KAB said:
I disagree. I think they took the extra time to properly wrap up points from the first two movies. If they had edited it down you would have had to cut a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
The Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 7K
I disagree. I think they took the extra time to properly wrap up points from the first two movies. If they had edited it down you would have had to cut a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Gotta disagree with the disagreement. Lot's of repetitive, semi-action sequences. I kept saying to myself, OK, we just saw something like that a half an hour ago. Hard to be specific, but what I would have done away with would have not affected the wrap up you alluded to, as well as it would have tightened up the story. My view was, I got to the point I did not care how it ended, I just wanted it to end
I did not go to the midnight showing because I saw it was too long. I went this afternoon. I was not bored or thinking I wish it was over. There were a few major plot holes, but still an enjoyable movie.
Like armed gunman could take over the stock exchange download a bunch of trades into the system and leave without the trades being cancelled later? I know it was for dramatic effect that Bruce Wayne was broke (or shall we say broken in other ways). Even Fox said it could take a week to undo them, why was he still broke a week later?
there were some obvious plot holes, but all movies have them. you just have to accept it and get wrapped into the movie universe and you won't even think about it until after. i felt it was solid, i knew it would be good but not as good as the previous two and i thoroughly enjoyed it. i don't feel that it was too long and i never felt like it was dragging on.
Overall I thought it was good, but I have one main complaint, and that complaint is that ironically, "The Dark Knight Rises" does not feel like a Batman movie, which isn't a good thing. The movie is so dialog heavy and narrative driven that at times it feels like Batman shows up as a cameo. Note when I say Batman rarely shows up, I don't mean the character which includes Bruce Wayne. I'm talking about the guy in the big suit rarely shows himself in the film, and often when he does, it's not exactly what I would call astounding either. Unfortunately this movie carries on the storied tradition of having Batman being the least interesting thing he is involved in..
I realize that the of handing the keys to the Batman franchise to Christopher Nolan was part of an effort to COMPLETELY distance the franchise from the horrific, over the top, self parody of Batman and Robin, but it feels like the third time around, the "Nolan" style of overemphasis on character rather than actual stuff happening is wearing thin. What also hasn't helped is that in the 4 years since The Dark Knight came out, we have had that little thing called "The Avengers Series," which showed that superhero movies can be both serious but still over the top, starting with Iron Man and ending with The Avengers. Speaking of "The Avengers," it probably didn't help that that was the last superhero movie I saw (I didn't care to see Amazing Spiderman) and from a style standpoint, Dark Knight Rises and it are almost polar opposites. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick The Avengers because, well, it feels like exactly what it claims to be, which is a bunch of awesome superheros joining together to kick ass. I did not have the same feeling with Dark Knight Rises.
Still, as I first mentioned this is a good movie, but it is arguably the weakest of the series, which isn't a great way to end things as this is basically the last of the Nolan Batman movies and likely of this continuity. Without being a spoiler after seeing it with my friend he said that he could definitely see them continuing with it, but knowing that Nolan only committed to 3 movies and putting another director/writer at the helm of this would likely yield worse results than the post James Cameron Terminator movies, there is a sense of closure with this movie. Just to touch upon what is good, all the actors deliver great performances overall with Anne Hathaway doing a surprisingly good version of "Catwoman" (Note she is NEVER referred to as that in the movie) and I was surprised with how well Bane did as the main antagonist, although having that thing on his face did not help with his dialog, which he has a good amount of. Unlike some people I didn't have an issue understanding most of what he said, but it isn't exactly helpful as he does at times say things that are rather important to the plot.
Overall I'd give it a B-.
I realize that the of handing the keys to the Batman franchise to Christopher Nolan was part of an effort to COMPLETELY distance the franchise from the horrific, over the top, self parody of Batman and Robin, but it feels like the third time around, the "Nolan" style of overemphasis on character rather than actual stuff happening is wearing thin. What also hasn't helped is that in the 4 years since The Dark Knight came out, we have had that little thing called "The Avengers Series," which showed that superhero movies can be both serious but still over the top, starting with Iron Man and ending with The Avengers. Speaking of "The Avengers," it probably didn't help that that was the last superhero movie I saw (I didn't care to see Amazing Spiderman) and from a style standpoint, Dark Knight Rises and it are almost polar opposites. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick The Avengers because, well, it feels like exactly what it claims to be, which is a bunch of awesome superheros joining together to kick ass. I did not have the same feeling with Dark Knight Rises.
Still, as I first mentioned this is a good movie, but it is arguably the weakest of the series, which isn't a great way to end things as this is basically the last of the Nolan Batman movies and likely of this continuity. Without being a spoiler after seeing it with my friend he said that he could definitely see them continuing with it, but knowing that Nolan only committed to 3 movies and putting another director/writer at the helm of this would likely yield worse results than the post James Cameron Terminator movies, there is a sense of closure with this movie. Just to touch upon what is good, all the actors deliver great performances overall with Anne Hathaway doing a surprisingly good version of "Catwoman" (Note she is NEVER referred to as that in the movie) and I was surprised with how well Bane did as the main antagonist, although having that thing on his face did not help with his dialog, which he has a good amount of. Unlike some people I didn't have an issue understanding most of what he said, but it isn't exactly helpful as he does at times say things that are rather important to the plot.
Overall I'd give it a B-.
I just went to see it; it was so much better than I expected based on the reviews before hand. Indeed, I walked out of a 3 hour movie (something I don't like to do very often - meaning go to 3 hour movies) and it felt like it had flown by. I loved every bit of it.
I know Nolan says he is done, but he sure left it pretty open for a new story, in the same continuity. Loved the ending. "
I did not think it was weak at all. Got me so psyched, that I pulled out the first two blu-rays. Will be re-watching them, and then heading back to the theater in a few days.
I know Nolan says he is done, but he sure left it pretty open for a new story, in the same continuity. Loved the ending. "
I did not think it was weak at all. Got me so psyched, that I pulled out the first two blu-rays. Will be re-watching them, and then heading back to the theater in a few days.
I had one disappointment. the film should have been shot in Chicago not New York. Chicago is Gotham. period.
I had one disappointment. the film should have been shot in Chicago not New York. Chicago is Gotham. period.
FYI alot of scenes werent even NY.. Was downtown L.A
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Makes sense. but I thought it strange that the skyline was so obviously Metropolis and not Gotham.
Gotham has been a nickname for NYC since the early 1800s... Gotham City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, true, but in the DC Comics world, I think Gotham has always been associated with Chicago.
It just seemed strange changing the skyline so dramatically from the first and second films.
Watching Batman Begins right now, and in the scene where Wayne returns to the city in the jet, they show the city, and it looks like an island - with an interesting shape to it; in DKR many of the city views are just Manhattan. Sure, some cool special effects, taking out most of the bridges and turning the island into a prison of sorts (reminiscent of Escape from NY).
Its probably my only criticism of the film - that the same director chose to make the same city look so much different; granted, in DKR at the beginning it is supposed to be clean and sanitized thanks to 8 years of the Dent Act. But the geography itself and landscape is fundamentally different.
But who cares. Just great fun!
Its probably my only criticism of the film - that the same director chose to make the same city look so much different; granted, in DKR at the beginning it is supposed to be clean and sanitized thanks to 8 years of the Dent Act. But the geography itself and landscape is fundamentally different.
But who cares. Just great fun!
It is probably more a decision of what the movie budget can do for shooting locations, and CGI to change the skyline.
Well, I have now re-watched both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, ready to go back to the theater... Just not today.
And while I know people love TDK, I think BB is my favorite, in spite of incredible acting by Heath Ledger as the Joker. I just enjoyed the story of the first one better.
Just not today. And while I know people love TDK, I think BB is my favorite, in spite of incredible acting by Heath Ledger as the Joker. I just enjoyed the story of the first one better.
What differentiates this set of movies via the past is that Batman is more more of a main character. The last set of movies was really all about the villains.
Just back from my second viewing. Enjoyed it just as much the second time, maybe more. Still wish it was shot in Chicago like the other two, but a very enjoyable film. My son enjoyed it a lot more the second time, as he was sitting with three teenage girls who would not shut up the first go round (he said, "I actually understood it this time.") LOL- the lesson a 14 yr old must learn about going to the movies with 3 girls.
He's lucky he even remembers what movie he went to the first time...Just back from my second viewing. Enjoyed it just as much the second time, maybe more. Still wish it was shot in Chicago like the other two, but a very enjoyable film. My son enjoyed it a lot more the second time, as he was sitting with three teenage girls who would not shut up the first go round (he said, "I actually understood it this time.") LOL- the lesson a 14 yr old must learn about going to the movies with 3 girls.
might have to watch the previous 2 like you did to go see this one.
He's lucky he even remembers what movie he went to the first time...
Its definitely worth the refresher - and not just the Dark Knight, both films fresh in your memory make the movie much more complete.
And I have to say, I like Bane as a villain. What a great voice and a brute.
Sorry I'm late on my thoughts.
I know this is going to be a shock to everyone, but the Imax was too loud. Very good, I'm not sure if The Dark Knight or Rises was better.
Regards,
I know this is going to be a shock to everyone, but the Imax was too loud. Very good, I'm not sure if The Dark Knight or Rises was better.
Regards,
