10-11-2012, 08:19 PM
Nah, seems perfectly rational and balanced.
Originally Posted by Telefrog
10-12-2012, 02:03 AM
Obviously you haven't seen the director's cut.
Originally Posted by hepcat
"Oh captain...my captain"
12-08-2012, 02:28 PM
OMG, this is absolutely hilarious. The best part has to be "Seriously."
12-08-2012, 03:02 PM
That's one of the best things I've seen in some time. Thank you.
Originally Posted by Woolen Horde
12-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Seriously though, I thought the scenario is that Bane's men were short on numbers but big on firepower, whereas the NYPD were big on numbers but short on firepower, so they charged and overwhelmed. It seems pretty reasonable, as a last resort tactic, with the bombs only hours away from detonation.
Originally Posted by SlyFrog
Also I thought the whole point of Bane's plot was to create *an illusion* that people left to their own devices would resort to anarchy, because Bane actively engineered to give criminals guns and locked away the cops. What Gotham had wasn't a Hobbesian state of nature, but a Machiavellian manipulation. I thought it was also commented by Wayne and/or Gordon in the film.
As to whether the film itself/Christ Nolan is pro/against establishment (some critics especially said that it was anti-99% because of the portrayal of anarchy), I don't know, because of the plot wrinkle I mentioned. Was there intentions to create *an illusion* that the anarchy in Gotham represents the consequences of the 99% movement? I don't know, maybe we'll have to ask Nolan (but I doubt we will get a straight answer).
12-08-2012, 03:42 PM
I'm mixed about this movie, but I have to say that Bane's voice reminded me of Michael Palin's Pontius Pilate in Life of Brian. "I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome named 'Bigus Dickus.'"
12-08-2012, 04:43 PM
I recently read a review that was quite negative, and while I enjoyed the movie, I found myself nodding in silent agreement with their criticism.
The point that reviewer made was that the third film completely went against the very point of Batman. A character driven by vengeance to seek justice doesn't hang up their cowl for years because a girl he loves dies. The Bruce Wayne they established through decades of writing would find motive for his crusade, not justification for stopping.
As it stands, I can watch The Dark Knight Rises and appreciate it for its complex story, great cinematography and interesting characterizations. I can't, however, watch it and think "what a great ending to the Batman trilogy!" at this point.
12-09-2012, 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by Woolen Horde
"Who said that?"
Hahahah. So good.
12-09-2012, 05:49 PM
I finally watched this. I love some Superhero films but most don't do much for me. I thought the first two batman's were ok...nothing special like the first two Xmen.
The fight scenes were pretty pathetic....the first 1.5 hours kind of slow....it did get a bit emotional the last 30 minutes but it just didnt have enough for me to recommend it. 2nd film best, then 1, then this one.
12-10-2012, 12:39 PM
I don't feel like this is what happened, though. He doesn't stop because his best girl died. He stops because he allowed Batman to become a villain and martyred Harvey Dent. That martyring gave the city hope and inspiration to clean itself up (my memory isn't great but I feel like I remember a more stable Gotham at the beginning of rises). Wayne is kind of crippled, but more so, Batman isn't necessary. Batman's goal was to save Gotham, and for a short time, he did that by taking the blame for Dent's death and disappearing.
Originally Posted by hepcat
When Bane starts his business, Batman's necessity returns.
12-10-2012, 01:41 PM
Yes, that's correct. Bruce Wayne goes into seclusion because he's emotionally drained and having a pity party for himself, but he stops being The Batman because Harvey Dent's "murder" needed a fall guy so Gotham would take charge of itself. At the beginning of the movie, the party attendees talk about the Dent Act and how it allowed Gotham to clean up the streets by going around due process.
Unfortunately, Bruce isn't paying attention to Gotham or his business which makes it easy for Bane and his folks to dig a giant network of explosives under Wayne Enterprises and take his money away. The only reason they could do that is presumably because Batman is gone. (And the Gotham PD is incredibly dumb and corrupt.)
I think there's certainly room for debate as to whether or not it's in character for Bruce to go into hiding to the extent that he completely loses track of everything. I guess it's the same question one could ask about Frank Miller's graphic novel. Is it really ever explained (other than Batman didn't want to work for the gov't) why Bruce Wayne completely ignores Gotham in the comic for decades?
12-10-2012, 01:42 PM
I just watched it again last night after picking up the blu ray last week. They do make it a point to bring up her death as one of the reasons he's shunned the outside world, but I can certainly see the validity of your point as well.
But after a second viewing, I felt even more of a disconnect between the character of Batman in the comics and the character of Batman in Nolan's efforts. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both fit perfectly into the established mythos while still establishing their own stories. But Dark Knight Rises seems almost spiteful of that history.
I still like the film for the reasons I noted earlier, but still can't bring myself to view it as a Batman film. In my mind, it's a one off story from a "what if" universe. Not a bad thing, but not a great thing either.
...and I'm STILL not convinced that Nolan and the other writers on the scripts for the entire series didn't get high while writing them and giggling insanely about bringing funny voices into the films to see if they could get away with it.
12-27-2012, 09:49 AM
I'm really late to the party on this one. Got the movie for Christmas and watched it last night.
I have to say, I'm fairly disappointed. Don't want to harp on all the reasons yet, but in general it felt so disjointed and ill-planned. So many scenes left me sitting there saying "wait, that doesn't make sense". He knew Bruce was Batman because when he met him 8 years ago he recognized a fake smile. Terrible".
It seems like Nolan had a list of reveals and plot points that he knew he wanted to hit, but wasn't positive how he was going to do it. There also felt like there was a rush to get all the points in without enough movie to cram them on in. So we end up with these really short scenes meant to be impactful but are just way too short to make sense.
01-06-2013, 07:25 PM
I am also late to this party. But I must say that this was a very disappointing film. Maybe I was so amazed by Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker that I missed the fact that the last film was just as bad?
No I don't think so. But I have to say that any Batman enemy has to outdo The Joker in a new film. The thing is, The Batman has such a great bunch of enemies to choose from. Some of the best in the comic world. And sure, Bane is one of the best. But instead of making him the Bane of the comic. They made him a Bane of something else...
His mask was supposed to be filling him with chemicals that made him a super beast.
Instead, in the movie, it helped him not be in pain? What?
The film was a a long and sad exposition from a director who doesn't understand The Batman anymore.
Commish Gordon wipes out ninjas from his hospital bed.
Bruce Wayne gives up his conditioning to walk with a cane and then with no knee cartilage comes back?
Fuck this crap.