|
On July 28 2012 15:03 KiF1rE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the biggest confusion to me, was wasnt banes prison in some middle eastern country... as they talked about the whole prince thing, the US never had a prince so clearly it wasnt in the US or even near gotham... so how the hell did bruce wayne with no money at all get back into gotham? which was surrounded by military and ice that no one could cross. with only one working bridge... and all this in less than a day before the bomb was supposed to go off...
The prison is in Mexico. And are you sure he got out a day before the bomb was supposed to go off? A previous poster mentioned how that actually wasn't in the movie so it's unclear exactly when he got out.
|
I liked how catwoman is never actually mentioned as catwoman, and bane wasn't using some chemical or whatever to be super strong. Nolan's "realistic" setting is really cool
|
On July 28 2012 15:03 KiF1rE wrote:
the biggest confusion to me, was wasnt banes prison in some middle eastern country... as they talked about the whole prince thing, the US never had a prince so clearly it wasnt in the US or even near gotham... so how the hell did bruce wayne with no money at all get back into gotham? which was surrounded by military and ice that no one could cross. with only one working bridge... and all this in less than a day before the bomb was supposed to go off...
Well, there was a decent time gap, so time isn't a problem.
Also, Bruce is pretty resourceful, so it's no surprise that he'd find his way back. He can use Wayne assets if they're around, or just plain steal what he needs, cut a few deals etc. As for sneaking into the city, he's one man, and he's resourceful, so he could find a way.
The point is pretty much that there is a way to do it, and that that way is quite irrelevant to the story as a whole. If you really want to complain about plotholes, you could start with something like the insufficient fallout from the nuclear explosion.
|
On July 28 2012 15:30 Avidkeystamper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 15:03 KiF1rE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the biggest confusion to me, was wasnt banes prison in some middle eastern country... as they talked about the whole prince thing, the US never had a prince so clearly it wasnt in the US or even near gotham... so how the hell did bruce wayne with no money at all get back into gotham? which was surrounded by military and ice that no one could cross. with only one working bridge... and all this in less than a day before the bomb was supposed to go off... The prison is in Mexico. And are you sure he got out a day before the bomb was supposed to go off? A previous poster mentioned how that actually wasn't in the movie so it's unclear exactly when he got out.
The only hint we have for the location of the prison is the phrase "Deshi Basara," which is Moroccan. Judging by the city we see when he climbs from the pit, we can conclude that it is most certainly not in Mexico.
But, it is indeed never stated that Bruce gets out of the pit one day before the bomb. He gets out of the pit, then we are told that there is one day left, then he appears in Gotham. The time passed between those two moments is unclear.
|
Just watched the movie, afternoon screening, half-full theater B)
I give it an 8/10. I think it was too busy with Catwoman, Bane, Blake and Talia, in addition to pretty much everyone from the first two Nolan Batman movies except Joker. Reminded me of Spider-Man 3. Ending was weak and bland. Bane is killed (really?), the nuke somehow does not touch Gotham at all, and all the good guys live happily ever after.
I was disappointed Bane had no Venom; after seeing the posters of Bane in very closed-up poses I figured they were hiding an epic Venom-Bane effect. When Bane started fighting Batman I looked at his stomach (no abs) and groaned, "Blech, no Venom, he looks pretty porky and unmuscular" But after reading about Bane's cessation of the Venom in the comics and thinking about how goofy and/or weak Venom-Bane would look in a film I'm more at peace with Nolan's decision. Also great Tom Hardy is great.
I was unimpressed by Hathaway's Catwoman, but I do admit she had an air of badassitude Batman did not have.
Favourite part: Raʾs al-Ġūl is back! But only in a dream. The reason he is my favourite Batman villain is the immortality; it was nice of Nolan to at least reference it, even though he actually killed Raʾs al-Ġūl off in Batman Begins.
|
I'm glad that Bane had no venom, his physique is much more realistic given his activity. A man with that build and activity would not have cut, defined abs or bulking chest, Hardy's build for the film is well within the realm of a big enormously strong (but "life" strong, not gym-built strength) man
|
On July 28 2012 15:01 transcendent one wrote:Show nested quote +
But as a pseudo-fan of the original Batman franchise, I felt suckerpunched by the mainstream when his name was revealed as "Robin," and not "Dick" or "Richard." And I'm only half a Batman fan, so I can't even begin to imagine how angry the real fans must have felt T.T
and catwoman didn't have cat ears, and joker didn't have white skin and had scars, and bane didn't use chemicals, and ra's wasn't reborn with fountain of life etc... it was clear from the start that it's nolan's own version of batman
Yeah, but all those were Nolan's adapting the more fantastical aspects of the franchise into a universe of pseudo-realism. Calling the kid Robin instead of "Dick" or "Mr. Grayson" was just the director's way of making sure the layman would get who Blake was.
|
On July 28 2012 13:36 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 13:04 transcendent one wrote:On July 26 2012 08:06 corumjhaelen wrote:
Mediocre film, slightly worse than the Dark Knight.
Bad writing : a contrived plot explained at lengths to try to make some sense of it. Cheesy lines everywhere. The shot at the traders for instance seems horribly contrived. The moral ambiguity is overall badly thought. The well metaphor is already not exactly brilliant, but worse, we have to stand through what seems like hours of explaining the obvious. Learn to cut a movie please, this is not 1920 anymore, Battleship Potemkine has been shot...
Twist is okay though, and I'm a hater of that type of thing, and the ending is pretty good, especially compared to the rest of the movie. Still cheesy, but within the acceptable bounds for superhero movies.
Action is overall decently shot, but uneven. For instance the opening scene : the idea is very good, the outside part is okay, the inside part is a mess. Rythm is awefully slow at the beginning, slightly better at the end.
Acting is pretty bad. Hardy is good when you understand him (more on that later), Hathaway is so hot that whatever she does I'll love it, and er yeah... Cotillard is not at her best, Bale is still terrible, not sure what the fuck is up with Gary Oldman (probably did not care), and even Michael Caine, whom I love, is only good.
And finally the sound as a whole is an horror. Zimmer's music sucks (yes I mean it), Bane's voice is sometimes impossible to understand, and the whole experience is a mess. My ears are still bleeding. lol it's so hard to not insult this guy. what kind of movies must this dude like? he seems so off. retarded perceptions and opinions on everything. seriously the movie was not perfect but everyone with a piece of intelligence could see that it's better than 99% of the movies cinemas play. Action is not meant to be distributed evenly throughout all the movie. if you're looking for that you have to watch a porn movie where they fuck from beginning to end. zimmer's music sucks? lol arguably best atmospheric music composer in holywood bale is terrible? i don't even know what to say i understood every single thing hardy said you also like an actor just because she looks good. that's a really clever reason (not). did you hate inception too? which everyone thinks is like the best movie of the last decade? are you just hating on popular movies or what. i don't think any batman/comic movie fans would argue that tdk and tdkr are not in the top3 of any comic movies ever made. they are so much better than idiotic shit like green lantern or avengers its not even funny. bane is a true villain, i don't think i've ever seen a better one in such movies besides joker (and i mean both jokers) yes the movie is slow/cheesy at parts but its mostly required to the story (caine's whining was a bit too much to me at the end) i also didn't like how bane died and that bats didn't die but those don't make the story bad it's just that i loved bane and think that semi-sad endings are always more genuine. anyways it was a 9/10 for me. 9/10 for dark knight as well. same reason; a tad too long with some unnecessary parts, minor things i didn't like. batman begins is a 9/10 too, i think it's the best movie of the 3 in terms of script/pace/storytelling it is an almost perfect movie to me. but the villains lacked the badassery. it was written to be limited a bit that way, but managed to be perfect in its limits. dark knight/rises could have been a bit better to make perfect movies; they only managed to be very very good movies, the best comic-based movies ever. What I hate most about opinions like his (corumjhaelen) is that all they do is say really general things without explaining anything. "So many cliches" or "Bad acting", and all of a sudden it makes the rest of us who enjoyed the movie seem like unsophistocated and uninformed moviegoers. Just calling things bad or cheesy or saying "Ive seen this shit too many times" is really subjective and adds nothing to the discussion. There's nothing to explain and no way to back it up. Yeah youre free to express your opinion, but I'm just saying that its annoying because theres no way to back up or refute those claims since its completely up to the person making the judgment. Plenty of people brought up very legitimate reasons as to where the movie was lacking and I can either say no because of X or say yeah that makes sense. When people just say "It was hella cheesy and cliched", the best any of who enjoyed it can do is say "Eh, no it wasn't I thought it was cool" and look simple and shallow in the process. Bah...
I've given plenty of examples already, if something is not precise enough, just ask politely instead of hating someone who disagrees with you.
What kind of movie do I like ? Well it so happens that there are plenty of movie outside of blockbusters, I suggest you check them out. I'd say A Separation s the best movie I saw in theaters in the past two years if you want a recent example.
Do I hate popular movies ? Not at all, as already said I love Titanic, which plenty of people dislike because it's a popular movie.
People thinking Inception is the best movie of the decade are probably less than 25 and don't go too often to the cinema, no offense.
I haven't said action should be evenly distrtibuted, I've said it was poorly done.
I'm not a comic book fan, but the two comic book fan I know agree with me on Nolan, funny isn't it ?
Zimmer's music is unbearable, there are about two themes repeated throughout the movie, themselves very repetitive, and they bring nothing to the action.
I'm not the only person in the thread who complained about Hardy.
Bale is a bad actor, he has very few facial expressions and absolutely no charisma. Doesn't help that he was paired against better actors in TDK/TDKR but still...
I was joking about Hathaway, noting that she is mainly here because she looks good.
Bane is good, but I suggest you watch more movies.
Finally I'll reformulate my criticism of the story. This is as I said, a scenarist movie : Nolan prefers to rely on the scenario than the images to impress and give rythm to its movie. That's usually pretty gimmicky, but it can work (for instance A Separation is also a scenarist's movie, but it's also well shot and the scenario is much better). To make that work in a 2h45 min movie is pretty hard. How does Nolan try to do it ? Well, he uses a very convoluted scenario, with complicated plans and revelations to give rythm. Ok good, makes sense.
So what is the main problem ? Well, he has to explain those complicated plans to the audience. And here's where is lack of directing abilities come back to him : instead of suggesting, alluding and in general relying on the intelligence of his audience to understand and do this exposition fast and quickly, he uses long monologues where people explain what they are going to do. That kind of stuff is pretty boring and usually ends up cheesy : that's like those bad guy who tell James Bond during 5 min how they want to kill him instead of shoting him. Oh yeah, that's what Bane does ! Why just not cut his dialogue with Batman, make him wake up alon in his cell ? Everything would be as clear, but much less cheesy, much shorter and I wouldn't feel like the scenario is hammered down !
Same with the well metaphor. Same with the twist which was overly explained.
I have other grips with the writing, such as the overall moral undertone which I find worrying, the easy one liners which are annoying (for instance the one about traders felt so much like opportunism, I doubt it would have been in the movie 2 years ago, and it clearly aims at flattering the audience... "I was born in the shadows", well I guess at least it fits in the superhero movie style...), but honestly, the main problem is the one above.
Finally, there is a much better Batman movie out, it's called Batman : Mask of the Phantasm.
Edit : I also find amusing how when people say they dislike this movie the answer is "wow, what kind of movie do you like ? it's better than what's usually in theaters ! At least we can enjoy most movies, we don't have extremely high expectations etc". I enjoy many movies, don't worry for me, and no, I wouldn't call Batman better than average...
|
On July 28 2012 17:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
People thinking Inception is the best movie of the decade are probably less than 25 and do go too often to the cinema, no offense.
Your dig against people who think Inception is the best movie of the last decade is that they are cinema enthusiasts who were alive for the whole decade?
You MUST be trolling. You've been doing a better job than most, but at this point I'm pretty convinced you're trolling.
|
Ugh, doublepost again T.T
|
On July 28 2012 15:03 KiF1rE wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the biggest confusion to me, was wasnt banes prison in some middle eastern country... as they talked about the whole prince thing, the US never had a prince so clearly it wasnt in the US or even near gotham... so how the hell did bruce wayne with no money at all get back into gotham? which was surrounded by military and ice that no one could cross. with only one working bridge... and all this in less than a day before the bomb was supposed to go off...
Correct me if I am wrong but there was 23 days till the bomb would go off when Bruce got out of the prison (he escaped and then fox goes on to say to the agents there are 23 days until the bomb goes off with or without the detonator being pushed).
So I imagine he has connections and could do it, I can see it being possible in 22 days.
in general I really enjoyed the movie, I am not nitpicky like some of the people in this thread but I found it very good and would watch it again. Saw it in imax made it even better.
|
On July 28 2012 17:08 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 17:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
People thinking Inception is the best movie of the decade are probably less than 25 and do go too often to the cinema, no offense.
Your dig against people who think Inception is the best movie of the last decade is that they are cinema enthusiasts who were alive for the whole decade? You MUST be trolling. You've been doing a better job than most, but at this point I'm pretty convinced you're trolling.
Nope, I just made a mistake, I meant "don't go to often". Fixed. And no I'm dead serious.
|
On July 28 2012 15:35 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 15:03 KiF1rE wrote:
the biggest confusion to me, was wasnt banes prison in some middle eastern country... as they talked about the whole prince thing, the US never had a prince so clearly it wasnt in the US or even near gotham... so how the hell did bruce wayne with no money at all get back into gotham? which was surrounded by military and ice that no one could cross. with only one working bridge... and all this in less than a day before the bomb was supposed to go off... Well, there was a decent time gap, so time isn't a problem. Also, Bruce is pretty resourceful, so it's no surprise that he'd find his way back. He can use Wayne assets if they're around, or just plain steal what he needs, cut a few deals etc. As for sneaking into the city, he's one man, and he's resourceful, so he could find a way. The point is pretty much that there is a way to do it, and that that way is quite irrelevant to the story as a whole. If you really want to complain about plotholes, you could start with something like the insufficient fallout from the nuclear explosion.
I think even at Bruce's financially lowest point he's still richer than most people in the world. The part where he had to run to the back of his mansion with Miranda to get in was only because he doesn't have keys to his own house, and tbh an overly dramatized way to show how 'poor' he was. And also how he ditches his company and donates all his stuff in Gotham he could still afford to live happily ever after with Selina Kyle.(what I'm imagining happens but plausible) I'm sure he could hitch a flight or two no problem. lol
|
On July 28 2012 17:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
Finally, there is a much better Batman movie out, it's called Batman : Mask of the Phantasm.
Mask of the Phantasm is literally the worst movie I've seen. Your tastes must be really really really strange.
|
On July 28 2012 17:33 Seiferz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 17:01 corumjhaelen wrote:
Finally, there is a much better Batman movie out, it's called Batman : Mask of the Phantasm.
Mask of the Phantasm is literally the worst movie I've seen. Your tastes must be really really really strange.
I think my opinion on MotP is pretty mainstream =)
Also, either wrong use of literally, or... well, I won't advise you bad movies, that would be pretty mean 
|
On July 26 2012 08:06 corumjhaelen wrote:
Finally, there is a much better Batman movie out, it's called Batman : Mask of the Phantasm.
while I don't agree with some parts of your review, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Most people brush it off as some kid flick but it's by no means childish with its themes and writing. I went out to get this after watching TDK out of nostalgia and was surprised by how dark and mature the story was. As a kid, I just enjoyed it because of the action and didn't really "get it", but it's surprisingly well-written for a cartoon movie at the time.
It reminds me a lot of a typical raymond chandler story, with a gritty/cynical protagonist with a realistic view of justice, a mysterious broad and of course, the intricate mystery aspect. Not to mention the overall dark, somber tone which is typical of his stories.
|
On July 28 2012 17:01 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 13:36 Supamang wrote:On July 28 2012 13:04 transcendent one wrote:On July 26 2012 08:06 corumjhaelen wrote:
Mediocre film, slightly worse than the Dark Knight.
Bad writing : a contrived plot explained at lengths to try to make some sense of it. Cheesy lines everywhere. The shot at the traders for instance seems horribly contrived. The moral ambiguity is overall badly thought. The well metaphor is already not exactly brilliant, but worse, we have to stand through what seems like hours of explaining the obvious. Learn to cut a movie please, this is not 1920 anymore, Battleship Potemkine has been shot...
Twist is okay though, and I'm a hater of that type of thing, and the ending is pretty good, especially compared to the rest of the movie. Still cheesy, but within the acceptable bounds for superhero movies.
Action is overall decently shot, but uneven. For instance the opening scene : the idea is very good, the outside part is okay, the inside part is a mess. Rythm is awefully slow at the beginning, slightly better at the end.
Acting is pretty bad. Hardy is good when you understand him (more on that later), Hathaway is so hot that whatever she does I'll love it, and er yeah... Cotillard is not at her best, Bale is still terrible, not sure what the fuck is up with Gary Oldman (probably did not care), and even Michael Caine, whom I love, is only good.
And finally the sound as a whole is an horror. Zimmer's music sucks (yes I mean it), Bane's voice is sometimes impossible to understand, and the whole experience is a mess. My ears are still bleeding. lol it's so hard to not insult this guy. what kind of movies must this dude like? he seems so off. retarded perceptions and opinions on everything. seriously the movie was not perfect but everyone with a piece of intelligence could see that it's better than 99% of the movies cinemas play. Action is not meant to be distributed evenly throughout all the movie. if you're looking for that you have to watch a porn movie where they fuck from beginning to end. zimmer's music sucks? lol arguably best atmospheric music composer in holywood bale is terrible? i don't even know what to say i understood every single thing hardy said you also like an actor just because she looks good. that's a really clever reason (not). did you hate inception too? which everyone thinks is like the best movie of the last decade? are you just hating on popular movies or what. i don't think any batman/comic movie fans would argue that tdk and tdkr are not in the top3 of any comic movies ever made. they are so much better than idiotic shit like green lantern or avengers its not even funny. bane is a true villain, i don't think i've ever seen a better one in such movies besides joker (and i mean both jokers) yes the movie is slow/cheesy at parts but its mostly required to the story (caine's whining was a bit too much to me at the end) i also didn't like how bane died and that bats didn't die but those don't make the story bad it's just that i loved bane and think that semi-sad endings are always more genuine. anyways it was a 9/10 for me. 9/10 for dark knight as well. same reason; a tad too long with some unnecessary parts, minor things i didn't like. batman begins is a 9/10 too, i think it's the best movie of the 3 in terms of script/pace/storytelling it is an almost perfect movie to me. but the villains lacked the badassery. it was written to be limited a bit that way, but managed to be perfect in its limits. dark knight/rises could have been a bit better to make perfect movies; they only managed to be very very good movies, the best comic-based movies ever. What I hate most about opinions like his (corumjhaelen) is that all they do is say really general things without explaining anything. "So many cliches" or "Bad acting", and all of a sudden it makes the rest of us who enjoyed the movie seem like unsophistocated and uninformed moviegoers. Just calling things bad or cheesy or saying "Ive seen this shit too many times" is really subjective and adds nothing to the discussion. There's nothing to explain and no way to back it up. Yeah youre free to express your opinion, but I'm just saying that its annoying because theres no way to back up or refute those claims since its completely up to the person making the judgment. Plenty of people brought up very legitimate reasons as to where the movie was lacking and I can either say no because of X or say yeah that makes sense. When people just say "It was hella cheesy and cliched", the best any of who enjoyed it can do is say "Eh, no it wasn't I thought it was cool" and look simple and shallow in the process. Bah... I've given plenty of examples already, if something is not precise enough, just ask politely instead of hating someone who disagrees with you. What kind of movie do I like ? Well it so happens that there are plenty of movie outside of blockbusters, I suggest you check them out. I'd say A Separation s the best movie I saw in theaters in the past two years if you want a recent example. Do I hate popular movies ? Not at all, as already said I love Titanic, which plenty of people dislike because it's a popular movie. People thinking Inception is the best movie of the decade are probably less than 25 and don't go too often to the cinema, no offense. I haven't said action should be evenly distrtibuted, I've said it was poorly done. I'm not a comic book fan, but the two comic book fan I know agree with me on Nolan, funny isn't it ? Zimmer's music is unbearable, there are about two themes repeated throughout the movie, themselves very repetitive, and they bring nothing to the action. I'm not the only person in the thread who complained about Hardy. Bale is a bad actor, he has very few facial expressions and absolutely no charisma. Doesn't help that he was paired against better actors in TDK/TDKR but still... I was joking about Hathaway, noting that she is mainly here because she looks good. Bane is good, but I suggest you watch more movies. Finally I'll reformulate my criticism of the story. This is as I said, a scenarist movie : Nolan prefers to rely on the scenario than the images to impress and give rythm to its movie. That's usually pretty gimmicky, but it can work (for instance A Separation is also a scenarist's movie, but it's also well shot and the scenario is much better). To make that work in a 2h45 min movie is pretty hard. How does Nolan try to do it ? Well, he uses a very convoluted scenario, with complicated plans and revelations to give rythm. Ok good, makes sense. So what is the main problem ? Well, he has to explain those complicated plans to the audience. And here's where is lack of directing abilities come back to him : instead of suggesting, alluding and in general relying on the intelligence of his audience to understand and do this exposition fast and quickly, he uses long monologues where people explain what they are going to do. That kind of stuff is pretty boring and usually ends up cheesy : that's like those bad guy who tell James Bond during 5 min how they want to kill him instead of shoting him. Oh yeah, that's what Bane does ! Why just not cut his dialogue with Batman, make him wake up alon in his cell ? Everything would be as clear, but much less cheesy, much shorter and I wouldn't feel like the scenario is hammered down ! Same with the well metaphor. Same with the twist which was overly explained. I have other grips with the writing, such as the overall moral undertone which I find worrying, the easy one liners which are annoying (for instance the one about traders felt so much like opportunism, I doubt it would have been in the movie 2 years ago, and it clearly aims at flattering the audience... "I was born in the shadows", well I guess at least it fits in the superhero movie style...), but honestly, the main problem is the one above. Finally, there is a much better Batman movie out, it's called Batman : Mask of the Phantasm. Edit : I also find amusing how when people say they dislike this movie the answer is "wow, what kind of movie do you like ? it's better than what's usually in theaters ! At least we can enjoy most movies, we don't have extremely high expectations etc". I enjoy many movies, don't worry for me, and no, I wouldn't call Batman better than average...
Oh man i love people like you trying to push your opinion of what is good and what isn't as fact. The simple truth is that the only one able to say if it is good or not is the individual.
|
Oh man, I just realized that Joseph Gordon Levitt looks kinda like batman from batman beyond, and old bruce wayne could look like Bale with old man makeup.
|
I think it's called argumentation. Trying to give an educated opinion by basing it on facts. If you think others' opinion don't matter, I don't think you should read this thread ?
Also I don't believe all opinions are equal (which doesn't mean I think mine is the only possible or that's it's the worthiest in the universe).
One of the reason I'm insisting here is the ridiculous hype the movie had before going out, which went as far as people saying it was the best movie of the year before it was out. When you're at that point, Nolan could have done anything and still found some people to defend it.
|
On July 28 2012 18:11 LloydRays wrote:
Oh man, I just realized that Joseph Gordon Levitt looks kinda like batman from batman beyond, and old bruce wayne could look like Bale with old man makeup.
Don't think it will be Batman Beyond, I don't see that being well received by the mainstream audience, maybe 10 years later when today's kids have grown up.
John Blake was basically Nolan's way of sneaking Robin in without Bale realising. Some sort of mix between Tim Drake's childhood and Dick Grayson's adult life, with Robin as his real legal name. Also note how he rises on the platform as the film shifts to the title. Batman is now a symbol again, and he'll take over most likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
