On August 14 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote: Oh, I didn't bother with this topic when I first watched the movie, but I might as well now. I should first of all say that my viewing of the movie was tainted because the video kept disappearing and then they had to rewind a part, but we already heard what would happen because the audio kept working. In the end we got a free ticket + our money back, so it was okay, but it didn't help my impression and two thirds into the movie I was quite willing to walk away if not for the person I came with wanting to finish the movie.
In any case, I thought the movie was complete garbage and at multiple points I could almost not stop laughing at how predictable and dumb everything was. I definitely think I was jaded though, I even thought Caine's emotional moments as Alfred were fake and annoying when I know that a lot of people cried and broke down those scenes.
I don't know if my impression is really fair and if it would hold up to multiple viewings and I'm not sure whether I can really justify it in this post, but it was just how I felt while watching. I'm in general not a huge fan of the recent batman movies and I think that they're not only overrated, but they seem to have inspired this vaguely fascist impulse among the fans to send death threats to anyone giving a negative review. Which is hardly surprising, since the movies do seem kind of pro-fascist, what with promoting things like The Big Lie, The End Justifies the Means, Mass Surveillance Systems, Have Faith in the Rich, Don't Trust The Mob. (not to mention that the villain of the movie is an environmentalist and that her army is based on the occupy movement)
I'm also sick to death of this recent trend where comic book movies become so pretentious and acquire such a massive following that everyone gets forced to start taking them seriously as high art. I wouldn't mind the batman movies so much if they weren't so nauseatingly serious about what is a very silly premise clad in the sort of standard action movie plot that you could also find in something like Mission Impossible. Except that with Batman everything has to be all symbolic and the like, as if it's all a larger than life opera. But I'm sorry, just because Nolan is smart enough to come up with some themes that have some depth to them, doesn't make them particularly good. You can't have it both ways, you can't defend the movie by saying it's just a comic book adaption and then at the same time force everyone to bow down to the depth and complexity of it all. Because if we are supposed to take Nolan's vision seriously, then I also feel like I should be able to point out that his themes don't really hold up when compared to those of directors with real artistic talent. (seriously, compare the batman trilogy to the Godfather trilogy)
And how is it that an eccentric millionaire with ties to weapon research & manufacturing can show up in Gotham City at the exact same time as Batman, who uses all sorts of hyper sophisticated equipment, and nobody even bothers to make the connection that Batman might be Bruce Wayne? I mean, his playboy act is not that convincing.
I also feel that if Bruce Wayne is so rich and smart, then he should be able to afford a stun gun to help with people like Bane. >.<
You call the Batman trilogy "pretentious". Based on what? The fact that it's a superhero movie that has a serious tone? Get out of here dude, stop being so closed minded. Are you gonna say you don't like Pixar films either because theyre cartoony kiddy movies that actually have serious moments in the too? I've never heard people call Pixar films "pretentious", and yet it does the same thing as Batman: namely, taking a genre of movies that have traditionally been confined to more light-hearted plots and actually making it accessible to a broader, more mature audience.
Seriously, every time I've asked someone why they thought Batman was pretentious I've never heard a solid reason. Some people are like you in that they think comic book/super hero movies shouldn't be serious (really though, why the fuck not? I dont get a good answer for that question ever either), some people are just haters and they dislike anything that has a large fanbase (whether its the Batman trilogy or just Christopher Nolan in general), some people are movie snobs and end up making pointless comparisons to movies like the Godfather as reasons why Batman can't possibly be a good movie (its like politicians constantly invoking Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt, or repeating talking points and key words like "freedom").
Maybe youre just not happy with how heavy handed the themes were presented. I'll give you that much, Christopher Nolan could have been more subtle about them. Given any other time, the whole "giving Gotham back to the people" theme would have been fine, but considering all the OWS shit going on it just seems a little too blatant.
On August 14 2012 07:53 Grumbels wrote: Oh, I didn't bother with this topic when I first watched the movie, but I might as well now. I should first of all say that my viewing of the movie was tainted because the video kept disappearing and then they had to rewind a part, but we already heard what would happen because the audio kept working. In the end we got a free ticket + our money back, so it was okay, but it didn't help my impression and two thirds into the movie I was quite willing to walk away if not for the person I came with wanting to finish the movie.
In any case, I thought the movie was complete garbage and at multiple points I could almost not stop laughing at how predictable and dumb everything was. I definitely think I was jaded though, I even thought Caine's emotional moments as Alfred were fake and annoying when I know that a lot of people cried and broke down those scenes.
I don't know if my impression is really fair and if it would hold up to multiple viewings and I'm not sure whether I can really justify it in this post, but it was just how I felt while watching. I'm in general not a huge fan of the recent batman movies and I think that they're not only overrated, but they seem to have inspired this vaguely fascist impulse among the fans to send death threats to anyone giving a negative review. Which is hardly surprising, since the movies do seem kind of pro-fascist, what with promoting things like The Big Lie, The End Justifies the Means, Mass Surveillance Systems, Have Faith in the Rich, Don't Trust The Mob. (not to mention that the villain of the movie is an environmentalist and that her army is based on the occupy movement)
I'm also sick to death of this recent trend where comic book movies become so pretentious and acquire such a massive following that everyone gets forced to start taking them seriously as high art. I wouldn't mind the batman movies so much if they weren't so nauseatingly serious about what is a very silly premise clad in the sort of standard action movie plot that you could also find in something like Mission Impossible. Except that with Batman everything has to be all symbolic and the like, as if it's all a larger than life opera. But I'm sorry, just because Nolan is smart enough to come up with some themes that have some depth to them, doesn't make them particularly good. You can't have it both ways, you can't defend the movie by saying it's just a comic book adaption and then at the same time force everyone to bow down to the depth and complexity of it all. Because if we are supposed to take Nolan's vision seriously, then I also feel like I should be able to point out that his themes don't really hold up when compared to those of directors with real artistic talent. (seriously, compare the batman trilogy to the Godfather trilogy)
And how is it that an eccentric millionaire with ties to weapon research & manufacturing can show up in Gotham City at the exact same time as Batman, who uses all sorts of hyper sophisticated equipment, and nobody even bothers to make the connection that Batman might be Bruce Wayne? I mean, his playboy act is not that convincing.
I also feel that if Bruce Wayne is so rich and smart, then he should be able to afford a stun gun to help with people like Bane. >.<
You call the Batman trilogy "pretentious". Based on what? The fact that it's a superhero movie that has a serious tone? Get out of here dude, stop being so closed minded. Are you gonna say you don't like Pixar films either because theyre cartoony kiddy movies that actually have serious moments in the too? I've never heard people call Pixar films "pretentious", and yet it does the same thing as Batman: namely, taking a genre of movies that have traditionally been confined to more light-hearted plots and actually making it accessible to a broader, more mature audience.
Seriously, every time I've asked someone why they thought Batman was pretentious I've never heard a solid reason. Some people are like you in that they think comic book/super hero movies shouldn't be serious (really though, why the fuck not? I dont get a good answer for that question ever either), some people are just haters and they dislike anything that has a large fanbase (whether its the Batman trilogy or just Christopher Nolan in general), some people are movie snobs and end up making pointless comparisons to movies like the Godfather as reasons why Batman can't possibly be a good movie (its like politicians constantly invoking Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt, or repeating talking points and key words like "freedom").
Maybe youre just not happy with how heavy handed the themes were presented. I'll give you that much, Christopher Nolan could have been more subtle about them. Given any other time, the whole "giving Gotham back to the people" theme would have been fine, but considering all the OWS shit going on it just seems a little too blatant.
Bleh, ranted again in this thread...
I dislike the movies because they feel like a horrible cross between comic book camp (bat cave, suit, cat woman, Wayne/Batman shtich) and a serious grimdark movie about struggle/development/politics. It's hard to take a movie seriously when there's borderline stupid super hero stuff in there like the wall street heist (progress bar stealing all da moniez), and then suddenly there's deep moments where batman has to come to grips with himself and what he is.
Either you go full serious and drop the PG13 and blockbuster pretentions OR you make a super hero movie. The new Batman movies feel, to me, like a disfigured hybrid that fails on both parts. That's my opinion and i get it if others don't agree.
Never mind the fact that i think the movie itself has way to many plotholes, and i feel like Nolan movies often feature storylines and character choices that only make sense because he forces them to. Like Two face and Joker scene.
I found the whole "torture Batman and gotham" thing to be pretentious as it's way to elaborate and borderline stupid.
Which is hardly surprising, since the movies do seem kind of pro-fascist, what with promoting things like The Big Lie, The End Justifies the Means, Mass Surveillance Systems, Have Faith in the Rich, Don't Trust The Mob. (not to mention that the villain of the movie is an environmentalist and that her army is based on the occupy movement)
Definately anti-leftist, hardly pro-fascist. I mean, cmon ... since when have a group of OWS protestors ever been the bad guys in a film? Where rich guys actually aren't evil villains for the most part? Where the great coming out of the little guy isn't a big protagonist moment or climax? The identity of the struggling factions aren't new in the grand sense of the word, but for recent cinema, it stands out.
Just watched this for the first time a few days ago, I'm seemingly the only person who liked it (9/10) or thought that Bane's voice was extremely bad ass. Idk why, I just felt it fit the character; it didn't make him sound brutish and dumb, rather intelligent and calculated.
I had the opposite view the movie overall was awesome but Anne Hathaway was terrible she could not sell a scene to save her life. I was actually hoping her character would be killed. All I saw was a Angsty Teen/Princess actress trying to be an action hero and failing miserably.
I think Anne Hathaway's Catwoman beats Michelle Pfeiffer's any day of the week. That being said, I enjoy watching Anne Hathaway for reasons other than her acting ability
On December 31 2012 04:03 darthfoley wrote: Just watched this for the first time a few days ago, I'm seemingly the only person who liked it (9/10) or thought that Bane's voice was extremely bad ass. Idk why, I just felt it fit the character; it didn't make him sound brutish and dumb, rather intelligent and calculated.
I also love Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway
Yeah, Bane was amazing. Everything else, kind of terrible. To me it wasn't worth watching. I'm not much of a movie watcher anyway so the movie has to be pretty fucking amazing for me to watch it.
I really dislike this movie, but of all the things wrong with it, I think the fact that it for some reason took place in NYC (essentially) annoys me the most. I don't get it. Was it just to save money or something? Gotham was always a dark mysterious character in itself. This time it was just... the most recognizable city / movie set in the world. Horrible.
On December 31 2012 05:26 DannyJ wrote: I really dislike this movie, but of all the things wrong with it, I think the fact that it for some reason took place in NYC (essentially) annoys me the most. I don't get it. Was it just to save money or something? Gotham was always a dark mysterious character in itself. This time it was just... the most recognizable city / movie set in the world. Horrible.
The fact that much of the movie's action took place during the daytime took a lot of the Batman franchise's luster away from it, in my opinion, as well.
On December 31 2012 05:26 DannyJ wrote: I really dislike this movie, but of all the things wrong with it, I think the fact that it for some reason took place in NYC (essentially) annoys me the most. I don't get it. Was it just to save money or something? Gotham was always a dark mysterious character in itself. This time it was just... the most recognizable city / movie set in the world. Horrible.
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure "Gotham" was even a nickname for NYC before the first Batman comic was written, and although the city itself is supposed to be fictional, Batman editor and writer Dennis O'Neal says ""Batman's Gotham City is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at eleven minutes past midnight on the coldest night in November." I guess the cinematography could have hid the filming location a bit more, but what a silly complaint......
Edit: Prae is right on, I think the identity of the city works far better when covered in night.
The only thing I didn't like was the kidnapping the entire city thing. Felt a bit too random for me, didn't really understand their motivation to do that instead of just destroying it right away. The joker was just fucking nuts so that was enough for me last movie.
On December 31 2012 05:47 Paperplane wrote: The only thing I didn't like was the kidnapping the entire city thing. Felt a bit too random for me, didn't really understand their motivation to do that instead of just destroying it right away. The joker was just fucking nuts so that was enough for me last movie.
Honestly everything about Banes plan relied on people making very stupid decisions such as sending every cop in the city underground and coincidence and luck that The Dark Knight didnt have. If Bane had had a less stupid plan it might have made entire movie much better; well that and if they cut out Alfred crying.
I'm not a film maker or anything, and this is just my opinion, but there are spoilers, so if you haven't seen it you should probably not read any further:
<Some spoilers> I feel like every one of these Batman's has had too much going on in them, and they've all suffered sightly because of it. The Dark Night suffering the least (rushed ending for Two-Face, imo - Could have gotten more out of the character), Batman Begins suffering moderately (I thought Scarecrow really had an odd fitting in relation to the crime bosses and the League of Shadows - Kind of an intermediary that neither side should really like), and the Dark Knight Rises suffering the most (I can't believe that they had all the sulking in the beginning and they still broke his back, which was so far into the movie, imo, again, beyond the twist and Dent drama).
The movie was just so busy... and way too much of it goes on during the day, and Alfred really does spoiler the whole thing like 10 minutes in... I hated the notion of driving a neutron bomb around the city streets for 5 months.
The whole thing peaked with the Joker, and while TDKR could have topped it, it really didn't, imo, and simplifying it in certain ways could have made it stronger and better.
I wouldn't mind if he made 6 movies, but of course you have the sad dilemma of Mr. Ledger not being alive, and without more appearances of that excellent Joker performance the series seems gimped. Thanks.
I mean what else is there to say? Bane beats the shit out of Batman, but he leaves Bruce essentially unguarded in a hole to "suffer," allowing him to escape on his own power and make a dramatic comeback. James Bond, anyone? Bane kills a good number of people, but "traps" all the cops instead of just killing them, so they can be rescued by Bruce later? Convenient! Talia could have killed Bruce when she fucked him, but nah. Bruce lost all of his money in the stock market... how did he get all the way back to the US? And then, get into Gotham unnoticed? All without money? Bane's death was pretty lame. Talia's death was hilariously bad. Also, Bruce won't kill anyone, but he blew up the overpass in front of the tanker and Talia crashed down and died. He killed Talia! HE KILLED HER! This is not mentioned or acknowledged.
TDK: Crazy guy kills a lot of people and fucks with the city and the status quo for shits and giggles. TDKR: Not so insane revenge seekers obsess over Gotham and Batman and create an incredibly elaborate and convoluted plan full of opportunities for failure, ignoring the countless chances to simply finish the job, because I guess the movie wouldn't be long enough.
And the final fight scene. Everyone's guns apparently run out of ammo in a few minutes, and violence is reduced to G-rated fist-fighting. Yeah! Sure!
On December 31 2012 05:26 DannyJ wrote: I really dislike this movie, but of all the things wrong with it, I think the fact that it for some reason took place in NYC (essentially) annoys me the most. I don't get it. Was it just to save money or something? Gotham was always a dark mysterious character in itself. This time it was just... the most recognizable city / movie set in the world. Horrible.
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure "Gotham" was even a nickname for NYC before the first Batman comic was written, and although the city itself is supposed to be fictional, Batman editor and writer Dennis O'Neal says ""Batman's Gotham City is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at eleven minutes past midnight on the coldest night in November." I guess the cinematography could have hid the filming location a bit more, but what a silly complaint......
Edit: Prae is right on, I think the identity of the city works far better when covered in night.
I've never seen a batman, comic, movie, or otherwise literally take place in New York City (a place we've seen a million times before) or at least anything that looked100% like it in totality with landmarks and all. That includes the first 2 movies of THIS trilogy. I'm sure there are some examples of it in some comics, but I think for a movie that's a bad idea. The Gotham in Batman Begins was vastly more interesting and totally different. I can see it maybe working if they did keep it to a lower manhattan type area like described (much like batman begins did), but that's only a very small portion of the vast generic city this movie showed.
On December 31 2012 05:26 DannyJ wrote: I really dislike this movie, but of all the things wrong with it, I think the fact that it for some reason took place in NYC (essentially) annoys me the most. I don't get it. Was it just to save money or something? Gotham was always a dark mysterious character in itself. This time it was just... the most recognizable city / movie set in the world. Horrible.
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure "Gotham" was even a nickname for NYC before the first Batman comic was written, and although the city itself is supposed to be fictional, Batman editor and writer Dennis O'Neal says ""Batman's Gotham City is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at eleven minutes past midnight on the coldest night in November." I guess the cinematography could have hid the filming location a bit more, but what a silly complaint......
Edit: Prae is right on, I think the identity of the city works far better when covered in night.
I've never seen a batman, comic, movie, or otherwise literally take place in New York City (a place we've seen a million times before) or at least anything that looked100% like it in totality with landmarks and all. That includes the first 2 movies of THIS trilogy. I'm sure there are some examples of it in some comics, but I think for a movie that's a bad idea. The Gotham in Batman Begins was vastly more interesting and totally different. I can see it maybe working if they did keep it to a lower manhattan type area like described (much like batman begins did), but that's only a very small portion of the vast generic city this movie showed.
Well the first two were filmed in Chicago mostly while the third centered filming around Manhattan iirc, so you may be on to something there.
Batman takes place in Gotham, NYC is mention as different city, so is Metropolis and other cities of US
I dont like Batman in daylight Catwoman was amazing. Her acting when she meets Bruce was perfect 11/10 Cops had stupid orders Jumping without rope was little bit stupid (ofc you cant reach it while the rope is short :D) Hate Joker love Bane / Two-face I still cant believe that I didnt know that Talia is in League. Read comics and played games so I felt really stupid (Still do) Talias last scene was the worst in history of everything Batman talking Batmanish to himself and I even think he talks too much (So this is how it feels / This isnt just a car :Dlol) Banes 1st line WAS AMAZING ! 11/10 When Batman fights Bane for the 1st time His mask took some hits but nothing happened (But Im being little bit silly here)
Just saw it again on blu-ray and it's a little better than when I first saw it at the cinema, but not by much. Most of the nitpicky flaws I've made peace with (more like learned to ignore), but there are larger problems with the film I still can't come to terms with. Those are:
- The film is basically a bond flick, which is not surprising since Nolan has previously mentioned how much he loves them. If you look closer at it though, there are uncanny similarities with TDKR and one particular bond film: The World is Not Enough. The nuclear threat, the hero's downfall & rising, the seemingly unfeeling, brutal villain who turns out to be a lovesick puppy, the romantic interest who turns out to be the mastermind, and a few other smaller things. Now, I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental, but that doesn't change the fact that Nolan's 3rd take of Batman seems remarkably bondish. This is particularly disappointing when you look at it's predecessor and what it achieved, or at least tried to. A dark and gritty crime drama/thriller. I know it still contained a few fantastical elements, but overall, it tried to cast off the comic book adaptation label and become something more. And one cannot deny that it did succeed, though by how much is open to discussion. It's just such a shame that Nolan basically undid what TDK achieved by reverting to a very well-trodden blockbuster mould.
- There are too many characters in play. Even for an ensemble piece, I just didn't see the need for all the new characters, especially those with significant screen time. Bane & Miranda, I could understand since they're critical to the story, but characters like Blake, Selina, and Foley could've been removed altogether. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with how they were written or acted, but it just didn't leave a lot of room for the characters that should've have more focus and development: Bruce, Alfred, Lucius, Jim (especially), and of course the main antagonists. Not starting and wrapping up Bruce & Miranda's romance side plot in one scene would've also made her reveal a lot more impactful.
- Which leads to my next criticism. Nolan's love of narrative and character twists are starting to feel gimmicky. I'm not saying he's approaching Shyamalanian levels, but something just feels off. I'm starting to get this feeling that he's only writing twists so that he can say 'PSYCH! I got you bitch.' when it's revealed. He shouldn't have to be reminded that turns and twists should ultimately serve the plot & characters within the story. The whole Talia reveal was so ham-fisted and forced, I just couldn't give a shit. I'm sure it could've bee much better if Nolan had invested a more into the Bruce/Miranda angle. The ending twist and the whole robin reveal was equally cheesy and underwhelming. Perhaps it's because I saw it coming from miles out, but I couldn't help it since I knew of Nolan's propensity for dramatic twists.
- Nolan still can't do action/fight sequences. For a director with such a unique approach to narratives and plots, his action sequences are utterly devoid of style, tension or impact. I'm not sure if it's the choreography or how Nolan shoots & edits the scenes, but they were just dire. In fact, I almost preferred the blurred mess of Batman Begins to TDKR's womanlike elbow throwing and Rocky-esque boxing punches. Mr Nolan, please, PLEASE, for the love of god skip or keep action scenes to a minimum in your future films. That or take some time to develop your style and technique.
- Editing, in general, left a lot to be desired. If you read the script, you can actually tell that the editing of the film significantly detracted from the overall quality of the film. I'm not really sure what happened there since Nolan used the same editor as he has always done. Perhaps they just got lazy or stupidly high/drunk every time they stepped into the cutting room.
- Earlier, I said I made peace with the nitpicky flaws in TDKR. But that doesn't mean the sheer amount of it doesn't haunt you as you watch the film. Obviously people have different thresholds of how much nonsensical shit they can take when watching a film. Batman Begins had the 'backup' bats, the microwave emitter, and few other minor things. TDK had Gordon's pointless and inexplicable fake death, a policeman standing inside the joker's cell, the 'turning every cellphone in gotham into microwave emitter, and few other things as well. However, TDKR just trumps them all. There was so much shit you had to ignore and let go in order to enjoy the film. I barely got there the second time.
- I have to give special mentions to how the two main antagonists met their respective ends. Bane's death was just so quick and anticlimactic, it detracted from everything he did before. Bane, and indeed Hardy, deserved better. I won't rant too much about Talia's death scene, since so many have commented on it. I recently read that Marion Cotillard actually gave many takes on how Talia croaked, and Nolan decided to pick that particular one for the final product. Again, he must've been smoking something or hammered beyond all faculties to think that was the best. Either that or Marion gave him nothing but turd and he just had to pick the shiniest one, something that seems impossible given how good of an actress she is. and how she, contrary to what many are saying, turned in a solid performance given what she had to work with.
Overall: I'll give the film 7 out of 10. The films in the trilogy are ranked thus: Batman Begins & The Dark Knight: 9 The Dark Knight Rises: 7
I laugh every time I see people say this is the greatest trilogy ever.
Looks like most people share my opinion, but I completely hated this movie, and I was very disappointed because I'm a huge fan of the first two (actually, I'm a huge fan of everything Batman-related up until now. IMO, even Batman & Robin was better than this).
My quick and dirty spoiler-free review:
-The fight scenes were terrible, and numerous. Like, 1990 WWF-style choreography. I don't get it. How could it be this much worse than the first two in the series? Sometimes you can even see that the punches aren't connecting.
-The plot overall doesn't make any sense. Bane, while portrayed well, was gutted as a character compared to how badass he is in the comic books. His motives make no sense, his movie background makes no sense, and the way he carries out his plan makes even less sense than anything else.
-The characters repeatedly behave in irrational ways, I won't give anything away, but it's quite distracting.
+The acting is actually quite good. I think I liked every actor except for maybe Anne Hathaway, but it's not completely her fault; she was written a lot of cheesy Bond-esque one-liners. Christian Bale is outstanding in everything, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, yeah...great acting. Still didn't save this movie, though.
EPT
