|
On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible.
Criticizing bits is fine I guess - but just jumping to this film sucks because of some u realistic scenes - parts is unnecessary. How I view movies is non subjective, if 9 things are great and 1 is poor I don't dwell on that 1 thing. No one can tell me this was a bad movie. I personally loved the rematch fight with bane and showed some serious rousing action, + a really fitting end to the series, batman can now enjoy life beyond batman, robin finds his place etc etc. My only complaint was marions death, as there wasn't a good finish, so her character felt "tacked on"
|
On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible.
Why criticize imperfection when you could enjoy the movie? Yea some movies you simply can't enjoy because they are so disgusting, but most movies aren't that bad. It's a waste of time to be upset at imperfection, because nothing will ever be perfect. Movies are entertainment; they use visual effects accompanied by a plot to stimulate us.
|
On August 07 2012 07:16 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible. Why criticize imperfection when you could enjoy the movie? Yea some movies you simply can't enjoy because they are so disgusting, but most movies aren't that bad. It's a waste of time to be upset at imperfection, because nothing will ever be perfect. Movies are entertainment; they use visual effects accompanied by a plot to stimulate us.
You can enjoy a movie, then come to a discussion forum afterward to point out parts you did not like.
These are not mutually exclusive.
|
On August 07 2012 07:16 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible. Why criticize imperfection when you could enjoy the movie? Yea some movies you simply can't enjoy because they are so disgusting, but most movies aren't that bad. It's a waste of time to be upset at imperfection, because nothing will ever be perfect. Movies are entertainment; they use visual effects accompanied by a plot to stimulate us.
Why not settle for something lower than what you want and how dare you complain when this gap between
what you want and what you received exists?
Jesus christ man. Why criticize anything and why not just be zen with everything - it's not like it's "so disgusting" right? Don't get down on others because your standards for "entertainment" are low enough to be stimulated by a loose plot and special effects. The third movie is the worst out of the trilogy for using too many cliche tropes found in your brainless action flick:
Trite romance x2? Check
Overcomplicated/convenientforhero plot to destroy protagonist's will/body? Check
Hilariously bad death scene x2? Check
Not having the balls to kill off batman to appease general audience? I'll let this one slide a bit but check
Laws of physics bent for good guys? Checkcheckcheckhekchekhcekhckhece~
Those are what occurred to me in the past 30 seconds. I've split this movie apart with my friends because it made itself fallible enough to. I expected an A+ movie and I got a B+/A-. For other people they got C's or even F's from it. I don't blame them. Nolan went Hollywood on his fans and tried to do too much shit without making sure it was all 100% coherent. Don't start getting philosophical though just because people want to express their disappointment.
|
It's not that TDKR is a bad movie. On it's own merits, I think it's quite a good movie. It's certainly better than a lot of other action flicks.
But people saw TDK and went in expecting another amazing movie and only got a decent one. For a lot of them, the disappointment makes it worse than just seeing a bad movie.
|
On August 06 2012 16:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 13:09 Pyskee wrote:A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion.... Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill. No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily.
How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits.
The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
|
On August 07 2012 07:58 SwizzY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 07:16 FeUerFlieGe wrote:On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible. Why criticize imperfection when you could enjoy the movie? Yea some movies you simply can't enjoy because they are so disgusting, but most movies aren't that bad. It's a waste of time to be upset at imperfection, because nothing will ever be perfect. Movies are entertainment; they use visual effects accompanied by a plot to stimulate us. Why not settle for something lower than what you want and how dare you complain when this gap between what you want and what you received exists? Jesus christ man. Why criticize anything and why not just be zen with everything - it's not like it's "so disgusting" right? Don't get down on others because your standards for "entertainment" are low enough to be stimulated by a loose plot and special effects. The third movie is the worst out of the trilogy for using too many cliche tropes found in your brainless action flick: Trite romance x2? Check Overcomplicated/convenientforhero plot to destroy protagonist's will/body? Check Hilariously bad death scene x2? Check Not having the balls to kill off batman to appease general audience? I'll let this one slide a bit but check Laws of physics bent for good guys? Checkcheckcheckhekchekhcekhckhece~ Those are what occurred to me in the past 30 seconds. I've split this movie apart with my friends because it made itself fallible enough to. I expected an A+ movie and I got a B+/A-. For other people they got C's or even F's from it. I don't blame them. Nolan went Hollywood on his fans and tried to do too much shit without making sure it was all 100% coherent. Don't start getting philosophical though just because people want to express their disappointment.
Your so mad about a poorly acted / anti climactic death scene, a few parts where the action on the screen seemed unbelievable, a romance that wasn't thoroughly explained yet didn't have much to do with the greater plot (Bruce is a playboy, btw), a romance that actually made sense if you payed attention, the part that actually made Bane a good villan by attempting to break Bruce's spirit, and the main character's lack of dying that created a very emotionally powerful conclusion. And because of that you didn't even notice how deep the overall story was, especially when you tie it in with the other two movies.
Don't tell me I enjoy "brainless action flicks" when you're so preoccupied with trivial little details you can't even see what's underneath. If you want a good action movie with a slightly bigger focus on a slightly more complicated romance, no overcomplicated/ convenientforhero plot, kick ass death scenes, lots and lots of death, and... well the laws of physics are bent but not not just for the good guys, I recommend Transformers. Pick any one of the three.
Actually, forget what I said. I think you're just anal.
|
On August 07 2012 06:59 WniO wrote:My only complaint was marions death, as there wasn't a good finish, so her character felt "tacked on"
I honestly have no idea why so many people have an issue with her death. She was driving a semi-truck without a seat belt, and it fell 3 meters and crashed into pavement front-first.
Is it the Coconut effect or something? Car crashes are completely non-lethal, major characters have to get shot in the face five times before they can give their last speech, the human body can bleed out fifteen gallons of blood and you can still drag your body five miles away, etc.
I mean, I'm entirely perplexed about what kind of death scene people were wanting. The bomb to go off? Batman to shoot her? Was there supposed to be a ten minute fight scene from someone who hadn't even shot a single bullet the entire movie?
And I'm not sure how she could feel tacked on. She felt obvious, which is a complaint that I can understand, but she's fairly key to the plot.
|
United States4471 Posts
Cotillard's death scene did not stand out to me either way. Maybe I just don't pay enough attention when watching movies, but I was honestly surprised by how big of a negative reaction she's received in this thread for her acting in that scene. I'm not saying it was great or even good, but I don't think it was bad enough to warrant the attention it's had.
|
I kind of feel let down but overall I left the theater with a good feeling. While it would have been a risky ending to let batman die or do another open to interpretation ending like in Inception (which I think is better somewhat) because it makes you think.
It's kind of a bitter-sweet ending to the trilogy - having it continue with more movies would have made it stale and the ending left a bitter taste in my mouth. Like there was so much more to these characters that was never used or even tapped into.
Morgan Freeman wasn't as witty as he was in the former movies. The acting seemed to rest on laurels of the past movies.
It's sad that 'cat-woman' was the best actor in this movie...her character had more depth than even Christian Bale it seemed.
Mixed emotions about who she is, trying to erase a dirty past. Doing bad and good things at the same time.
I think the twist at the end while it made sense kind of ruined the movie for me. The idea of latent revenge is a bit dated these days.
Banes character fluctuated in cool-ness way too much. When he took over the city and started talking too much I almost felt like falling asleep. It was too long winded - almost like tom hardy was begging for more air time or something.
When he made quick witty comments like in the prelude he was quite well done.
Anyway overall I give it an 8/10 Michael Cane almost made me cry at the end!
|
On August 07 2012 06:50 riotjune wrote:
Now I actually want to see this movie just to see how bad it really is lol
I just saw it with my girlfriend. Long story short, it made me really really really miss Heath Ledger.
The most exciting part for me- out of the entire movie- was when:
+ Show Spoiler +My call that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was Robin- confirmed during the last two minutes of the entire movie- actually came about. And that's after Christian Bale somehow lived through an atomic bomb, and went prancing off with Anne Hathaway -______-
|
I don't think you need to spoiler the movie, there's spoilers everywhere on the thread. Also I watched it again on saturdaym and I enjoyed it more than the first time(I loved the movie the first time, though). Talia's death was pretty bad the first time I watched it, but the second time for some reason I thought it was ok.
|
On August 07 2012 09:09 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Cotillard's death scene did not stand out to me either way. Maybe I just don't pay enough attention when watching movies, but I was honestly surprised by how big of a negative reaction she's received in this thread for her acting in that scene. I'm not saying it was great or even good, but I don't think it was bad enough to warrant the attention it's had.
It was the only thing that kinda bothered me while watching, just because the movie where she won her Oscar was so amazing on her part, that last scene was just idk...
Edit: also wtf was up with the lesbian undertones with selina Kyle or was that just some kid she raised?
|
On August 07 2012 10:09 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 09:09 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Cotillard's death scene did not stand out to me either way. Maybe I just don't pay enough attention when watching movies, but I was honestly surprised by how big of a negative reaction she's received in this thread for her acting in that scene. I'm not saying it was great or even good, but I don't think it was bad enough to warrant the attention it's had. Edit: also wtf was up with the lesbian undertones with selina Kyle or was that just some kid she raised?
If you ever watched the Animated Series, you might remember a character named Holly Robinson, who is essentially Selina Kyle's sidekick. Might also recognize her from the comics...or, I suppose Arkham Asylum.
Credits list her randomly as "Jenny", but yeah...the blond girl is essentially Holly Robinson.
|
On August 07 2012 09:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:50 riotjune wrote:
Now I actually want to see this movie just to see how bad it really is lol I just saw it with my girlfriend. Long story short, it made me really really really miss Heath Ledger. The most exciting part for me- out of the entire movie- was when: + Show Spoiler +My call that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was Robin- confirmed during the last two minutes of the entire movie- actually came about. And that's after Christian Bale somehow lived through an atomic bomb, and went prancing off with Anne Hathaway -______-
I don't think he actually survived the atomic bomb. He fixed the autopilot and just wanted everyone to think he is dead. I believe there's a scene where people talk to Fox about such a thing a bit later on as well (the autopilot is fixed, edited by Bruce Wayne).
|
On August 07 2012 09:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 06:50 riotjune wrote:
Now I actually want to see this movie just to see how bad it really is lol I just saw it with my girlfriend. Long story short, it made me really really really miss Heath Ledger. The most exciting part for me- out of the entire movie- was when: + Show Spoiler +My call that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was Robin- confirmed during the last two minutes of the entire movie- actually came about. And that's after Christian Bale somehow lived through an atomic bomb, and went prancing off with Anne Hathaway -______-
He survived the atomic bomb because autopilot. How did you miss that part?
|
On August 07 2012 08:33 Pyskee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 16:18 kwizach wrote:On August 04 2012 13:09 Pyskee wrote:A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion.... Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill. No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily. How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits. The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir.
Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy.
The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part of the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
|
On August 07 2012 08:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 07:58 SwizzY wrote:On August 07 2012 07:16 FeUerFlieGe wrote:On August 07 2012 06:44 Dfgj wrote:On August 07 2012 06:04 WniO wrote:
Ah finally watched it. God you guys complain about the dumbest things. Its like you expect every movie to be perfect. I don't see the problem with criticizing imperfections, or wanting things to be as good as possible. Why criticize imperfection when you could enjoy the movie? Yea some movies you simply can't enjoy because they are so disgusting, but most movies aren't that bad. It's a waste of time to be upset at imperfection, because nothing will ever be perfect. Movies are entertainment; they use visual effects accompanied by a plot to stimulate us. Why not settle for something lower than what you want and how dare you complain when this gap between what you want and what you received exists? Jesus christ man. Why criticize anything and why not just be zen with everything - it's not like it's "so disgusting" right? Don't get down on others because your standards for "entertainment" are low enough to be stimulated by a loose plot and special effects. The third movie is the worst out of the trilogy for using too many cliche tropes found in your brainless action flick: Trite romance x2? Check Overcomplicated/convenientforhero plot to destroy protagonist's will/body? Check Hilariously bad death scene x2? Check Not having the balls to kill off batman to appease general audience? I'll let this one slide a bit but check Laws of physics bent for good guys? Checkcheckcheckhekchekhcekhckhece~ Those are what occurred to me in the past 30 seconds. I've split this movie apart with my friends because it made itself fallible enough to. I expected an A+ movie and I got a B+/A-. For other people they got C's or even F's from it. I don't blame them. Nolan went Hollywood on his fans and tried to do too much shit without making sure it was all 100% coherent. Don't start getting philosophical though just because people want to express their disappointment. Your so mad about a poorly acted / anti climactic death scene, a few parts where the action on the screen seemed unbelievable, a romance that wasn't thoroughly explained yet didn't have much to do with the greater plot (Bruce is a playboy, btw), a romance that actually made sense if you payed attention, the part that actually made Bane a good villan by attempting to break Bruce's spirit, and the main character's lack of dying that created a very emotionally powerful conclusion. And because of that you didn't even notice how deep the overall story was, especially when you tie it in with the other two movies. Don't tell me I enjoy "brainless action flicks" when you're so preoccupied with trivial little details you can't even see what's underneath. If you want a good action movie with a slightly bigger focus on a slightly more complicated romance, no overcomplicated/ convenientforhero plot, kick ass death scenes, lots and lots of death, and... well the laws of physics are bent but not not just for the good guys, I recommend Transformers. Pick any one of the three. Actually, forget what I said. I think you're just anal.
In some sense you're right. I jumped into the context of your replies to someone else and saw your statement all by it's lonesome and attacked it. That's actually quite anal and I apologize.
But I hope you realize that I still think the movie is good. Very good in fact. But for me, personally, it is not great like I wished. I'm not "so mad" that a movie took liberties with it's death scenes, action scenes, hell even it's romances. Even though you cannot sit there in your seat and calmly say that it fleshed each of them out properly (or maybe you can and you'll take that comment as flamebait for another ragefilled reply, I don't really know).
I'm mad that, in the context of my favorite superhero movie, TDK, and a fantastic origin story in Begins, TDKR didn't hit the notes I wanted it to hit. And for a trilogy that could've possibly been one of my all-time favorite, expectations were high. For the aforementioned reasons and more. You can't change that and neither can I. But I'm allowed to express my disappointment thankfully, regardless of how valiantly you claim people shouldn't and should just "enjoy" something. I'm able to enjoy something and criticize it at the same time. Maybe I'm fucked up but I can do that. Can you?
Btw, I loved the first Transformers. And I hated the shit out of the next two. I never figured out the reason but I stopped caring to find out why the editing and set pieces felt so thrown together and so retarded in the second two (my guess is the choppy editing and horrible one-liners). Who knows. All I know is I will never buy another movie ticket for something directed by Michael Bay again (fuck TMNT reboot). But I digress.
EDIT - And calm down man. I never said you liked "brainless action flicks." I said that common plot devices/tropes that are found in brainless action flicks are found in this movie, of which I list out. Most movies use these devices to some extent, but TDKR has alot of them which feel tacked on.
|
On August 07 2012 12:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 08:33 Pyskee wrote:On August 06 2012 16:18 kwizach wrote:On August 04 2012 13:09 Pyskee wrote:A crowd charging into a line of people with automatic weapons, though? I know it's a minor thing, but that totally blew my suspension of disbelief. I saw that, and literally thought "welp, that's retarded, every one of those people would be dead in about 30 seconds". It just ruined my immersion.... Yeah? You know a lot about charging into gun fire? Just look at D Day. The Allies charged into far greater fire power and far greater positioning and still got it done. Automatic weapons can jam, run out of ammo, miss, etc... Not to mention only the first and maybe second row of guys could fire and that street was pretty narrow. That many guys charging forward would certainly not be gunned down by a dozen or so assault rifles. Not every bullet = one kill. No offense, but I don't think you know a lot about charging into gun fire. The Allies' landing on D-DAY had nothing to do with this in terms of positioning. The cops should never have been able to come even close to the terrorists - the fact that the street was pretty narrow is precisely why the cops should have been moved down pretty easily. How so? Their firepower wasn't anything spectacular. A handful of assault rifles that hold 30 rounds at a time? Killing every cop within the amount of time it takes them to sprint 50-100 yards with assault rifles? Yeah right. Even if every bullet they had did equal a kill, I doubt they had enough ammunition. Sure, D-Day had wider beaches, but they were also landing on Higgins boats that were about four people wide. I'd call that narrow. The Germans had heavy, belt-fed machine guns in hill-top, fortified bunkers, mortars, and snipers and eventually the Allies made it up the beach anyway because they threw enough people on it (obviously there's more to it than that, but you get the idea). Guns are powerful, but even they have limits. The first few rows of cops would probably be dead, yeah. It was even shown in the movie a bunch of them dropping. But killing several thousand people with assault rifles? No sir. Please, just drop the D-Day comparison. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with the scene we're discussing. It is, quite simply, a terrible analogy. The firepower of the terrorists, as displayed in the movie, was more than sufficient to mow down a good part of the cops who were stupid enough to all line up in a single narrow street. This should be apparent to anyone familiar with automatic rifles such as those wielded by the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's exactly like D-Day, but I'm saying that just because someone is outgunned does not mean they're outmatched.
You're obviously not familiar with automatic weapons then because you think that one bullet = one kill. If those tanks were working, then yeah, the cops would have been fucked. But that Bat or whatever disabled those somehow and so all the terrorists were left with was a couple of rifles. 30 rounds in a few seconds. Reload. Oh shit, they ran 50 yards in that amount of time. Really not that difficult.
|
I loved the movie (and as I say this as a batman fan, from the comics, and as another film goer). It was epic.
A cinematic masterpiece, and a fantastic conclusion to the trilogy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
