CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... - Page 14

post #651 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

This is so surreal. It used to be that fanboys would eat up the "realism" of BB and TDK, while others would point out the incongruence between the tone and the actual plot content as reasons for not wholly liking the movies. Now suddenly Nolan was never aiming for a "realistic" tone? Seriously?

 

No, this series was never grounded. But before now, it tried to feel grounded. Justifying every single aspect of the universe, incorporating semi-truish mechanics of law enforcement, etc. etc. If Nolan isn't going for a grounded tone by going through the legal processes of arresting various gangsters in TDK, what is he going for? I didn't particularly care for that, but I thought it was the reason so many others liked this take on Batman until now?

 

But I think, for now, I'm going to back out of this conversation until the honeymoon hype dies off.

 

....

 

I would just like to reiterate, that I am so fucking glad this shit is over.

post #652 of 4246

Wow, I did not like this movie. And I really do love Begins and the Dark Knight. Something changed with this one. The previous movie had logical inconsistencies and plot conveniences, but it felt much more forced in this one. Many people have touched on problems but I'll go over some things. I saw a midnight show and then again yesterday, trying to figure out my opinion.

 

The first hour or so of the movie works pretty well. The introduction of a new Gotham, new characters and reintroduction of Wayne makes this almost feel like a Gotham City television show. Selina Kyle is very well realized, I wish the whole movie had been about her really. Bruce's recovery from retirement is interesting. Alfred is disappointing as he become a Bane Wikipedia before ditching Bruce. The Dagget and Bane alliance really feels like a weaker version of the mob villian alliances that happened in the previous movies. The way Commissioner Gordon is handled is also disappointing, he's either in the hospital or acting like a confused old man. John Blake is not the greatest substitute. Miranda Tate is a non entity for most of the movie, her reveal should have come sooner.

 

The Bat never worked for me. It just didn't feel as real as the Tumbler or Bat Pod. It was like Bruce was using a cheat code the whole time. It just made action scenes breeze by way too fast and no obstacle was ever a problem for it. Bane's tumblers were also brought down way too easily. We didn't need to see him raid the armory. He should have just had them from the beginning and the why would have been revealed with his connection to Miranda/Talia.

 

The nuke/reactor part of the story never worked for me. Bruce never had an interest in clean energy before and his thinking behind it were never explored. In the past two movies he mostly used the company for Bat gadgets and investigating a mob/business connection. Just a really rushed set up to create a ticking clock bomb.

 

And then the city is destroyed and I lose all interest.

 

There's a different version of this movie where Gotham remains mostly intact the whole movie. When, Gotham is destroyed it becomes mostly about how the logistics of that almost work and many characters set up are sidelined. Selina has less to do until Bruce comes back from Inspiration Prison. The secret of Harvey Dent is revealed, but by then the city is already destroyed and except for angry prisoners and disappointed Blake we have no real repercussions. If the city had been intact we may have really seen the effects on Gordon's reputation and how the populace feels about the Batman. Really seeing more normal Gothamites in general would have helped. It was such a huge part of Dark Knight's philosophy.

 

The political subtext is also a waste. As it's mostly a tool for Bane and motivator for Selina and not much more. Bruce should have had some impact to change the class status quo in Gotham and fight Bane the way his parents tried to fight the depression in Begins. But the city is destroyed, so everyone is in the same shit hole together taking away whatever bite the commentary may have had.

 

There were certain parts of the movie

 

What did I like?

 

Bane is successful for the most part. Tom Hardy's voice and body work together to create a very intriguing character. His best moments were the prologue seen, killing Dagget and the first fight against Batman. His sympathetic moment was also well done, it just came too late.

 

John Blake is a pretty well done character. It would have been nice if he worked with Alfred for some of the movie. I thought his taking over the mantel of the Bat was the best part of the ending.

 

As I said before Cat woman was incredibly well done. I wish the whole movie had been her stealing objects, seducing men, kicking ass and being snarky. Have her face the mob or something. But her character didn't really transition well with the end of the world aspect of the second half.

 

The ending was also well realized. It was nice seeing the Manor being turned into an orphanage, Bruce finally happy and someone else taking up the mantel of the Bat.

 

But honestly I can't see ever wanting to watch this again.

post #653 of 4246

I don't think I'll ever be able to relate to those of you who a) don't like previous installments of movies but go to midnight shows and/or b) don't like the movie you saw but see it again 24 hrs later on opening weekend just to figure out why you didn't like it.

 

I saw The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor in theaters and it actually managed to anger me. And you know what? I didn't leave the theater and go buy a ticket to see it again tomorrow.

 

It's as if some of you wallow in your disappointment and end up seeking to validate your claims by subjecting yourselves to it a 2nd time to prove yourselves right just so you can rub it in against those who disagree with you.

 

You guys are fucking weird.

post #654 of 4246

I honestly don't even think I found a majority of the action sequences exciting. 

 

The whole movie was my underwhelmed reaction to the prologue (shown with Ghost Protocol) stretched out to 2.5 hours.  The scale of the action was always impressive (particularly in IMAX), but it was rarely thrilling.  It's true that the action was more clearly shot and edited this time around, but for me it was at the expense of thrills and immediacy. 

 

Granted, TDK had the advantage of being in its moment in addition to being the first major movie to have sequences shot in IMAX.  So perhaps the novelty was gone?  Well, no.  I don't think so.  Because the IMAX sequences of Ghost Protocol were genuinely thrilling.  And that was just this past December. 

 

I think what Brad Bird did with the IMAX cameras was a step forward from what Nolan did with TDK.  With TDKR, it felt like Nolan was just stepping within TDK's steps.  Everything about it was bigger, except the execution just fell flat.

 

I didn't come out of this one wanting to see it again.  That's a large step removed from how I felt coming out of TDK.

post #655 of 4246

Yeah, it's amazing to me how some people have already seen this two or three times and some of them were people who didn't even like it in the first place. One guy I know absolutely shredded Prometheus with a venom I've rarely seen went back for second helpings a week later while one viewing was enough for me, even though I was about 1000% more fond of it than they were.

 

Anyway, The Dark Knight Rises then. Here there be spoilers, etc.

 

 

 

'A hot mess', that just about sums it up. A beautiful, messy, sprawling, ambitious and ultimately glorious bit of film making that serves as both a compelling story in its own right and as part of a greater whole.
 
It's being assaulted on several fronts - a number of hardcore nerds seem disgusted at the mere notion of Bruce Wayne ever hanging up the cowl, or of Alfred attempting to do something about the way he's been enabling Bruce's obsessions all these years; while some chin-stroking, middle-class, wannabe revolutionaries have expressed horror at what they see as a savage attack on the Occupy movement. Personally, I welcome the former. The film gave these characters something the perpetually on-going narrative of the comics never really can, true character development and a definitive ending. As for the latter, while it's certainly a valid interpretation, I saw something else in its depiction of a supposedly 'liberating' army equipped with WMDs deposing an existing government and civil structure in the name of 'freedom' - an army comprised of callous thugs and mercenaries patrolling the streets in military vehicles in desert camouflage, waging war against a desperate native insurgency and caring not a jot for the citizens caught up in the middle of it all? Nope, that doesn't sound familiar at all, oh no guv.
 
 
Taken together as a whole, the films seem equally spilt on the effect Batman has. Yes, he saves lives, he's instrumental in bringing down organised crime and the various other threats to the city yet it can also be argued that he's responsible for the increasingly dangerous responses to his crusade and the threats that Gotham faces. In this film especially, Batman is more effective as a symbol than an individual. Bruce cuts a largely pathetic figure for much of the film - Bane breaks him easily, Selina (for the most part) and Talia* screw him over every chance they get , Alfred deserts him over his death wish and inability to move on with his life, etc. But to Gordon, to Blake, to the children of Gotham, even the GCPD eventually, he is the catalyst that can save Gotham, regardless of his personal failings. Both through his own efforts and the inspiration he gives others to do what is right, the Batman finally becomes what he hoped to be. With the truth about Dent revealed, his final sacrifice ensures that all at last see him as both the hero they needed...and the hero they deserved.
 
* As brutal as twisting the knife in him was, the line about murdering her father was surely more painful for Bruce - at that moment, he realises the injustice he had brought on another was the same as had been committed against him as a child, a cycle of violence that will just go on and on if he does not change. And the manner of her betrayal was a nice call back to Begins, where her father had explained that if someone stands in the way of justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart.
 
Regarding the performances, all were great, though Gary Oldman and Michael Caine could have done with being given more to do (they do great when they are around, however, especially Caine, who absolutely kills it in his final scenes with Bruce - the grave scene in particularly was utterly devastating). Bale as the tortured centre of the film, one that could easily be re-titled 'The Passion of The Batman', brings a deft touch where needed and portrays a fragile and haunting desperation in the first half of the film, before switching and displaying a rousing, inspiring determination in the final act. The way Bruce's lack of fear was shown to be a hindrance was especially interesting and cut through to the a real problem with the character as a human being. Just living isn't enough, there has to be something to live for and it is only then that Bruce Wayne is able to overcome the issues that have dogged him all his life. 
 
As Bane, Tom Hardy does brilliantly expressing so much through just his eyes and as a character, Bane was fascinating. Brutal and terrifying yet endearingly polite and well spoken, shown to be capable of both evil and, on occasion, decency. While I appreciate where some may feel he was cheapened by the manner of his death, by that point, the damage had already been done, he had been broken and defeated. First by the reveal of the burning bat symbol, then by Batman's victory. Once he was revealed to be a mere henchman, he was disposed of in a somewhat appropriate manner so no complaints here.
 
Anne Hathaway was superb, embarrassing all those dopes who complained about her casting in the first place (at this point, if Chris Nolan decides on casting someone in a leading role, just shut up and wait for the film, even if it's bloody Shia LaBeouff). Turning on a dime from meek maid to ruthless opportunist to whatever the situation called for, 'adaptable' was an understatement.
 
Finally, kudos to Joseph Gordon-Levitt for coming in with a role that essentially becomes the glue holding everything together. I was truly surprised to see a new character be introduced and play such an important part in things but it really works and is a fine and playful spin on the idea of Batman having a sidekick. The final reveal shouldn't come as a surprise yet did - he had Dick Grayson's heart and idealism, the impulsiveness of Jason Todd, and the detective skills of Tim Drake - and his fate here sticks to the source material's general belief that Robin is the only one worthy of replacing Bruce Wayne as Batman.
 
 
And so that ending. An ending I can't recall any previous Batman story daring to portray - a *happy* ending for Bruce Wayne. I totally admit, even with the Alfred scene in the first act, they totally had me going there. It was obvious Blake was being groomed to take up the mantle and ensure that symbolically at least, Batman will survive but as far as Bruce Wayne goes, I figured that was it. The graveside scene was crushing, the fate of the mansion heartening, the passing of the torch to Blake fitting. It was a good death...
 
...but not good enough. Because he is the goddamned Batman.
 
The complaints about Batman retiring being out of character are misplaced - the comic book character can never do it because the status quo can never be changed, he can never truly grow but these films give us the most human Bruce Wayne of all. One who's not unbeatable, one who doesn't ludicrously have a plan for anything to the point where he can defeat gods and monsters, one who isn't shackled to a treadmill of violence, angst and despair forevermore for the sake of keeping a franchise going. One who earns and deserves the happy ending he ultimately gets.
 
Given the choice between Bruce going off to enjoy a new life with Selina, or being a bitter, joyless old bastard constantly waging war until the day he dies, I know which I'd want for him, or anyone.
 
So yeah, I found it all to be a good end. Good enough.
post #656 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

I don't think I'll ever be able to relate to those of you who a) don't like previous installments of movies but go to midnight shows and/or b) don't like the movie you saw but see it again 24 hrs later on opening weekend just to figure out why you didn't like it.

 

I saw The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor in theaters and it actually managed to anger me. And you know what? I didn't leave the theater and go buy a ticket to see it again tomorrow.

 

It's as if some of you wallow in your disappointment and end up seeking to validate your claims by subjecting yourselves to it a 2nd time to prove yourselves right just so you can rub it in against those who disagree with you.

 

You guys are fucking weird.


Eh I suspect they enjoyed the movie despite its' many flaws, and are trying to work out why they enjoyed it. That, or they want ammo to prove why the movie is the worst. thing/ ever/ on a movie message board. Which is in fact weird.

post #657 of 4246

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER, just in case!

 

Good call on Miranda's betrayal of Bruce, Sentinel.  While I didn't really like that Bane suddenly became a bit of a lapdog at the end, I didn't mind the soap-opera twist from Miranda/Talia.  As you said, it's a fun callback to that "I don't have to save you" moment that we've all beaten to the ground over the years.  It's too bad that the film never really decides to deal with that in any concrete way.

 

Speaking of callbacks to the previous films (intentional or not)... it's interesting that Bruce is all paranoid about trusting the people of Gotham with the energy device.  Wasn't this the same guy who, for absolutely no reason explored in TDK, is steadfast in his belief that the people of Gotham will not detonate each other on the ferries?  Is that character development?  I don't think so.  Not really.  Not when it's not really explored at all.  For all the connections it makes with the previous two films, TDKR awkwardly establishes standalone character worldviews for itself.

 

Also:

POLITICS!

http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/22/the-politics-of-the-dark-knight-rises/


Edited by mcnooj82 - 7/23/12 at 9:19am
post #658 of 4246

Late to the party as always but I'm in the utterly underwhelmed camp.

 

Nolan bit off more than he could chew. This film is The Dark Knight Returns, then it's Knightfall, then it's No Man's Land, then it's a direct sequel to Batman Begins. It's just far, far too much.

 

It just felt very sloppy. Bane finds out about Dent because Gordan carries The Dark Knight script around with him? Bruce forgives Selina because he sees good in her? Blake knows he is Batman because of a look he gave him? The film just kept chipping away at my enthusiasm and come the, admittedly very exciting, climax I just had lost all interest.

post #659 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

I don't think I'll ever be able to relate to those of you who a) don't like previous installments of movies but go to midnight shows and/or b) don't like the movie you saw but see it again 24 hrs later on opening weekend just to figure out why you didn't like it.

 

 

I saw it twice because I really enjoyed Nolan's previous Batman movies, as well as Memento, The Prestige, and Inception. He's been one of my favorite filmmakers for a while now. So I was trying to figure out what suddenly changed here.

post #660 of 4246

This film does have some really delightfully weird politics.

post #661 of 4246

It's a Rorschach test. The Right sees it as an affront to making money and business, the Left sees it as a reactionary critique of the Occupy movement. I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.
 

post #662 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER, just in case!

 

Speaking of callbacks to the previous films (intentional or not)... it's interesting that Bruce is all paranoid about trusting the people of Gotham with the energy device.  Wasn't this the same guy who, for absolutely no reason explored in TDK, is steadfast in his belief that the people of Gotham will not detonate each other on the ferries?  Is that character development?  I don't think so.  Not really.  Not when it's not really explored at all.  For all the connections it makes with the previous two films, TDKR awkwardly establishes standalone character worldviews for itself.

 

I didn't get the sense that Bruce was worried about Gotham's huge population of nuclear physicists. The film pretty clearly shows Bruce shut the reactor project down when someone halfway across the world wrote a paper on how to weaponize it. He was concerned about a powerful project meant for purely benevolent means would be turned into a WMD by those who had the knowledge and means - not specifically the population of Gotham, but the bad guys of the world.

post #663 of 4246

True, but that idea of Bruce not willing to trust Gotham (read: the world) with his resources (as opposed to continuing to go out as Batman) is something that Alfred openly criticizes him for early in the film.  Him withholding the energy device is a part of that.

 

HEY, THE BAD GUYS OF THE WORLD ARE CITIZENS OF GOTHAM TOO!

post #664 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post


 

It just felt very sloppy. Bane finds out about Dent because Gordan carries The Dark Knight script around with him?

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH... so good.

 

You know... that Blake knew who Bruce Wayne really was should play as completely silly, but did JGL sell the ever loving shit out of that monologue for me.  I loved his character.  But then, I have a crush on JGL anyway.

post #665 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

 I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.
 

 

Provoking the right wing isn't hard these days.

 

I'm really kinda bummed to admit that I was probably about as engaged with this movie as I was with The Amazing Spider-man.  Hahahahah.  That's not good. 

 

(of course, I'm exaggerating... but there is a kernel of truth there, if relative expectations are taken into account)

post #666 of 4246

He has no reason to trust Miranda. Think about it: he trusts her because she wanted an alternative energy device and he goes broke and has no choice. After that, Fox is the one that's like "show her the device." So he does, and once he does, he's already like "I trust you." Why? Why her more than any of the other rich SOB's? And then, to make matters even more confusing, she sleeps with him, even though she's pulling strings behind the scenes to make sure that he's dead. It's as if Nolan is interested in only the mechanization's of storytelling. "If she's building a clean energy device and if she sleeps with the hero, the audience will likely find her sympathetic, thus making the twist at the end surprising." And since I didn't read every single thing about the movie (hardly anything) I was surprised. But so what? The surprise is incredibly hollow. Nolan has gone from a man who takes such delight in his storytelling that it appears to be air solid even when it's really not (Memento) to being someone so enamored with "bigger" and "more" that he doesn't allow things like common sense and character motivation to get in the way. TDKR is a spectacle, yes, but far too often it's a spectacle of stupidity. 

post #667 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post

Bane finds out about Dent because Gordan carries The Dark Knight script around with him? 

 

That was the speech Bane took from Gordon's pocket when he caught him.  Although that's sloppy too, what with Gordon being all ready to give it in front of Wayne Manor on the anniversary of Dent's death, only to stick it away to be conveniently found later.

post #668 of 4246

Bruce trusts Miranda because she provides evidence of being truly charitable, and being one of the board members who seems interested in doing good works with the company's resources. He trusts her because the people around him (Fox, Alfred) are pushing him to do so. He trusts her because he is utterly alone, and desperate. She slept with him as a way of thrusting the knife in; she wants Bruce to be completely blindsided and ruined by her true identity. She wants to take everything from him. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or follow.

post #669 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

That was the speech Bane took from Gordon's pocket when he caught him.  Although that's sloppy too, what with Gordon being all ready to give it in front of Wayne Manor on the anniversary of Dent's death, only to stick it away to be conveniently found later.

 

I agree it was a bit on the cheap side - but I've also found a lot of things in coat pockets I stashed there meaning to retrieve later. 

 

My take on TDKR is Nolan was far more interested in Bruce's emotional/spiritual journey than meticulous plotting and ultra-realistic plot turns, and chose to have the story support Bruce's arc. The film contains a lot of cinematic shortcuts which seem to either work or not for folks. I'm OK with the vast majority of them because I think the core story works, and was conceived and written solidly.

post #670 of 4246
Quote:
It's a Rorschach test. The Right sees it as an affront to making money and business, the Left sees it as a reactionary critique of the Occupy movement. I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.

 

 

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

 

Look maybe I'm just biased as shit, but I think there's a certain amount of political confusion with this movie. Even more so when the writers seemingly think that something as hackneyed as "getting rid of paroles" would solve the endemic crime rate in Gotham.

post #671 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

 

 

It also ended with Gotham's wealthiest inhabitant not only losing all of his worldly goods but essentially giving up his life to save the city. He donates his land and family home for the care of orphans (taking something from a single owner to being "owned" by the people).

 

As you say, confused politics. I think anyone who takes TDKR as a straight out indictment or criticism of the OWS movement 1) doesn't understand what that movement really wants and 2) is vastly oversimplifying the film.

post #672 of 4246

Did anyone else feel that Gary Oldman's performance was always on the verge of teetering closer to 90s Gary Oldman at times?  That went along great with how unhinged the character had become in the 8 years.  I kinda loved that while pitying him... AND HIS CLUMSY CLOUSEAUESQUE ANTICS!

 

The discussion about the film is very reminiscent of the one we had here for Toy Story 3, which was another film that I thought suffered from sloppy themes (which I think is what made the discussion so interesting).

post #673 of 4246
Quote:

It also ended with Gotham's wealthiest inhabitant not only losing all of his worldly goods but essentially giving up his life to save the city. He donates his land and family home for the care of orphans (taking something from a single owner to being "owned" by the people).

 

As you say, confused politics. I think anyone who takes TDKR as a straight out indictment or criticism of the OWS movement 1) doesn't understand what that movement really wants and 2) is vastly oversimplifying the film.

 

 

Granted I do find the image of a rich dude playing messiah sort of adorable.

 

Much like Michael Mann-inspired direction for movies involving gangster clowns.

post #674 of 4246

Or maybe the politics in this are like they are in reality where everything is messy and doesn't fall perfectly inline with bi-partisan rhetoric, despite everyone pretending that they do. Just a thought.

post #675 of 4246

And look,  I know I'm not a fan of these movies.* But like Whiteboy Jones I think there's valid issues I've been mulling over with all of these movies. Because I like Nolan as a whole, and I think I like the "idea" of Batman at the very least.* But these movies have never sat right with me, and trying to figure out why isn't just as simple as saying "Grrrrr..it's too grim and gritty for me."

post #676 of 4246
Quote:
Or maybe the politics in this are like they are in reality where everything is messy and doesn't fall perfectly inline with bi-partisan rhetoric, despite everyone pretending that they do. Just a thought.

 

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

 

Though granted I don't care that much about rich people.

post #677 of 4246

If I can wager a guess, the very core of the Nolan Batman film "problem" for some is that while they are sold as big ticket blockbuster entertainment, they aren't 100% fun. They expore serious real world things and are more inline tonally with what one would expect during Oscar season. Add to that the dissonance that they center around Batman and his heightened world of villains, and its just a leap some pople aren't willing to take. It speaks volumes that THE AVENGERS was received so well because I think it was the exact kind of colorful, light fare most of these people want during the summer months, and it wasn't completely idiotic.

post #678 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

 

And notice how it doesn't really seem like any of the "ordinary" people of Gotham come out and take part in this war?  It's mostly Bane's cronies and the inmates from Blackgate.  In fact, once the takeover happens, Gotham appears to be entirely comprised of cops and Bane's army.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

And look,  I know I'm not a fan of these movies.* But like Whiteboy Jones I think there's valid issues I've been mulling over with all of these movies. Because I like Nolan as a whole, and I think I like the "idea" of Batman at the very least.* But these movies have never sat right with me, and trying to figure out why isn't just as simple as saying "Grrrrr..it's too grim and gritty for me."

 

Exactly.  I really enjoyed The Prestige and Inception, and it frustrates me to no end that Nolan's Batman films don't do the same for me.

post #679 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

 

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

 

C'mon. Do you honestly think Christopher Fastidious Nolan didn't think through the politics of this movie? Level whatever criticisms you want at the guy but thoughtless and lazy he is not.

post #680 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

 

Much like Michael Mann-inspired direction for movies involving gangster clowns.

 

Next summer...

 

Michael Mann's THURCUTH, THURCUTH ! ! !

post #681 of 4246

Do the performers, perchance, wear hockey padth?

post #682 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

 

C'mon. Do you honestly think Christopher Fastidious Nolan didn't think through the politics of this movie? Level whatever criticisms you want at the guy but thoughtless and lazy he is not.

 

Not thoughtless and lazy...

 

... but perhaps like everyone, he can also be hit or miss?

 

For me, the "it's complicated and messy, like real life" justification is often not too far off from the "nothing happens and no one changes, just like real life" excuse.  With even MORE fastidiousness, Nolan could've evoke the complexity of the politics while still making a more solid point about it. 

 

But then, I thought the messy contradictions of The Dark Knight were just fine, which seems to be the point that Devin is making.  It's one thing to be an intelligent individual who is able to think through the politics that this film pays lip service to (subtle digs!), but it's another thing to adapt them for a dramatic narrative.  It's a separate skill set.

post #683 of 4246

Yes.

 

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Nolan might not be absolutely perfect with his approach to story every single time.

post #684 of 4246

I don't have much to say about this film, but I just came across this image and I need to share it.

 

700

post #685 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanCE View Post

 I just came across this image

 

700

 

Gross.

post #686 of 4246

Two things I take away from this film.

 

1) I'd very much like a spin off Catwoman film with Hathaway and Temple.

 

2) Christian Bale needs to do some comedy, because the few moments where he got to do small comic stuff, he was great at it. 

post #687 of 4246

Yeah, I really dug the take on Wayne that Bale was playing in this.  I never really missed seeing him in costume. 

 

You know what made me laugh?  When Batman finally gets the upper hand on Bane and ends up just redoing his interrogation scene with the Joker from TDK.

PUNCH

"WHERE IS IIIIIIIIIT???"

PUNCH

"WHERE IS IIIIIIIIIT???"

If it's broke... don't fix it, I guess?  Heheheh.  Just keep doing what you're doing, Bats!

post #688 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Yes.

 

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Nolan might not be absolutely perfect with his approach to story every single time.

 

It's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. 

I think the bigger issue is that The Dark Knight tethered so closely to the Bush era that you can't really see it any other way. In The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan picks and chooses which elements from that to carry over and then mixes it with a whole new batch of politics; some stemming from Gotham, while some are topical. Like the rest of the movie, the results are mixed, often confusing, and most importantly, not particularly thoughtful. 

I quite like this review, which praises the movie for it's ambition and gusto while also calling foul about it's speechifying, heavy exposition and muddled politics. 

Thus, like its predecessor, The Dark Knight Rises proves a politically conservative animal, one in which Bane and his minions seek to upset socio-economic paradigms through culture war, and Batman and his army of police officers, given dignified treatment by Nolan in a near-silent pan across their ranks right before their clash with Bane's "revolutionaries," aim to uphold the established rich-on-top order. However, as befitting a script that's overstuffed with narrative strands, from the push-pull between anti-Batman Deputy Commission Foley (Matthew Modine), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), and upstart officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), to Wayne's frayed relationship with Alfred and interactions with Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and potential love interest Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), the film muddles its political viewpoints, or at least compromises them in the spirit of not pressing any hot buttons too hard. As a result, Batman's opposition to Bane also puts him on the side of the very working-class people Bane purports to champion (since the villain really aims to disintegrate them with a nuke). And jewel thief Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a.k.a. Catwoman, rages with righteous liberal anger against Wayne's gilded lifestyle, but, naturally, also comes around to helping him reestablish the status quo after seeing, courtesy of Bane, that the end goal of tearing down the wealthy is cars-piled-in-the-streets chaos of a terrifying warlord variety—as well as after, naturally, she falls for irresistible trust-fund hunk Wayne.

post #689 of 4246

Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

 

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

 

It's not a big deal to me, since TDK really kinda stands on its own in the trilogy.  But I just wanted to bring it up.

 

In Batman Begins, Alfred goes along with Bruce's crusade, but still chides him for his irresponsible use of his resources.

 

In TDK, Alfred is all... TAKE IT, BITCH.

 

In TDKR, Alfred is a more natural progression of where he was in Begins.

post #690 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

It's a Rorschach test. The Right sees it as an affront to making money and business, the Left sees it as a reactionary critique of the Occupy movement. I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.
 

Agreed. And NOlan takes it straight from "A Tale Of Two Cities" whose whole point is that the revolutionaries become just as bad as the people they overthrew.

MY biggest beef is that no way would a crisis like this go on for five months. One month in,when the President's rating is in the single digits,the leaders of his own party would walk in and tell him they ain't going down with him, and either do something or they will steal a march on the opposition and insitute Impeacment proceedings for incompetence. Maybe appeasing the terroists is the most humane thing to do (given they do not know the plan is to nuke Gotham anyway) but no way can you do A Jimmy Carter Hostage Crisis routine with an event that is bigger then Pearl Harbor,9/11 and Fort Sumter rolled into one.

And dont' get me started on how the US military, for all there faults, would NEVER do a Spec Op recon as ineptly as it is shown in the movie.

DC did a much better job of convincing me that a US Government would write off it's biggest city in the No Man's Land Storyline then Nolan did.

post #691 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

 

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

 

I thought Nolan was quite clear on what side he was on. Neither. The rich vs. poor was utter bull shit and Bane used the times to his advantage, to completely blind the city of what was happening. Nolan also uses the differences between a person of privilege and of poor to shape Wayne too. The only person who survived the prison was someone who was born in darkness and of no freedom whatsoever. So Bruce had to experience it as well, but Nolan also makes mention that "Anybody could have become Batman", in a way to say it doesn't matter if you are a person born with money or not, the will to act and the actions we take define the person. 

post #692 of 4246

Nolan can be taken to task for not always making the best choices in his storytelling. But they are deliberate choices and not lazy omissions, as some of you are implying.

 

An example and staying within the confines of Batman films: Tim Burton omits things because he's lazy and doesn't care about them. Nolan omits things because he's intentionally trying to put your focus on what he thinks is important.

post #693 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

 

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

 

Like I said in my initial feedback; The Dark Knight exists to kill off Rachel/Dent and make it necessary for everyone to lie about everything. The other two movies have far more in common, which is probably why I like them so much less. 

 

As for the Wayne as Howard Hughes stuff; I heard someone make the argument that each movie casts Batman very much in opposition to his villains. He uses fear in the first and that ties into the scarecrow. Nolan's Joker, meanwhile, isn't a symbol of his possible insanity, but more linked to chaos that we associate with terrorism, and Batman indulges in that chaos whether he wants to or not (the multiple Batman's he chastises in the beginning, and the need to stretch his crime fighting to illegal, chaotic means to get what he needs). He claims the connection between Bane and Batman in this film is pain; Bane has mastered his (with the help of his morphine mask) while Batman is moping about still pining for Rachel. If you read it that way, it makes a bit more thematic sense in the universe of each individual movie. As a trilogy? Not so much.

post #694 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

If I can wager a guess, the very core of the Nolan Batman film "problem" for some is that while they are sold as big ticket blockbuster entertainment, they aren't 100% fun. They expore serious real world things and are more inline tonally with what one would expect during Oscar season. Add to that the dissonance that they center around Batman and his heightened world of villains, and its just a leap some pople aren't willing to take. It speaks volumes that THE AVENGERS was received so well because I think it was the exact kind of colorful, light fare most of these people want during the summer months, and it wasn't completely idiotic.

THing is if you are playing a more serious game like Nolan is trying to do, you cannot afford a lot the mistakes and gaps in reality that you can get by with with a film like "The Avengers".

I loved BB and TDK,but IMHO Nolan went off the rails with TDKR.

post #695 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

 

An example and staying within the confines of Batman films: Tim Burton omits things because he's lazy and doesn't care about them. Nolan omits things because he's intentionally trying to put your focus on what he thinks is important.

 

My criticism of his filmmaking this time around is that he puts that "importance" focus on almost everything in the movie to the point that a lot of it ends up feeling meaningless.  For a movie that is so in love with the operatically big picture, there are lots of scenes where he montage dances around a lot of minutiae that never feel all that important.

 

I think he juggled that MUCH better in TDK. 

post #696 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

 

My criticism of his filmmaking this time around is that he puts that "importance" focus on almost everything in the movie to the point that a lot of it ends up feeling meaningless.  For a movie that is so in love with the operatically big picture, there are lots of scenes where he montage dances around a lot of minutiae that never feel all that important.

 

I think he juggled that MUCH better in TDK. 

 

I think this is a totally fair criticism.

post #697 of 4246

I liked it.  It still has some wonky storytelling in the first half (never completely understood Taggert's link to everything and Modine's character was a one-note contrivance), but overall, I enjoyed it.  Hathaway and JGL were great additions, and the movie balanced the light and dark moments better than TDK.  In fact, I'm in this weird minority of thinking THE DARK KNIGHT as my least favorite of the Nolan Bats.  Ah, well.  

post #698 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

 

He claims the connection between Bane and Batman in this film is pain; Bane has mastered his (with the help of his morphine mask) while Batman is moping about still pining for Rachel. If you read it that way, it makes a bit more thematic sense in the universe of each individual movie. As a trilogy? Not so much.

 

Can someone clarify this one for me?

 

In TDK, Alfred burns Rachel's letter to Bruce in order to spare him the heartbreak.  I don't recall what Bruce accuses Alfred of when he finally reveals the truth.  Was it of trying to end Batman?  If so, isn't that really inconsistent with the Alfred of TDK?

 

Also, was Michael Caine busy with other projects during the shooting of TDKR?  I get that having Alfred leave was all a part of taking everything away from Bruce, but it felt like such an afterthought.  Even Bruce ends up kinda treating it that way when he wakes up the next morning calling his name (which I chalk up to old habits dying hard).  But considering how emotional a scene that was, you'd think the effects of kicking Alfred out would linger a bit longer than that.

post #699 of 4246
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

It's not a big deal to me, since TDK really kinda stands on its own in the trilogy.  But I just wanted to bring it up.

In Batman Begins, Alfred goes along with Bruce's crusade, but still chides him for his irresponsible use of his resources.

In TDK, Alfred is all... TAKE IT, BITCH.

In TDKR, Alfred is a more natural progression of where he was in Begins.

Actually, in Knight, Alfred only goads Bruce into continuing because he's the one response for the entire situation, thus really being the only one who could stop the Joker's madness. He still worries for Bruce. At the same time, Alfred still understands the mission and purpose of Batman from Begins. If he pushes harder and finishes, with rise of Dent, Bruce could do what he was planning from the outset of that film; give the city to Dent.

It's not inconsistent if Alfred understands why Bruce is doing what he's doing in Knight, which he does.
post #700 of 4246

Ratty, I agree.  The  Dark Knight had Batman  seemingly driven...BATTY enough, that he became known as a...Villain!  I enjoy Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises far more.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread.....