|
On August 10 2012 13:29 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 10 2012 10:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On August 09 2012 12:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Amusing that half the complainers are talking about how it was a generic action flick, while the others wanted a huge choreographed fight scene. It's just that the movie fails both at storytelling and at filming action, mainly for the same reason : Nolan isn't really good at directing. On the contrary, I feel that Nolan is well above average at filming and directing action. In an industry that's swamped with cheap tactics to hide poor choreography and bad physical acting (shaky cameras, obvious wire work, slow-motion, jerky scene cutting, etc.), Nolan is one of the few that will consistently show fluid action sequences. Given that most of the fights are unreadable because of bad framing and the fact that 99% of Nolan's directing is shot/countershot ie completely uninspired, I'n not sure what film you were watching. If you feel that the fight between Batman and Bane is any close to, for instance, what Raimi did in the Spiderman serie (to give a comparable example), you probably need to rewatch the fight on the train between Spiderman and Doctor Octopus.
Seriously, the Spiderman series? They had bullet time, CG characters, long breaks of non-action with chatter, and very, very little action that involved two actors actually fighting.
The train scene was fun to watch, but it was a blatant gimmick fight. It was all about Spidey flying through train cars and windows, with robot arms chasing him down.
It was certainly the style that Spiderman needs for action sequences, but there's certainly nothing revolutionary or amazing about it. In fact, the style of action is essentially follow-the-leader from the Matrix.
|
On August 10 2012 16:52 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 16:18 Supamang wrote:On August 10 2012 13:29 corumjhaelen wrote:On August 10 2012 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 10 2012 10:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On August 09 2012 12:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Amusing that half the complainers are talking about how it was a generic action flick, while the others wanted a huge choreographed fight scene. It's just that the movie fails both at storytelling and at filming action, mainly for the same reason : Nolan isn't really good at directing. On the contrary, I feel that Nolan is well above average at filming and directing action. In an industry that's swamped with cheap tactics to hide poor choreography and bad physical acting (shaky cameras, obvious wire work, slow-motion, jerky scene cutting, etc.), Nolan is one of the few that will consistently show fluid action sequences. Given that most of the fights are unreadable because of bad framing and the fact that 99% of Nolan's directing is shot/countershot ie completely uninspired, I'n not sure what film you were watching. If you feel that the fight between Batman and Bane is any close to, for instance, what Raimi did in the Spiderman serie (to give a comparable example), you probably need to rewatch the fight on the train between Spiderman and Doctor Octopus. Rewatching it now. It's so unrealistic! I mean, Dr. Octopus throws Spiderman behind him, then somehow Spiderman appears behind Octopus! They break through glass too easily just by jmping throw them. Spiderman gets tossed off the train onto the street and his suit doesnt even rip! It only rips when his muscles are straining? And besides how unrealistic it is, all the movements were so obviously CG it looked corny as hell. Octopus used civilian hostages only once, if he was a real villain why didn't he just hold the entire train hostage and force Spiderman to submit? It wasn't believable in the least and the CGI was just so blatant that I couldn't enjoy any of the action. They ruined what could have been a great battle between Spiderman and one of his greatest nemeses. See? Anything can be made to look or sound like shit. Yet all these TDKR haters seem to think that all their gripes are specific to TDKR. If you go into it expecting it to be lackluster, hell even if you go into the movie hoping it rocks, you will inevitably be picking out even the tiniest things that make it "bad", even if theyre things you would normally just gloss over in a less hyped movie. It's completely ridiculous that people don't recognize this. Edit: Honest opinion, the Spiderman vs Octopus fight was good, but Batman getting his ass royally handed to him by Bane had much more tension and emotional impact. Realism isn't the argument. It never was, even in Batman: the Dark Knight. Why do you think that anyone who found the movie lackluster is pointing out realism? Because that'd be the case with 99% of movies out there. It's not a strong argument.
It's not about realism it's about being logical within the rulesets of the film. And in Spiderman, that fight completely broke all superhero fiction rulesets.
|
|
|
On August 07 2012 17:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote:On August 07 2012 12:59 kwizach wrote: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 esof 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. Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched". Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote:
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 am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me.
Welp, they're supposed to be 3k vs 1k. So that makes it 1,5k vs 1k. And even then, the cops had guns/armor. Not totally improbable.
|
On August 11 2012 11:07 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 17:17 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote:On August 07 2012 12:59 kwizach wrote: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 esof 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. Yes, but that hardly matters, because we can discuss the scene instead of throwing generalizations like "being outgunned is not necessarily being outmatched". On August 07 2012 14:12 Pyskee wrote:
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 am familiar with automatic weapons, and no I certainly don't think that one bullet = one kill. I do believe, though, that the terrorists had more than enough rifles to decimate at least half of the police force before the officers even reached them - if they weren't shooting in the air, that is. I genuinely don't think you'll find anyone that has used automatic weapons before and is familiar with them disagree with me. Welp, they're supposed to be 3k vs 1k. So that makes it 1,5k vs 1k. And even then, the cops had guns/armor. Not totally improbable.
Did you see 1,5k cops die before even reaching the terrorists?
|
As any large-scale riot in a totalitarian nation will show you, a large mass of people charging at heavily armed forces can Zerg rush and overwhelm them.
I'm honestly not sure why this is such an argument, when it's something that's happened frequently in history.
|
I gave it a 7 on IMDB.
It's almost a typical hollywood action movie. It's better of course, some great actors are in it, like Christian Bale and you can tell that the crew really dedicated the time and the money to try make something great. The plot is more expanded, complex, but it lacks that genius touch to make a movie a masterpiece/something worth remembering.
I remembered the words of Einstein:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
While I can see that the director attempted to be unconventional in some situations (f.e. the fight scenes between Batman and Bane in the sewers.), it wasn't really it.
I love movies that have that something special, without neccessarily being all 'grandious'.
(I loved "Drive" for example)
|
On August 11 2012 13:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
As any large-scale riot in a totalitarian nation will show you, a large mass of people charging at heavily armed forces can Zerg rush and overwhelm them.
I'm honestly not sure why this is such an argument, when it's something that's happened frequently in history.
Why can't the marines kite them? Seriously if the rebels all start shooting into the crowd, there would eventually be a pile up in which case that the police wouldn't be able to advance anymore.
|
Just got back from watching it and I gotta say, it was pretty good movie to end the trilogy.
|
Quick answers to the people answered me (I'm on holiday typing on a French Ipad...).
1) The Spiderman scene : I think t's an excellent scene in its own genre (if had to choose a favorite action scene I'd probably go for an Asian movie, but that's beside the point). It shows an asymetric fight, makex use of the setting and of the two fighters different powers. there are some excellent ideas such as the window's stuff, the pacing is good, the camera angle makes it very readable, the impression of speed is well-rendered.
You can call it gimmicky if you want, but that has to do with the genre : it's not supposed to be anywhere realistic, it's supposed to be fun and impressive. I think it manages it really well. Gimmicks and ideas are not the same thing.
Accusing Raimi of copying the Wachowski brothers is not really a strong argument either : The Matrix wasn't an innovative movie in any way, the fight scene were well made but strongly inspired of what you could see in Asian movie before it. Raimi isn't the biggest innovator, but he had some interesting ideas nonetheless.
2) the Bane vs Batman fight. First thing, I'd like to point out that it's the best fight scene in the trilogy, the reason being it's the only readable one. Rewatch Batman Begins, the opening scene of TDKR (the inside part is a mess, the outside part is good) and to a lesser extent the Batman vs Joker fight in the tower and you'll see what I mean.
That being said, in term of action and choregraphy it's really poor. There is absolutely zero visual idea (please provide a counter example, I'm interested), it's a pretty unrealistic (for the fans of realism, personnally I don't mind) "let's see who hits harder" fight scene. Fascinating. There's no opposition of style, while Batman could try to play speed against brute force. It had no emotionnal impact on me either, because the only way it could have worked was through the dialogue which I personnally found extremely cliché and gimmicky, but that's pretty beside the point too.
All in all, I've seen only one true directing idea from Nolan throughout the trilogy + Show Spoiler [try to find one] +the turning camera to symbolize the Joker's madness
I'll conclude with two things : more serious doesn't mean better, and that ended up way longer than intended^^
|
On August 12 2012 09:10 corumjhaelen wrote:Quick answers to the people answered me (I'm on holiday typing on a French Ipad...). 1) The Spiderman scene : I think t's an excellent scene in its own genre (if had to choose a favorite action scene I'd probably go for an Asian movie, but that's beside the point). It shows an asymetric fight, makex use of the setting and of the two fighters different powers. there are some excellent ideas such as the window's stuff, the pacing is good, the camera angle makes it very readable, the impression of speed is well-rendered. You can call it gimmicky if you want, but that has to do with the genre : it's not supposed to be anywhere realistic, it's supposed to be fun and impressive. I think it manages it really well. Gimmicks and ideas are not the same thing. Accusing Raimi of copying the Wachowski brothers is not really a strong argument either : The Matrix wasn't an innovative movie in any way, the fight scene were well made but strongly inspired of what you could see in Asian movie before it. Raimi isn't the biggest innovator, but he had some interesting ideas nonetheless. 2) the Bane vs Batman fight. First thing, I'd like to point out that it's the best fight scene in the trilogy, the reason being it's the only readable one. Rewatch Batman Begins, the opening scene of TDKR (the inside part is a mess, the outside part is good) and to a lesser extent the Batman vs Joker fight in the tower and you'll see what I mean. That being said, in term of action and choregraphy it's really poor. There is absolutely zero visual idea (please provide a counter example, I'm interested), it's a pretty unrealistic (for the fans of realism, personnally I don't mind) "let's see who hits harder" fight scene. Fascinating. There's no opposition of style, while Batman could try to play speed against brute force. It had no emotionnal impact on me either, because the only way it could have worked was through the dialogue which I personnally found extremely cliché and gimmicky, but that's pretty beside the point too. All in all, I've seen only one true directing idea from Nolan throughout the trilogy + Show Spoiler [try to find one] +the turning camera to symbolize the Joker's madness , and it was way overused. I'll conclude with two things : more serious doesn't mean better, and that ended up way longer than intended^^
The cinematography in this movie was gorgeous, probably a frontrunner for an oscar.
I thought the first fight scene with bane had some real fear in it, as you didnt know how far it would go - and the rematch fight was insane, rousing actiin so i disagree. how could you not cheer for batman, they did a great job showing banes power with realistic visuals and then batman wins, which then leads catwoman finishing him, so you don't need a proper death scene ... he already lost. batman says "you have my permission to die."
It's the best comic book movie as it transcends the genre. All ties are together by the end. By far the best acting / visuals /camera work / directing in a comic book movie. I really loved it, probably get it on blu ray (:
|
On August 12 2012 12:10 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 09:10 corumjhaelen wrote:Quick answers to the people answered me (I'm on holiday typing on a French Ipad...). 1) The Spiderman scene : I think t's an excellent scene in its own genre (if had to choose a favorite action scene I'd probably go for an Asian movie, but that's beside the point). It shows an asymetric fight, makex use of the setting and of the two fighters different powers. there are some excellent ideas such as the window's stuff, the pacing is good, the camera angle makes it very readable, the impression of speed is well-rendered. You can call it gimmicky if you want, but that has to do with the genre : it's not supposed to be anywhere realistic, it's supposed to be fun and impressive. I think it manages it really well. Gimmicks and ideas are not the same thing. Accusing Raimi of copying the Wachowski brothers is not really a strong argument either : The Matrix wasn't an innovative movie in any way, the fight scene were well made but strongly inspired of what you could see in Asian movie before it. Raimi isn't the biggest innovator, but he had some interesting ideas nonetheless. 2) the Bane vs Batman fight. First thing, I'd like to point out that it's the best fight scene in the trilogy, the reason being it's the only readable one. Rewatch Batman Begins, the opening scene of TDKR (the inside part is a mess, the outside part is good) and to a lesser extent the Batman vs Joker fight in the tower and you'll see what I mean. That being said, in term of action and choregraphy it's really poor. There is absolutely zero visual idea (please provide a counter example, I'm interested), it's a pretty unrealistic (for the fans of realism, personnally I don't mind) "let's see who hits harder" fight scene. Fascinating. There's no opposition of style, while Batman could try to play speed against brute force. It had no emotionnal impact on me either, because the only way it could have worked was through the dialogue which I personnally found extremely cliché and gimmicky, but that's pretty beside the point too. All in all, I've seen only one true directing idea from Nolan throughout the trilogy + Show Spoiler [try to find one] +the turning camera to symbolize the Joker's madness , and it was way overused. I'll conclude with two things : more serious doesn't mean better, and that ended up way longer than intended^^ The cinematography in this movie was gorgeous, probably a frontrunner for an oscar. I thought the first fight scene with bane had some real fear in it, as you didnt know how far it would go - and the rematch fight was insane, rousing actiin so i disagree. how could you not cheer for batman, they did a great job showing banes power with realistic visuals and then batman wins, which then leads catwoman finishing him, so you don't need a proper death scene ... he already lost. batman says "you have my permission to die." It's the best comic book movie as it transcends the genre. All ties are together by the end. By far the best acting / visuals /camera work / directing in a comic book movie. I really loved it, probably get it on blu ray (:
Marion C's acting was just awful in this movie >.<
Bale's was okay.
Anne Hathaway stopped being sexy midway....
I LOVED Hardy's though all the way until...he got blasted by the Bat motorcycle which was like wtf lame.
The fight scene was alright I guess but they should have not talked at all because Bane's humourous tone sort of killed the intensity mood for me.
Overall for me, the best part was when the Bat was used to draw the missile fire and Anne Hathaway on Motorcycle.
|
Does anyone know how fast "The Bat" would have to travel for the atom bomb to get out of deadly reach within 2 minutes?
|
On August 12 2012 15:14 Gnax wrote:
Does anyone know how fast "The Bat" would have to travel for the atom bomb to get out of deadly reach within 2 minutes?
180 mph
|
Great movie. Most emotional of the three. Tied with TDK for my favorite in the series at the moment. Going to have to see how it holds up to multiple viewings.
It definitely wasn't perfect. Pacing issues and odd passages of time throughout. Too much exposition, a few "wtf" plot moments such as people getting places super fast or traveling long distances unexplained. Bruce recovering from a seemingly broken back in three months via a karate chop and some calisthenics and of course the neutron bomb where it wasn't clear on what Bruce did to get away. Bane's motivation was questionable. But I was still able to put all of that aside and enjoy the movie. There were a lot of "fuck yeah" geekout moments that I love. Batman's first appearance, both Batman vs Bane fights, Batman and Catwoman fighting together and Bruce climbing out of the pit were the big ones. All complimented by Zimmer's score which made them that much sweeter. (except first Bane fight.)
Main standout was Tom Hardy's Bane. I loved his voice and demeanor. Completely atypical. Without question he had some of the best qoutes of any villain in recent memory. "Oh, you think darkness is your ally. You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it." "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." "Theatricality and deception, powerful agents for the uninitiated. But we are initiated, aren't we Bruce?" Plus many more. You would never expect that kind of voice on such a menacing villain. You knew he was tough just looking at him, but once he talked you might also think he graduated from Oxford. Very memorable as he was a true threat not only to Gotham but to Batman as well. He was big reason for the dread and hopeless atmosphere of the movie. Unfortunately a horrible death for such a great villain.
The other standouts were Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway, I knew Anne would be good as she beat out a ton of great actresses for the role and I've seen her acting chops in other movies. I just didn't know what direction Nolan was going with the character so there was still some questions. But she nailed it. Seductive, interesting and badass, great characterization. JGL was great as well. Very likable character that you rooted for throughout the movie. Michel Caine was great as always, a couple tearjerking scenes that helped humanize the characters. And finally Christian Bale, who I think gave his best performance of the trilogy. He really knows this character by now. However, he will never live down that Bat-voice  WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?!?
Now onto the bad. Mathew Modine, why was he here? Not a great performance and the character could have been ditched in favor of more time with Gordon, Selina and Miranda. Marion Cotillard. Her reveal as Talia took all the steam out of Bane and his presence and I feel like it was too late in the movie. Her death scene was laughable as well, I guess Nolan didn't want to do multiple takes? Couldn't help but laugh there. Gary Oldman. He is one of the best living actors but here he was all over the place. Some of the extras with dialogue were awful just like they were in TDK.
The fights were the best in the series. They have gradually improved since Begins where you almost couldn't follow them at all. The first Batman vs Bane fight was chilling. No music, the gaurds and a remorseful Catwoman looking on and Bane's dialogue. However, the choreography left a lot to be desired. These are two guys trained by the League of Shadows (a group of super ninjas) and they stand face-to-face throwing wild haymakers. I would have liked to see Batman a little more agile and elusive. The second and final fight with Bane I thought could have been more grandiose. Batman and Catwoman fighting him together, still getting beat, until Catwoman is pummeled and Batman goes into Hulk Hogan mode? Batman having to resort to his utility belt and gadgets to take Bane down, maybe a John Blake intervention? I don't know, something. Bane should have had a better sendoff and ultimately it should have been Batman who finished him.
Bane's "hell on earth" prison was kind of humorous if you think about it. Friendly prisoners (with doctors and wise old men to help you rehabilitate), gaurds that help you try to escape, and flatscreen TVs on the wall for all to enjoy. It was a nice nod to the Lazarus Pit from Batman lore however, and I totally understand the symbolic nature of what it represented for the character and his arc so it really didn't bother me (rebirth and rediscovering the strength that made him Batman in the first place.)
As for the ending, I loved it. I thought it was a perfect end for Nolan's Batman. Emotionally it was very satisfying. If you try to overanalyze it intellectually you end up doing more harm than good (Is Alfred hallucinating? How and where did Bruce escape the Bat from the bomb blast? How is Blake going to be Batman/Nightwing with no real training or finance? Ect.) Just take it at face value and leave with a smile.
One last note, on the topic of people getting upset with the lack of realism. The reason for this is because since the beginning of the series, Christopher Nolan has stressed that his take on the character is based on the question of "what if Batman existed in real life?" It's why everything related to Batman's costume is explained and why there are no supernatural characters or story elements which are prominent in all Batman lore. If only for that reason it's a legitimate criticism when things get overly fantastical.
|
On August 13 2012 22:40 Obscure wrote:
Now onto the bad. Mathew Modine, why was he here? Not a great performance and the character could have been ditched in favor of more time with Gordon, Selina and Miranda. Marion Cotillard. Her reveal as Talia took all the steam out of Bane and his presence and I feel like it was too late in the movie
Couldn't agree more with your first point, that entire character seemed like a waste of screen time.
As to your second point, how did she die again? I actually simply forgot that part, the last thing I remember from her is flooding the reactor.
The ending would have been much more plausible had Bruce actually died and would have been much more satisfying for me.
Now I will always hope against hope for a sequel, although there won't be one.
|
On August 13 2012 22:54 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 22:40 Obscure wrote:
Now onto the bad. Mathew Modine, why was he here? Not a great performance and the character could have been ditched in favor of more time with Gordon, Selina and Miranda. Marion Cotillard. Her reveal as Talia took all the steam out of Bane and his presence and I feel like it was too late in the movie Couldn't agree more with your first point, that entire character seemed like a waste of screen time. As to your second point, how did she die again? I actually simply forgot that part, the last thing I remember from her is flooding the reactor. The ending would have been much more plausible had Bruce actually died and would have been much more satisfying for me. Now I will always hope against hope for a sequel, although there won't be one.
Broken neck from the truck crashing off the highway.
I enjoyed the movie. Agreed with most of the plotholes/lack of immersion complains that some of the previous posters are mentioning, but I still enjoyed it. Only one thing annoyed me through the whole movie:
Why is there no utility belt action?
As far as I can remember, he pretty much used like 3 utility belt items, each at a different time. He threw some sort of smoke bombs at bane.. threw tranquilizer bat darts, and the little bomb that he gave Robin to throw.
|
This movie builds up suspense until the stadium scene in amazing fashion. But it's very dumb also.
|
On August 12 2012 09:10 corumjhaelen wrote:2) the Bane vs Batman fight. First thing, I'd like to point out that it's the best fight scene in the trilogy, the reason being it's the only readable one. Rewatch Batman Begins, the opening scene of TDKR (the inside part is a mess, the outside part is good) and to a lesser extent the Batman vs Joker fight in the tower and you'll see what I mean. That being said, in term of action and choregraphy it's really poor. There is absolutely zero visual idea (please provide a counter example, I'm interested), it's a pretty unrealistic (for the fans of realism, personnally I don't mind) "let's see who hits harder" fight scene. Fascinating. There's no opposition of style, while Batman could try to play speed against brute force. It had no emotionnal impact on me either, because the only way it could have worked was through the dialogue which I personnally found extremely cliché and gimmicky, but that's pretty beside the point too. All in all, I've seen only one true directing idea from Nolan throughout the trilogy + Show Spoiler [try to find one] +the turning camera to symbolize the Joker's madness , and it was way overused.
I honestly have no clue what you mean by "readable". I've only seen each movie once, but I could still tell you what happened in every single action scene (as long as I haven't forgotten them).
The Bane vs Batman fight was technique vs power. Maybe not to the extremes of some movies, where "raw power" means be a big, slow and dumb, but the fighting styles were drastically different.
The more I read from you, the more I see you trying to justify your personal preferences with some "objective" statement about directing ability. You like Matrix-style action directing. That's fine. But a preference is a preference for a reason.
|
The thing that bothered me the most about the entire trilogy was the fighting. Batman is a slow, clumsy-looking fighter when he is actually shown striking people. So was Bane. The movies were good enough for me to overlook it, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
