The Dark Knight Rises

[Implode]

No, no. You see that's a different guy. Common mistake. They even have similar emails like he said.

[GuineaPig]

I get the idea of what they're saying, but I don't think this wholly applies to the film.  TDKR isn't solely about Bruce Wayne finding a way to live a normal life; large parts of it are about Batman and others doing cool stuff.  It's a big summer blockbuster, not some small-scale indie flick.

And regardless, I think it's fine to take issue with plot holes in a movie.  Some movies may be more egregious than others in this regard, and I think TDKR was one of them.  I largely ignored the (much fewer) plot holes in The Dark Knight (which was a much better movie) because it had a sense of the story it wanted to tell and presented it in a coherent manner. 

The thing about plot holes is that they're a sign of lazy writing, and often in concert, lazy characterization.  They're a sign of the writer being unable to fashion a script that makes sense out of the narrative they want to tell.  I think it's entirely appropriate to critique a filmmaker who, when he doesn't know how to transition from one scene to the next, just has explosions appear to drive the thing forward.

[Dimitrius]

Saw it this morning. Didn't read through the whole thread, some thoughts:

I saw Miranda being Talia from the moment she slept with Bruce and the scar on her back was shown.

Knew Blake was Robin when he talked about the orphanage and admiring Bruce. (Though I would've loved for Nolan to use Dick Grayson or Tim Drake as the name and not have been so "YES THIS WAS SUPPOSE TO BE ROBIN IF YOU DIDN'T CATCH IT!!")

Bane was kick ass! Though, he uses his mask to breath analgesic gas... but where's the tanks? How is it store? Never cared while watching the movie but thinking about it later made me think about that, minor detail though and it doesn't need to be answered..

They spent 45 minutes talking about Dent Dent Dent Dent, but no one remembers the Joker?!?! I know Ledger died, but just one measly mention was enough.

Anne Hathaway was great and GODDAMNIT I WANNA MARRY HER!!!

Michael Caine in the final minutes, just amazing! I almost couldn't hold back the man tears!

Overall, a great way to wrap-up the Nolan movies and I hope WB is ready for all the shit they're gonna get when the Batman reboot is released. (Please don't! Forget about the JLA movie!)

[Dark Castle]

On the Joker not being mentioned, but Dent, the city was sort of tricked into believing Batman killed innocent ol' Harvey Dent, that's why he got such due notice, where as the Joker was a crazed radular madman, who Gotham just wants to put behind. 

[jcmistat]

Nolan refused to mention any Joker out of respect of Ledger. It may seem silly but I'm fine with that.

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was a great choice definitely one of the many highlights of the movie.

[Adami]

Okay so since a day has passed, a few more thoughts come to mind.

1. Michael Caine was.....incredible, just flat out amazing.

2. Anne Hathaways line when dancing with bruce about how they can live so large while everyone else doesn't or whatever....creepy as hell, loved it.

3. Guineapig had a point about transitions. The scenes were incredible, but I admit some of the transitions were a bit shaky, especially the end when Alfred has a total emotional breakdown and then a minute later (movie time) is in Italy smiling at Bruce.

4. Thinking about it...........Batman didn't exist very long in this universe. He did his stuff in the first movie, then the 2nd movie was what like 6 months later? So that's a year of being Batman at most, then he took 8 years off and did 2 more things....albeit large things. Just strange to think about.

[Adami]

I think it's entirely appropriate to critique a filmmaker who, when he doesn't know how to transition from one scene to the next, just has explosions appear to drive the thing forward.

Yes, but we're not talking about Michael Bay. However this is a true milestone GuineaPig, we finally found a movie you didn't like.

[GuineaPig]

I think it's entirely appropriate to critique a filmmaker who, when he doesn't know how to transition from one scene to the next, just has explosions appear to drive the thing forward.

Yes, but we're not talking about Michael Bay. However this is a true milestone GuineaPig, we finally found a movie you didn't like.

I don't think Nolan is Michael Bay, but TDKR most certainly shares this attribute with many Bay movies.

[fadetoblackdude7]

Bane was kick ass! Though, he uses his mask to breath analgesic gas... but where's the tanks? How is it store? Never cared while watching the movie but thinking about it later made me think about that, minor detail though and it doesn't need to be answered..

I think the costume designer said it feeds along his jawline and the canisters of gas are stored in the back somewhere.

[Kwyjibo]

Saw it last night and have to say: very good, not sensational, but very good.

Sure there are plotholes but wft? As long as the plotholes don't kill the whole story I don't care. It's entertainment, not a documentary.

Spoiler

I thought the end of Bane came a bit too fast, I was at least hoping that at some time his mask would be removed (you're an ugly mf  ).

[Super Dude]

Yeah I was kinda hoping to peek under the mask myself. DVD bonus I'm sure.

[GuineaPig]

Yeah I was kinda hoping to peek under the mask myself. DVD bonus I'm sure.

Under the mask... is Tom Hardy.  Who is very handsome.  Kinda the opposite of what I think you're going for.

[Super Dude]

They could doll him up a bit to make him look ugly...

[chrisbDTM]

well they did show his face in the flashback

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

Yeah I was kinda hoping to peek under the mask myself. DVD bonus I'm sure.

Under the mask... is Tom Hardy.  Who is very handsome.  Kinda the opposite of what I think you're going for.

Harry...is that you?

[lordxizor]

Saw it last night. Pretty awesome movie. Not sure if it's better than TDK, but it was very enjoyable.

I did feel like the Tate character was almost completely unnecessary. It did give a twist at the end, but I don't think it would have taken away from the movie at all if Bane was the only villain. Maybe I would have liked it more if I didn't already know who she was. My only other nitpick is that I wasn't thrilled with the score.

[Super Dude]

My TDKR review is up!

https://thegreenthbeatle.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/the-dark-knight-rises/

Please feel free to post feedback on my blog.

[Adami]

My TDKR review is up!

https://thegreenthbeatle.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/the-dark-knight-rises/

Please feel free to post feedback on my blog.

Reading it now. But it seems you've spent quite a bit of time telling us what you won't be telling us lol.


Edit: Done. I think you're WAY too sensitive about the political messages and stuff. Not being totally pro anarchy isn't the same as being pro capitalism and totally anti-equality. Same with the energy thing. Not every movie that mentions those things can be all "Yes, socialism and clean energy is the way to go, so we will all do that and be jolly".

Even things like socialism (which I totally support by the way) have the danger of falling victim to human corruption, this movie just demonstrated that. Perhaps it was more of a message to all the tea baggers who let idealism blind them to human nature.

[Super Dude]

Yes, you should know already from my review of The Avengers that I tend to go a little overboard with that stuff.

What did I say that I wouldn't be telling? Are you referring to the Robin stuff?

Perhaps it was more of a message to all the tea baggers who let idealism blind them to human nature.

I did consider that too, but I didn't want to add any more than I thought was absolutely necessary to the political portion. It's already running on five pages without pics, and I knew I'd lose a good number of people with the political stuff.

Edit: Oh! Just remembered this: I agree with what you're saying about even socialism is corruptible (believe me, I'm not even that big a fan of socialism), but I thought the movie erred too grey on the side of the socialist component, and not grey enough on the 'capitalist' component. It seemed like everything was all jolly and Gotham was in "peace time," and that those pesky socialists decide to come in and muck everything up.

[Adami]

What did I say that I wouldn't be telling? Are you referring to the Robin stuff?

It was more of a joke about the several paragraphs about the whole "i won't spoil anything, I won't recap the last movies" and stuff.

[Super Dude]

Oh. Well, I feel silly now.

Anyway, just so that it's at the front of the conversation:

Oh! Just remembered this: I agree with what you're saying about even socialism is corruptible (believe me, I'm not even that big a fan of socialism), but I thought the movie erred too grey on the side of the socialist component, and not grey enough on the 'capitalist' component, if you take my meaning. It seemed like everything was all jolly and Gotham was in "peace time," and that those pesky socialists decide to come in and muck everything up.

[Adami]

Oh. Well, I feel silly now.

Anyway, just so that it's at the front of the conversation:

Oh! Just remembered this: I agree with what you're saying about even socialism is corruptible (believe me, I'm not even that big a fan of socialism), but I thought the movie erred too grey on the side of the socialist component, and not grey enough on the 'capitalist' component, if you take my meaning. It seemed like everything was all jolly and Gotham was in "peace time," and that those pesky socialists decide to come in and muck everything up.

It's not a movie's job to be fair and even in their implied political commentary, it's their job to tell a story. The rest of it isn't their fault, but your fault for looking for it to do things it never intended to do.

Also keep in mind that all of those pesky socialists came in because a greedy capitalist brought them all in so that he could get more money.

[Super Dude]

...Point taken. On the second part. I realize that movies can't and shouldn't be expected to pay such close attention to the political messages they're promulgating. I feel it's the job of the viewer and people who write about those films like myself to point these things out. But Nolan has shown before that he can treat political subjects, as TDK has often been pointed to as a film about terrorism and the War on Terror, wiretapping, etc.

[Implode]

Awesome review!

 But I kind of agree that you may be reading too much into the political aspects of the film.

[GuineaPig]

Eh.  I think it's pretty clear Nolan was trying to comment on political issues; Bane's rise to power and rule was a direct copy-paste of the violence of the French Revolution, and the usage of a lot of the lingo of the Occupy Wall Street protestors was far from unintentional.  I just don't think enough time was spent on it to make it clear or compelling.  It was sort of like some of the political stuff in The Dark Knight which should've been dropped because there wasn't enough screentime and just ended up seeming silly as a result.  This time, instead of the political message being "warrantless wiretapping and surveillance is OK if you're cool like Batman" it's "socialist revolutions ain't cool, and you should follow authority figures like the police or benevolent billionaires like Bruce Wayne." 

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

[chrisbDTM]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

[Pelata]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

Yeah, Joker said "When the chips are down...these so-called "civilized people"? They'll eat each other..."

[GuineaPig]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite.  Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other.  Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else.  Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."

Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite.  Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other.  Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else.  Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."

Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.

Bane really didn't give them a choice. The Joker's plan was meant to create panic and chaos, wheras Bane just made it happen.

[Phoenix87x]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite.  Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other.  Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else.  Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."

Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.

 I swear that the first time that I saw TDK, I thought those people on the boats would have blown each other up. It was at that point where the movie kinda lost me, just cause it didn't seem believable, since its was such a high-pressure, life or death situation. I would have expected at least one person to go for the bomb trigger. But that's my own personal view.

[skydivingninja]

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

what was that again? i cant seem to remember


i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR

Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite.  Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other.  Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else.  Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."

Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.

The way I interpreted how Gotham was reacting to Bane was that the Kangaroo courts seemed populated mostly by the people Bane either brought with him or set loose.  It didn't seem that many ordinary people were out there crucifying millionaires.  They seemed more content to hide in their houses and pray for the best (like the cop Gordon tries to recruit).  With the Joker, there was no real reason for the chaos and violence, and it was all just a game.  Bane's rhetoric made it sound much more important, more fire and brimstone, some kind of grand design to inspire people, so if there were people out there with Bane's men, they were guided more by rhetoric.  Joker was more of a nihilist and its not easy for people to go along willingly with that, I think. 

I also don't think the OWS parallels quite fit because, while he does use SOME of that rhetoric (or at least what people think it is), he's doing it for very less-than-noble reasons.  Its more of a comment on Nazis if you think about it.  Preach about a great injustice that gets everyone on your side.  Use evil methods to "solve" these injustices and "cleanse" evil.

[emindead]

After The Passion of the Christ I have never seen so much people crying in a theater. HOLY CRAP.
After watching the first two movies with my friend and then attending the epic conclusion, all I can think is that Chris Nolan is my hero. He's a genius. I... I think this trilogy has matched Star Wars. I do believe that Nolan can do much, much better, and I'm confident he will.

I have never felt fear for a movie character before in my life until the first minutes of Bane on the screen. Then he talked too much and the fear waned down. Still, I don't care.

Was it better thank DKR? No. But I don't care... because that twist (even if it's very evident after watching it again last night) was incredible. M. Shamalayayayan kind. I wasn't sold by S. Kyle character. Nor I couldn't understand how you go to Wall Street by day, leave, and by night finish your transactions. After that point I started noticing the little plot holes this movie had. And the story wasn't as strong as the previous two (nor there were any great dialogues, to be honest)... but that's that. I loved this trilogy and after watching the trailer for The Man of Steel, I'm looking forward for Superman. The Nolan brothers are really good at their job.

(And if it weren't for IMAX I would have never noticed that Christian Bale has a wart on his face.)

[GuineaPig]

Bane really didn't give them a choice. The Joker's plan was meant to create panic and chaos, wheras Bane just made it happen.

What?  They absolutely had a choice.  Bane's flunkies were doing stuff yeah, but they were small in number and certainly didn't act alone.  Tons of people were going along with them.

I swear that the first time that I saw TDK, I thought those people on the boats would have blown each other up. It was at that point where the movie kinda lost me, just cause it didn't seem believable, since its was such a high-pressure, life or death situation. I would have expected at least one person to go for the bomb trigger. But that's my own personal view.

I agree.  I thought it was a little naïve and painting too rosy a picture.  Which makes it especially weird when the reverse happens in TDKR.

The way I interpreted how Gotham was reacting to Bane was that the Kangaroo courts seemed populated mostly by the people Bane either brought with him or set loose.  It didn't seem that many ordinary people were out there crucifying millionaires.  They seemed more content to hide in their houses and pray for the best (like the cop Gordon tries to recruit).  With the Joker, there was no real reason for the chaos and violence, and it was all just a game.  Bane's rhetoric made it sound much more important, more fire and brimstone, some kind of grand design to inspire people, so if there were people out there with Bane's men, they were guided more by rhetoric.  Joker was more of a nihilist and its not easy for people to go along willingly with that, I think. 

I also don't think the OWS parallels quite fit because, while he does use SOME of that rhetoric (or at least what people think it is), he's doing it for very less-than-noble reasons.  Its more of a comment on Nazis if you think about it.  Preach about a great injustice that gets everyone on your side.  Use evil methods to "solve" these injustices and "cleanse" evil.

The kangaroo courts did have Bane's flunkies about, but there were also tons of ordinary people there.  And the scenes of the looting and arresting of the various rich people?  There were none of the armed troops there, just Gotham citizens going about all Third Estate-style.  While I agree that Bane tried to incite this particular form of violence, which separates him somewhat from the Joker who just tried to create chaos, it doesn't truly explain the degree to which people went over for it, I don't think.  Especially considering the events of TDK.

I think what Nolan was going with the OWS parallels was this: trying to say, like how Catwoman relished the storm was coming and then lived to regret the chaos that followed, that people who are trying to radically destabilize the status quo aren't aware of the damage they would cause.  I just don't think enough time was spent on it to develop it as a coherent idea.

[Super Dude]

Eh.  I think it's pretty clear Nolan was trying to comment on political issues; Bane's rise to power and rule was a direct copy-paste of the violence of the French Revolution, and the usage of a lot of the lingo of the Occupy Wall Street protestors was far from unintentional.  I just don't think enough time was spent on it to make it clear or compelling.  It was sort of like some of the political stuff in The Dark Knight which should've been dropped because there wasn't enough screentime and just ended up seeming silly as a result.  This time, instead of the political message being "warrantless wiretapping and surveillance is OK if you're cool like Batman" it's "socialist revolutions ain't cool, and you should follow authority figures like the police or benevolent billionaires like Bruce Wayne." 

I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.

Pretty much my post's argument in a nutshell. At worst, at least I'm not the only one reading into it too much. Well done, sir.

[Pelata]

Were those in the courts/on the streets ordinary citizens or the thousands let out of Blackgate, just in plain clothes now?