On August 02 2012 02:50 Greggle wrote: I thought Bane did an incredible job as a villain, and this is coming from someone who facepalmed when they chose him over The Penguin, Ventriloquist or Black Mask,any one of these guys would be awesome and creepy as fuck when I imagined them making the same transition the Joker did. His motive was well established and deeply woven into the existing story, his plan had a deeper depth and meaning than to simply kill a bunch of people and it was a joy to watch all of Gotham fall so easily to him. I loved that I had fully expected him to blow the shit out of everyone in the stadium only to let them be free. It defied my expectations in every way.
erm... since you seem to understand what Bane was up to, can you explain it? I get that the idea was to "break Batman's spirit" by making him watch his city burn, but his "genius" plan makes him seem more like Dr.Evil than a villain worthy of Batman. I know not everyone can be the Joker, but he has Batman helpless at his feet which basically gives him free reign for any sort of elaborate mental torture he can come up with, and the best he can do is "here, watch from a safe distance while I nuke myself"? What's wrong with just chopping off the Bat-limbs and then lighting a few orphanages on fire?
What I understood is that Bane's goal was similar to that of Raz Al Ghul (whatever the spelling is) from Batman 1. Gotham was past its peak/full of corruption and needed to be destroyed (the whole purpose of the League of Shadows). The League was foiled that time so Bane's back to help finish the job...and kick Batman's ass while he's at it (revenge for killing Raz I guess). I could be wrong though.. : \
I am surprised by how many people thought the ending was ambiguous. Its pretty cut and dry that Alfred really sees Wayne, some deemed it another dream or hallucination. I say, stop watching Inception, not everything in movies is a hallucination or dream.
How can you be against the idea that he put it on autopilot and made it out alive, but perfectly accept many of the absurdities in The Dark Knight? If you put too much detail into movies you will not be able to enjoy it
I doubt Warner Brothers would allow them to "kill" Batman even if Nolan wanted it, which wouldnt fit in with his overall theme for the series. It is their biggest franchise now that Harry Potter movies are finished. Batman as a character in that world is considered dead, which elevates Batman to the status that he wanted since Batman Begins, he is now immortal and uncorruptible, he does more good as "dead" than alive.
Bruce Wayne is still alive, he barely made it and his body is likely broken down. Perfect ending to a uneven trilogy.
I still consider The Animated Series as the de facto Batman experience, that whole world of Gotham feels like the real thing (despite being...a cartoon!?), every other show, movie feels like a interpretation of that. Forget Ledger and Jack, Mark Hamill is the freaking Joker.
The Animated Series + Arkham City+Arkham Asylum games + Nolan Trilogy + Batman (Burton) is what i consider the quintessential Batman in movies, games and shows. Get those and you are set
On August 02 2012 17:03 Chriscras wrote: Bane's prison (really Talia's prison) was super silly, but other than that I like it about as much as Batman Begins.
NOTHING WILL EVER TOP THE DARK KNIGHT THOUGH, POSSIBLY THE GREATEST MOVIE OF THE CENTURY.
Haha. The Dark Knight is destined to be this generations teenagers 'Matrix'. A high budget movie, aimed at that demographic, lots of guns and explosions that the teens eat up uncritically. I agree with one poster above. TDK was a mess. It's saving grace was Heath's performance, but one man can't carry a movie. DKR was better, on par with Begins, but after repeated watchings of Nolan's stuff, I'm convinced he needs:
- better editors (both at the writing and post production stages). - someone to tell him to turn down the damn sound.
He's got grandiose ideas, and a big budget, but his execution is just a little off. Unfortunately a big budget does not a good movie make.
Saw this, would rate it third in the trilogy (Dark Knight second, Begins the best), but it's not a bad movie. I felt this movie would have been better separated into two films. At times it felt crammed and forced. Maybe there will be a director's cut that includes scenes that didn't make the cut.
One thing I do appreciate is Nolan made Gotham City just as much of a central character as Bruce Wayne throughout the trilogy. One I didn't was Nolan's interpretation of Bane
Also the musical score was well done.
For a superhero movie 8/10, for general 7/10 tops.
So because people disagree they are abviously spoilt and should give you a counter-example among a small subgenre that has very few interesting movies ? That being said : Unbreakable, Spiderman 2-3, The Avengers, the good X-Men movies. You're welcome.
On August 02 2012 02:50 Greggle wrote: I thought Bane did an incredible job as a villain, and this is coming from someone who facepalmed when they chose him over The Penguin, Ventriloquist or Black Mask,any one of these guys would be awesome and creepy as fuck when I imagined them making the same transition the Joker did. His motive was well established and deeply woven into the existing story, his plan had a deeper depth and meaning than to simply kill a bunch of people and it was a joy to watch all of Gotham fall so easily to him. I loved that I had fully expected him to blow the shit out of everyone in the stadium only to let them be free. It defied my expectations in every way.
erm... since you seem to understand what Bane was up to, can you explain it? I get that the idea was to "break Batman's spirit" by making him watch his city burn, but his "genius" plan makes him seem more like Dr.Evil than a villain worthy of Batman. I know not everyone can be the Joker, but he has Batman helpless at his feet which basically gives him free reign for any sort of elaborate mental torture he can come up with, and the best he can do is "here, watch from a safe distance while I nuke myself"? What's wrong with just chopping off the Bat-limbs and then lighting a few orphanages on fire?
What I understood is that Bane's goal was similar to that of Raz Al Ghul (whatever the spelling is) from Batman 1. Gotham was past its peak/full of corruption and needed to be destroyed (the whole purpose of the League of Shadows). The League was foiled that time so Bane's back to help finish the job...and kick Batman's ass while he's at it (revenge for killing Raz I guess). I could be wrong though.. : \
Hmm ok, that makes more sense. It's been a while since I saw the first one... I figured just rewatching the second would be enough to refresh me.
On August 02 2012 19:18 Tyree wrote: Spoilers incoming about the ending
I am surprised by how many people thought the ending was ambiguous. Its pretty cut and dry that Alfred really sees Wayne, some deemed it another dream or hallucination. I say, stop watching Inception, not everything in movies is a hallucination or dream.
How can you be against the idea that he put it on autopilot and made it out alive, but perfectly accept many of the absurdities in The Dark Knight? If you put too much detail into movies you will not be able to enjoy it
I doubt Warner Brothers would allow them to "kill" Batman even if Nolan wanted it, which wouldnt fit in with his overall theme for the series. It is their biggest franchise now that Harry Potter movies are finished. Batman as a character in that world is considered dead, which elevates Batman to the status that he wanted since Batman Begins, he is now immortal and uncorruptible, he does more good as "dead" than alive.
Bruce Wayne is still alive, he barely made it and his body is likely broken down. Perfect ending to a uneven trilogy.
I still consider The Animated Series as the de facto Batman experience, that whole world of Gotham feels like the real thing (despite being...a cartoon!?), every other show, movie feels like a interpretation of that. Forget Ledger and Jack, Mark Hamill is the freaking Joker.
The Animated Series + Arkham City+Arkham Asylum games + Nolan Trilogy + Batman (Burton) is what i consider the quintessential Batman in movies, games and shows. Get those and you are set
It's pretty obvious wayne's alive at the end.... remember that quip by one of the engineers that said the autopilot had been fixed months ago by Bruce? lightbulbs should be going off when you hear that
I still thought that was too obvious though, I only needed Michael Caine's reaction to know, would have been a much better and more subtle execution.
On August 03 2012 00:07 corumjhaelen wrote: Spiderman 2-3
The second was a very nice movie, but are you seriously mentionen Spiderman 3 as being good? It might be one of the worst superhero films I have ever seen, mostly because it was such a clusterfuck of heroes and villains, and a super bad Venom portrayal.
That being said, I really enjoyed TDKR, I didn't find it as exciting as TDK but still a very nice and enjoyable film.
On August 03 2012 00:07 corumjhaelen wrote: Spiderman 2-3
The second was a very nice movie, but are you seriously mentionen Spiderman 3 as being good? It might be one of the worst superhero films I have ever seen, mostly because it was such a clusterfuck of heroes and villains, and a super bad Venom portrayal.
That being said, I really enjoyed TDKR, I didn't find it as exciting as TDK but still a very nice and enjoyable film.
I wasn't asked a good movie, I was asked better than TDKR. Spiderman 3 is average, but has some saving features, such as this scene :
I haven't seen them, but I'm confident the two Burton's Batman are better movies than TDKR. Only really good movie in my list is Unbreakable though.
On August 02 2012 02:50 Greggle wrote: I thought Bane did an incredible job as a villain, and this is coming from someone who facepalmed when they chose him over The Penguin, Ventriloquist or Black Mask,any one of these guys would be awesome and creepy as fuck when I imagined them making the same transition the Joker did. His motive was well established and deeply woven into the existing story, his plan had a deeper depth and meaning than to simply kill a bunch of people and it was a joy to watch all of Gotham fall so easily to him. I loved that I had fully expected him to blow the shit out of everyone in the stadium only to let them be free. It defied my expectations in every way.
erm... since you seem to understand what Bane was up to, can you explain it? I get that the idea was to "break Batman's spirit" by making him watch his city burn, but his "genius" plan makes him seem more like Dr.Evil than a villain worthy of Batman. I know not everyone can be the Joker, but he has Batman helpless at his feet which basically gives him free reign for any sort of elaborate mental torture he can come up with, and the best he can do is "here, watch from a safe distance while I nuke myself"? What's wrong with just chopping off the Bat-limbs and then lighting a few orphanages on fire?
What I understood is that Bane's goal was similar to that of Raz Al Ghul (whatever the spelling is) from Batman 1. Gotham was past its peak/full of corruption and needed to be destroyed (the whole purpose of the League of Shadows). The League was foiled that time so Bane's back to help finish the job...and kick Batman's ass while he's at it (revenge for killing Raz I guess). I could be wrong though.. : \
Hmm ok, that makes more sense. It's been a while since I saw the first one... I figured just rewatching the second would be enough to refresh me.
I'm glad it made sense! Imo Nolan ended this trilogy more or less in a satisfying manner. I don't know how others feel about it but I love how it made references/flashbacks to 1 and 2 appropriately during the movie. Also Batman's choice of words to reveal himself to Gordon...I liked that . I guess in the past decade it's usually been the case that sequels often disappoint compared to the original (I direct this at certain superhero movies...but it's also applicable to non-superhero movies) ...but Nolan somehow seems to be good at upping the ante and I applaud him for that.
On August 03 2012 00:07 corumjhaelen wrote: Spiderman 2-3
The second was a very nice movie, but are you seriously mentionen Spiderman 3 as being good? It might be one of the worst superhero films I have ever seen, mostly because it was such a clusterfuck of heroes and villains, and a super bad Venom portrayal.
That being said, I really enjoyed TDKR, I didn't find it as exciting as TDK but still a very nice and enjoyable film.
I wasn't asked a good movie, I was asked better than TDKR. Spiderman 3 is average, but has some saving features, such as this scene : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXOa5bWFRKw I haven't seen them, but I'm confident the two Burton's Batman are better movies than TDKR. Only really good movie in my list is Unbreakable though.
Wait, so spiderman 3 having terrible plot, terrible villains, terrible ending, and terrible fucking emo spiderman scene... and you pick 1 randomly done CGI scene of a bunch of pebbles and sand forming into a man as the saving grace? THE CG WASNT EVEN THAT AMAZING. wow
To those people who are saying Nolan is a great director or that TDK is the best movie ever, I recommend you watch the link below, some nerd breaks down a famous action scene in TDK and shows why it's badly edited/directed etc, this was something that I noticed in TDKR as well, the action sequences are often confusing/a mash up of shots that don't follow one another coherently
On August 03 2012 06:19 mememolly wrote: To those people who are saying Nolan is a great director or that TDK is the best movie ever, I recommend you watch the link below, some nerd breaks down a famous action scene in TDK and shows why it's badly edited/directed etc, this was something that I noticed in TDKR as well, the action sequences are often confusing/a mash up of shots that don't follow one another coherently
If I were a movie director or movie critic with hours on my hands to watch frame by frame, I suspect that I would care about "the axis of action", and "reversal of sides".
I'm not either of those two things, and anyone who says that things like that detract from a quality of a movie is either trying to prove that they are a highly cultured watcher or a person with a degree in filmmaking just pointing out errors in continuity and not attempting to demean the movie.
I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the US government would allow a mass-murdering anarchist to take over a major city for 5 months and do nothing but send in some special forces and then just give up when they fail. Real world: military bombs the shit out of Gotham City and sends in the tanks, Bane's uprising lasts approximately 3 days.
On August 03 2012 07:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the US government would allow a mass-murdering anarchist to take over a major city for 5 months and do nothing but send in some special forces and then just give up when they fail. Real world: military bombs the shit out of Gotham City and sends in the tanks, Bane's uprising lasts approximately 3 days.
So, kill the civilians and cause the activation of the neutron device which kills everyone anyway.
On August 03 2012 06:19 mememolly wrote: To those people who are saying Nolan is a great director or that TDK is the best movie ever, I recommend you watch the link below, some nerd breaks down a famous action scene in TDK and shows why it's badly edited/directed etc, this was something that I noticed in TDKR as well, the action sequences are often confusing/a mash up of shots that don't follow one another coherently
If I were a movie director or movie critic with hours on my hands to watch frame by frame, I suspect that I would care about "the axis of action", and "reversal of sides".
I'm not either of those two things, and anyone who says that things like that detract from a quality of a movie is either trying to prove that they are a highly cultured watcher or a person with a degree in filmmaking just pointing out errors in continuity and not attempting to demean the movie.
so you're not arguing that it wasn't badly shot you're just saying that you don't care? and what is wrong with being a more cultured watcher?
On August 03 2012 07:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the US government would allow a mass-murdering anarchist to take over a major city for 5 months and do nothing but send in some special forces and then just give up when they fail. Real world: military bombs the shit out of Gotham City and sends in the tanks, Bane's uprising lasts approximately 3 days.
"At any sign of intervention from the outside world, the triggerman will set off the bomb"
On August 03 2012 06:19 mememolly wrote: To those people who are saying Nolan is a great director or that TDK is the best movie ever, I recommend you watch the link below, some nerd breaks down a famous action scene in TDK and shows why it's badly edited/directed etc, this was something that I noticed in TDKR as well, the action sequences are often confusing/a mash up of shots that don't follow one another coherently
If I were a movie director or movie critic with hours on my hands to watch frame by frame, I suspect that I would care about "the axis of action", and "reversal of sides".
I'm not either of those two things, and anyone who says that things like that detract from a quality of a movie is either trying to prove that they are a highly cultured watcher or a person with a degree in filmmaking just pointing out errors in continuity and not attempting to demean the movie.
so you're not arguing that it wasn't badly shot you're just saying that you don't care? and what is wrong with being a more cultured watcher?
Continuity between frames does not make a director "best ever", or a movie that lacks it inferior.
Character developement, plot, and execution make a good movie. In the TDK, most of these were exceptional.
So yes, I don't care. And being a cultured watcher is fine, but going to the point of saying that a movie/director are not skilled or great because of continuity breaks and such minor errors is doing a disservice to the movie.
On August 03 2012 07:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: I couldn't suspend my disbelief that the US government would allow a mass-murdering anarchist to take over a major city for 5 months and do nothing but send in some special forces and then just give up when they fail. Real world: military bombs the shit out of Gotham City and sends in the tanks, Bane's uprising lasts approximately 3 days.
"At any sign of intervention from the outside world, the triggerman will set off the bomb"
On August 03 2012 06:19 mememolly wrote: To those people who are saying Nolan is a great director or that TDK is the best movie ever, I recommend you watch the link below, some nerd breaks down a famous action scene in TDK and shows why it's badly edited/directed etc, this was something that I noticed in TDKR as well, the action sequences are often confusing/a mash up of shots that don't follow one another coherently
If I were a movie director or movie critic with hours on my hands to watch frame by frame, I suspect that I would care about "the axis of action", and "reversal of sides".
I'm not either of those two things, and anyone who says that things like that detract from a quality of a movie is either trying to prove that they are a highly cultured watcher or a person with a degree in filmmaking just pointing out errors in continuity and not attempting to demean the movie.
so you're not arguing that it wasn't badly shot you're just saying that you don't care? and what is wrong with being a more cultured watcher?
Continuity between frames does not make a director "best ever", or a movie that lacks it inferior.
Character developement, plot, and execution make a good movie. In the TDK, most of these were exceptional.
So yes, I don't care. And being a cultured watcher is fine, but going to the point of saying that a movie/director are not skilled or great because of continuity breaks and such minor errors is doing a disservice to the movie.
Someone didn't pay attention to the movie (or the trilogy as a whole)... like half the people in this thread.
EPT
. I guess in the past decade it's usually been the case that sequels often disappoint compared to the original (I direct this at certain superhero movies...but it's also applicable to non-superhero movies) ...but Nolan somehow seems to be good at upping the ante and I applaud him for that.
