|
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...
I know you mean to push your opinion as an "Educated" Fact but the very moment you said Zimmer's Music is horrible I couldn't take you seriously...
His music was the Best thing in the Entire movie...take a moment and listen to the entire OST..
And yeah , I rate This Movie slightly worse than TDK which I rate way Higher than The Mask of Phantasm(Excellent movie in it's own Right and Equally Cheesy dialogues like Rises).
|
So because you disagree with one point, you dismiss the rest immediatly ?
|
Did anybody else get the impression that Batman/Bruce Wayne suffered from the "Frodo effect" in Dark Knigh Rises? Somehow it seemed to me as if Christian Bale played only a supporting role, and the whole plot seemed to be driven by other characters taking actions, making plans, and at times elaborating on their plans - while Batman was either in reactionary mode (for most of the movie) or seemed to charge problems heads-on (which both, at least for me, feels somewhat un-Batman-like, at least in comparison to his most iconic comic adaptations aka "world's greatest detective"/"earth's most dangerous man").
|
On July 28 2012 18:54 Poffel wrote: it seemed to me as if Christian Bale played only a supporting role, and the whole plot seemed to be driven by other characters taking actions.
the same happened in TDK ^^
|
I'm very impressed how Bane was played. A bit unrealistic, but they totally made him act and sound like badass.
|
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy.
|
On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy.
See that's exactly the kind of post that irks me. I write a lengthy critique, mauybe not that well constructed but I try to bring arguments with examples to the table. I'm dismissed as someone who dislikes thing because they are popular, whhich 1) is a very annoying, baseless asumption 2) is blalantly false, I like plenty of popular movies.
I also love your comparisons, as Nolan and all those greats (how many of their movies did you watch I wonder...) have very little in common.
You also seem to have poor knowledge of action movie, even though mine probably isn't that much better, Nolan is certainly not the first to try to bring philosophical meaning in popular movies, and I personnally feels he's pretty far from managing it.
|
On July 28 2012 15:56 Roadog wrote:
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]
You're misleading yourself with what's stereotyped as what a big, strong man is supposed to look like: a bodybuilder.
If you look at men who are generally fucking, just....strong. Like, "hi I'm going to go throw a god damn tree around right now" strong...they don't have little nice waists with ripped abs and huge chests and biceps. They have massive amounts of core muscles, making them more barrell shaped from the waist up. It's not fat. It's not pork. It's, "I can lift a VW if I need to and drag it around, and not just once for 8 seconds while a judge rates me"
|
On July 28 2012 20:08 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy. See that's exactly the kind of post that irks me. I write a lengthy critique, mauybe not that well constructed but I try to bring arguments with examples to the table. I'm dismissed as someone who dislikes thing because they are popular, whhich 1) is a very annoying, baseless asumption 2) is blalantly false, I like plenty of popular movies. I also love your comparisons, as Nolan and all those greats (how many of their movies did you watch I wonder...) have very little in common. You also seem to have poor knowledge of action movie, even though mine probably isn't that much better, Nolan is certainly not the first to try to bring philosophical meaning in popular movies, and I personnally feels he's pretty far from managing it.
Man, I'm so disapointed a batman movie didn't bring me any philosophical meaning...
You truly don't believe this trilogy and specifically TDKR isn't above average?
|
On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy.
Over all the movie is "ok". The thing that kills it is the plot.
The "action" is extremely well done.
2 things runined this thing.
1) Some random guy just arriving out of no where and saying to Bruce Wayne . . "i know you are Batman" was garbage. At least the the previous movie the accountant guy/CEO had data to back his suspicions. Some 30 second emotional speech about dead parents and anguish and anger was just dumb.
2) Bane has Batman down and out and all but dead and does not finish him off. No, he sends him to a prison with a clear escape route... Dumb. What is this 1969 Batman starring Adam West?
Many other aspects of the movie were very well done. I wish the writer from Batman Begins was used instead of Nolan's brother. Batman Begins was far better than this movie.
I rate the movies in this order. 1) Batman Begins 2) Dark Knight 3) Dark Knight Rises.
|
On July 28 2012 13:39 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? I'll answer that by channeling my favorite Batman movie: You've got to have an ace in the hole! Theirs was Talia.
Again, though, what was the point of having an "ace in the hole" when they already controlled everything and Batman was already taken out?
|
On July 28 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 13:39 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? I'll answer that by channeling my favorite Batman movie: You've got to have an ace in the hole! Theirs was Talia. Again, though, what was the point of having an "ace in the hole" when they already controlled everything and Batman was already taken out?
Actually they would not both die, she planned to escape as was clearly pointed out when she left Bane with Batman. It is probably hard to go on with you'r life if you are known as responsible for a few million dead people;)
|
On July 28 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 13:39 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? I'll answer that by channeling my favorite Batman movie: You've got to have an ace in the hole! Theirs was Talia. Again, though, what was the point of having an "ace in the hole" when they already controlled everything and Batman was already taken out?
Batman was not the only one that wanted to stop the eradication of the whole city.
If you want to nitpick around the plot I'd say that the most stupidest and predictable thing was that they were never going to bring the nuclear core to the place where it could be stable.
They executed the scientist who was the only one that could disarm the bomb in a stadium yet they just didn't feel like pressing the button to flood and destroy the only place left that could stop it from going off and waited till the last moment?lol
People are reading to much into this movie.It's a really well made fun movie and definitely worth the time and money to go watch.
I just wish that people would stop hyping up Nolan so much,he is one of the best directors for sure but he never made a movie where he didn't have plot holes and illogical/unnecessary turn of events just for the sake of it.
|
I did not like like how John Blake's legal name was "Robin" instead of Dick Grayson. Otherwise, it was a really great movie.
|
On July 28 2012 20:30 antilyon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 20:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy. See that's exactly the kind of post that irks me. I write a lengthy critique, mauybe not that well constructed but I try to bring arguments with examples to the table. I'm dismissed as someone who dislikes thing because they are popular, whhich 1) is a very annoying, baseless asumption 2) is blalantly false, I like plenty of popular movies. I also love your comparisons, as Nolan and all those greats (how many of their movies did you watch I wonder...) have very little in common. You also seem to have poor knowledge of action movie, even though mine probably isn't that much better, Nolan is certainly not the first to try to bring philosophical meaning in popular movies, and I personnally feels he's pretty far from managing it. Man, I'm so disapointed a batman movie didn't bring me any philosophical meaning... You truly don't believe this trilogy and specifically TDKR isn't above average?
1) I was answering a specific post
2) Nolan tries, I wish he did not.
I seriously believe that Begins is a bad movie, and TDK/TDKR are under average what I usually experience when I watch a movie yes. I'm also not a troll and I can enjoy popular movies.
|
The only reason I actually like Nolans batman movies is because he has villains that totally outshine batman in every way.I always cheered for the villains just because I knew that by concept of the story they were set up to fail in every superhero movie.
|
On July 28 2012 20:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
Anyone who says this isn't "better than average" is seriously deluded, or has no idea what the "average" film is. Nolan is masterful, in my opinion he's one of the only modern day directors to hold a candle to the old great auteurs like Kubrick, Truffaut, Godard, Bergman... He brings an intellect to action movies that has been mostly lacking for a loooong time.
There are always those people that feel the need to dislike things just because they're popular. Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's bad. In this case, on the contrary; a brilliant end to an awesomely entertaining trilogy. Over all the movie is "ok". The thing that kills it is the plot. The "action" is extremely well done. 2 things runined this thing. 1) Some random guy just arriving out of no where and saying to Bruce Wayne . . "i know you are Batman" was garbage. At least the the previous movie the accountant guy/CEO had data to back his suspicions. Some 30 second emotional speech about dead parents and anguish and anger was just dumb. 2) Bane has Batman down and out and all but dead and does not finish him off. No, he sends him to a prison with a clear escape route... Dumb. What is this 1969 Batman starring Adam West? Many other aspects of the movie were very well done. I wish the writer from Batman Begins was used instead of Nolan's brother. Batman Begins was far better than this movie. I rate the movies in this order. 1) Batman Begins 2) Dark Knight 3) Dark Knight Rises.
How does EVERYONE not realise Batman is Bruce Wayne? The billionaire who disappears for years, and when he returns some guy in a batsuit starts taking out criminals. After Dark Knight, Batman disappears and no one sees Bruce Wayne for 8 years. Again they resurface at the same time. He goes to that doctor with a ridiculous amount of injuries, explained away by his reported love of extreme sports, I guess.
And then they both die at the same time.
Also that prison...it really wasn't that bad, for Bruce. The inmates seemed nothing but pleasant to him.
|
This movie was absolutely BAD.
I am so disappointed, I never thought that they would make such a bad movie. It would have been better to just don´t make it. TDKR has nothing of the things that made TDK so amazing. Action was bad, Story was lame (we take a whole city as hostage for five month, are you serious, that is just bullshit!), instead of telling one story the film tells the Robin, Catwoman, Batman-Comeback, Bruce-Alfred conflict, Bane, daughter of Raz don´t know what her name was and Commissioner Gordon-Stories. All of them where nothing special, just Hollywood 1on1, lame. I didn´t sympathize with any of them. Catwoman was a bit cool in the beginning, but after that just a woman in a movie (and that kiss in the end - are you kidding me, that was bad), Robin, who just looked in Bruces eyes, and knew that he is Batman (dumb!), was ok, but nothing special, the film could have been without him, no one would have noticed. Batman just came and kicked some asses, no inner conflict that is worth to mention (yeah he was afraid of dying in a way, was a problem for 5 Minutes or so), Bane was lame, just a bad person "who was born in darkness and saw light for the first time when he was a man", was just killing everyone that came in the way, didn´t matter if that person was a good one or not. Could not do any special things, just close combat, come on, THAT was the villain ? Bad! Then this whole atom bomb thing, just to top TDK. And of course, Batman survives the bomb! Oh God, that was soooo bad. The worst movie Nolan ever made. Really, i can not understand how anyone seriously likes this movie. Even the action was just Hollywood-Standard. I mean it is not the worst movie ever made, I would give it a 4 or 5 out of 10, but for what I expected from a Nolan-Movie, and a Bale-Movie, it was just really really bad.
|
On July 28 2012 20:58 KainiT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On July 28 2012 13:39 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? I'll answer that by channeling my favorite Batman movie: You've got to have an ace in the hole! Theirs was Talia. Again, though, what was the point of having an "ace in the hole" when they already controlled everything and Batman was already taken out? Actually they would not both die, she planned to escape as was clearly pointed out when she left Bane with Batman. It is probably hard to go on with you'r life if you are known as responsible for a few million dead people;)
Hm, what does that have to do with what I'm talking about? :p
On July 28 2012 21:02 Shadowpostin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:On July 28 2012 13:39 Shantastic wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 kwizach wrote:
[SPOILERS]
Regarding the final twist regarding Miranda, can someone tell what was the point of her not revealing herself as one of the architects of the operation after Batman had been first defeated? To me it basically looked like a contrived way of allowing the movie to have a final twist. Both Bane and Miranda thought they would no longer have to deal with Batman, they controlled the city, were apparently untouchable, and would both die anyway with the bomb. Why not simply join Bane instead of staying undercover? I'll answer that by channeling my favorite Batman movie: You've got to have an ace in the hole! Theirs was Talia. Again, though, what was the point of having an "ace in the hole" when they already controlled everything and Batman was already taken out? Batman was not the only one that wanted to stop the eradication of the whole city.
Yes, and?
|
On July 28 2012 19:55 stafu wrote:
1) Some random guy just arriving out of no where and saying to Bruce Wayne . . "i know you are Batman" was garbage. At least the the previous movie the accountant guy/CEO had data to back his suspicions. Some 30 second emotional speech about dead parents and anguish and anger was just dumb.
2) Bane has Batman down and out and all but dead and does not finish him off. No, he sends him to a prison with a clear escape route... Dumb. What is this 1969 Batman starring Adam West?
1)I agree with you on this point.That was abit weird when you think about it.
2)Bane said that since Bruce is not afraid of death,he would not kill him.Instead he will break his spirit and then when he is truly defeated,will permit him to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
