any imax before but there were some scenes where it would go in and out of full imax with no transition at all and a few of us found it distracting.  Like to the point where the camera would be pointing at one character and the display would be full IMAX, then it would show another IMAX in normal screen size.

[UnSub]

Much like Nolan's other Batman films, it "... Rises" suffers a lot from 'because-the-script-said-so' bits.

 

[sickrubik]

Oh, and IMAX showing was blah.  Maybe I haven't seen any imax before but there were some scenes where it would go in and out of full imax with no transition at all and a few of us found it distracting.  Like to the point where the camera would be pointing at one character and the display would be full IMAX, then it would show another IMAX in normal screen size.

that's pretty much what it is. The ratio on IMAX screens are much different than standard movie screens, so you have to frame the shots for that still, but you can still have some fun on key action sequences and blow it up for a huge shot. Nolan does this better than anyone, really.

The documentries shot on IMAX only show on IMAX screens for the most part or are funked up when shown on standard movie screens. I'm also not sure exactly what you mean "full imax" and "another imax in normal screen size". unless that second IMAX was supposed to be "shot".

[Mosesandstick]

I was fortunate enough to catch it on Imax on opening night. Didn't notice that many issues with resolution or footage. It was a bit weird at the beginning but after that I was immersed.

Movie was very good, not sure it was good as the ones before. The movie seemed slightly predictable to me but maybe that's part and parcel with it being Batman.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Yeah it had some plotholes sure but overall it was a very good movie. Most importantly though the ending felt right and to me that was the most important part, how they wrapped it all up.

[MahrinSkel]

Plot holes are a drawback for a mystery or a caper movie, maybe even a psychodrama depending on how much you're supposed to be noticing the details.  Even in a normal action movie, you're expected to just ignore them and enjoy the ride.  In an action movie that starts from the premise that the protagonist is an actual superhero?  Shut the fuck up, neckbeard.

--Dave

[Evildrider]

[DraconianOne]

Stuff

Someone's channelling the geek butthurt of Harry Knowles here. It seems that a lot of nerds are slating the film because it didn't live up to what they wanted from the story or the portrayal of characters rather than what it was like in its own right - because Bane wasn't from South America or because characters weren't absolutely 110% faithful to the comics. Sucks to be you I guess.

My 2 pence: it isn't perfect and isn't as good as TDK but it's stunningly shot, well acted (Hathaway, Gordon-Levitt and Hardy are great), pretty well written and the story stays true and consistent to the mythology and world that was set up in the first two films. Yes I have some minor issues with the plot but none of them were significant enough to ruin the film for me.

tl;dr It was good & I enjoyed it. I am content.

[Margalis]

A little geek butthurt seems appropriate for a movie based on a comic book. It's kind of silly to call a character Bane then make him nothing like Bane. In that case just make up a new guy.

[DraconianOne]

 

[Rendakor]

I couldn't take Bane seriously because he looked wrong and sounded like a cross between Deckard Cain and Sean Connery. The first scene he was in I thought they had dubbed someone else's voice over this big buff dude. And while the Joker carried TDK, Bane basically ruined TDKR for me; the rest of the cast was all pretty good though there were a few scenes I thought were pretty stupid.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Way too many people putting TDK's joker on a pedastel. Great villain? sure. Greatest villain ever? Maybe top twenty...seriously.  I knew I wasn't going to like bane and the voice really did seem tacked on like I was fearing it would but he was just window dressing in this one.  This batman was not about the villains, almost not at all, they could have been cardboard cutouts as far as the story was concerned and the movie would have been just as good.  This really was a movie about batman, wayne and the supporting cast moreso than any villain.  I would say casting a strong villain like the joker would have moved the focus away from the resolution of the heroes.

[sickrubik]

I think Bane is the perfect choice for what they were doing. A bit different from the books, but the common perception that a lot of people have from the Cartoon/Game are a bit cartoonish anyway. That character has a lot more depth than just a big bruiser.

And Heath Ledger's turn at Joker is one of my favorite performances of all time, filled with a shit ton of subtleties which really sell the role rather than the large obvious ones.

[Ironwood]

Way too many people putting TDK's joker on a pedastel. Great villain? sure. Greatest villain ever?

In your opinion.

[LK]

I have nothing bad to say about this movie. I was crying at the end. I feel everyone pulled it off. Only way I can describe the feeling is the what I should have felt after Mass Effect 3 if Bioware had pulled it off.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I could watch an entire movie of oldman playing commissioner gordan. God damn that man chews scenery.

[KallDrexx]

that's pretty much what it is. The ratio on IMAX screens are much different than standard movie screens, so you have to frame the shots for that still, but you can still have some fun on key action sequences and blow it up for a huge shot. Nolan does this better than anyone, really.

The documentries shot on IMAX only show on IMAX screens for the most part or are funked up when shown on standard movie screens. I'm also not sure exactly what you mean "full imax" and "another imax in normal screen size". unless that second IMAX was supposed to be "shot".

I meant that the camera would be staring at Batman inside the capital/police building and the aspect ratio would be a normal movie screen size, and then it would cut to the outside riots and be full Imax aspect ratio for 10 seconds, then go back to looking at batman inside at normal movie screen size, and go back and forth over and over again. 

[Khaldun]

A little geek butthurt seems appropriate for a movie based on a comic book. It's kind of silly to call a character Bane then make him nothing like Bane. In that case just make up a new guy.

He's quite a bit like Bane. Considering that Bane has had no more than three well-characterized appearances in his entire history (his origin special, Knightfall, and Secret Six) and is significantly different in his Secret Six characterization than elsewhere, anyone who wants to claim that there's an essential "Bane" who must be got right is essentially confessing that they know almost shit and nothing about the character's comic-book history. Hell, his second major appearance after Knightfall, he was working with Ra's al-Ghul and trying to gain Talia al-Ghul's favor. Later on a plot line suggested he might be Bruce Wayne's half-brother; he's had stories where he's an antihero, etc.

The Dini cartoon version was, by their own admission, poorly done because they really couldn't do the character as he appeared in the comics. So he was just a chuckleheaded Mexican wrestler with a drug problem.

There's really only one essential thing about the character, in my view: that he's a physical match for the Batman and a careful plotter without major psychoses or obsessions beyond being the king of the hill. That's pretty much this character. Venom is an interesting element on the side but not an essential one, considering that he's had quite a few appearances where the drug was not a major part of his characterization--and Venom is in some ways simply an extension of the classic Legends of the Dark Knight arc where Batman gets addicted to it (before Bane was introduced).

[Thrawn]

It's kind of silly to call a character Bane then make him nothing like Bane. In that case just make up a new guy.

It worked for Ledger's Joker, no reason to not do it again for Bane. 

[Lakov_Sanite]

Bane was always a mary sue character wasn't he? "stronger than batman and just as smart! omg!" kind of like doomsday for superman(I'm not an avid comic reader).  That's all I took away from the comics/cartoon, I had a discussion at work about this too. Summed up it was "it's just bane, who gives a fuck?" Hardy played a fine enough villain and while I argue about just -how- great Ledger was, his shadow was cast too much over this movie for any villain to follow. If only the voice wa not so tacked on in post...

[sickrubik]

The cartoons simplified him greatly.

He's incredibly smart, not just strong. He was raised in a prison after his revolution.... you know what, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_(comics)#Fictional_character_biography

[Lakov_Sanite]

But that's what I mean, I get that he was smart too but it always felt like he was generated JUST to counter batman, in the same artificial way that doomsday beat superman.  In comic books the good guy can't ever just LOSE, it has to be because the bad guy beats him in every way and is just(usually temporarily) superior. Bane in the comics is less believable than the penguin.

[Khaldun]

Fuck, read the comics, guys. I actually found the first Bane story quite good and believable. Guy who is smart, strong and kind of feral for reasons that are perfectly credible and kind of believable at a mythopoetic level (raised in a prison etc.) assembles a sort of evil Doc Savage squad of helpers, goes off to Gotham obsessively and says, "What do I need to do to take this guy down?"

Answer #1: watch him. So he does. He spent about eight months of comics time (8 or 9 issues) just watching. That's pretty interesting and more than most of Batman's enemies have done, given their impulse craziness.

Answer #2: exhaust him, make him run a gauntlet. Also totally plausible (it had been done before but as a quickie anniversary issue by Doug Moench). Exhaust him physically but also spiritually. Use his enemies to tire him. Make him realize that he can never win. Pretty well done.

Answer #3: having watched him, realize who he is. Wait until he's completely exhausted and break him. Again, pretty well set up.

It really was not Doomsday, who was just "Fucking stronger than Superman". It was a good set-up and an interesting character. They blew it with bringing Azrael in, since that was a very crude attempt to show the fans that they really didn't want a more "extreme" Batman who would waste his enemies. But up to that point, he was a smart character in a relatively decent story.

And the movie Bane is a reasonably good riff on that character, I think. There certainly isn't a "classic" Bane for alleged fans to get butthurt about and say that this one isn't like the original. That's just dumb.

[UnSub]

I'm amazed that people complain that Nolan didn't make Bane like he is in the comics but ignore his revisions of Batman. Like a Batman who kills through omission ("Batman Begins") is a pretty big change, as is Batman's dependence on other characters throughout Nolan's trilogy.

And then there is the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy is great in "... Rises", BTW) or Ra's Al Ghul who are quite different in the films from their comics.

But then nerdrage knows little sense at times.

[rk47]

I don't get why Batman tries to outfight Bane without gadgets in this movie.
And the fight scenes were pretty mediocre to be honest, with or without the vehicular combat.
It was pretty OK movie, but I don't see what the hype is about.

[Khaldun]

[Lakov_Sanite]

The second time is because he HAS to do it without tricks, for himself and also for being the whole symbol thing.

[murdoc]

Saw it last night and loved it, thought the ending was especially well done. My expectations were high, but I did not expect another 'The Dark Knight'. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of my favourite characters of all time (shocking!), there was no way Tom Hardy as Bane would ever come close. I just wish I hadn't had to strain to hear everything he said.

For a movie that was 2hr45min, it flew by and for me, that's a good indicator that I was really caught up in it all. Love a movie that can still give me goosebumps, which this did a couple of times in last section. I thought Anne Hathaway was great and I loved how she was Catwoman without actually being called Catwoman. The flipped up glasses looking like ears was a great touch.

Great movie, not the masterpiece of 'The Dark Knight', but it was never going to be. I think I did like it better than 'Batman Begins' though and Surlyboi (I think it was Surly) got it right when he said that 'Batman Begins' was about Bruce Wayne, 'The Dark Knight' was about Batman and this movie returned to be about Bruce.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I actually think of this movie as both an ending and an origin story for john blake.

[sickrubik]