|
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/ Judging by how many people were at the midnight showings of this film you've most likely seen this film by now, and are probably still asleep even as I write this review. Some of you, maybe a distinct minority of more sensible persons with social lives, may be putting off seeing this for a day or two... Well this reviews for you. Rises does not disappoint. The film returns returns the ideas of the first movie, stressing the concept of the man behind the mask. Where has Bruce Wayne's life gone now that his alter-ego (Wayne is Batman) is a wanted man. How well can a man function after he's devoted several years of his life to getting shot, stabbed, beaten, blown up, falling from great heights, etc. Can he ever fully remove himself from the Batman and simply move on? In fact I'll be blunt, we see a LOT more of Wayne than we do Batman. There's probably less than twenty-minutes of Batman in this film. But don't let that get you down, as out of costume or in Wayne is a force. Now of course who would even give a gently caress about Batman if he had nothing to oppose. Many might of thought that Bane would be a villain who simply couldn't come close to Heath Ledger's Joker. After all, Ledger's untimely death has basically cemented his character into history as basically THE JOKER. Well have no fear at all. You may not see a by the comic-books Bane, but you will be seeing everything done right. Bane is a cunning, inhumanly cruel creature who is constantly so many steps ahead that he actually finished playing chess with you about four hours ago and you just weren't aware of the game being over quite yet. This is not in the least Joel Schumacher's Bane, who you might not even want to recall. This is also not a comic book Bane. Yes, he shares his comic book alter's master mind, but there's no Bane venom. Instead we simply have an absolutely unstoppable man whose body is at the peak of perfection. When he throws people around you believe it. And when he and Batman collide you just know one of them is royally hosed. Then of course we have Catwoman... The film never actually calls her that though. I was really afraid of how this film would approach Catwoman, and while I can't say that she was anywhere near dead-on, I'll at least say that she was a really goddamn good attempt. There's no explanation for this woman. Sometimes that's a good thing. There's nothing wrong with people of mystery. But you could also say that I'm wrong and there's lots of explanation for her and you just have to piece it together. Either way Hathaway plays a likable anti-hero whose far more true to the character than Pfeiffer was. Catwoman is a thief. She's a backstabber. She does what's best for Catwoman. Most importantly she's not Halle Berry... *shudder* There's honestly a lot to talk about here, but maybe I should just get to the basics. This is a film that will have you second-guessing everything. There's so many twists and turns in the plot that you'll be doing your obsessed little fanboy squeals every five minutes or so. From the beginning everyone involved with this film has been declaring it the last of the Batman triology. I am absolutely declaring it a success. The comics have never been able to bring Batman to a successful, believable close, but this film has. It all might be a bit cheesy, but sometimes cheesy is good. I'd also like to state in advance that although I believe this will definitely be the last film in the trilogy that I highly doubt it'll be the last in this series. Watch it and agree. And honestly I hope I'm right. All in all... Pros: Plot driven, great new characters, a successful conclusion, a successful setup for another film. Cons: Dragged a LOT in the second act... A LOT. Maybe too depressing. 4.9999999999999999999999 out of 5 Almost perfect, but goddamn it all just feels so slow.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
What I'm saying is more of an opinon than a review. I enjoyed the movie as well. Bane's monologues were fantastic and the action wasn't too fast paced to watch clearly. The fight scenes were fluid and well thought out. The characters all evolved like they should in a hero based movie. I do however wish this movie was split into 2 movies. I had dificulties attaching myself to any of the new characters. They did a good job of it, but it felt like they really had to compress it at the end. I hope whatever spawns from this trilogy is dark and tailored more for mature audiences and not little kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
The pacing was awful but the rest of the movie made up for it. Really should have been two movies. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
The Dark Knight Rises is no Dark Knight, but it's still a fine film. As a film of three acts, the first act I found perfect. The second act I enjoyed, particularly the teases of the transition to the third act. The tension and release of this section was enjoyable. My only issues I have with the film come in the third act. I found the climax of the film slightly underwhelming. The film has you sitting on the edge of your seat for a pay-off that never really comes. The plot moves in a direction which is great, conceptually, but risks the investment that the viewer has made in certain aspects of the film to that point. The ending (and inevitable conclusions you can draw from that) are tipped quite heavy handedly midway through the first act. Another surprise is also telegraphed, but not so obviously and is still a nice reveal at the end, even if deduced. There are also other sections where the outcome is really in no doubt (Because it is act two of a three act film), but instead on focusing on the fact that the protagonist will survive and go kick rear end, the film instead goes "Will he make it? Will he make it?" Which ends up seeming slightly patronising. And, to make thing worse, in the times where the question of "Will he make it" should have been asked, it is not. Overall, the film is enjoyable. I thought it was the best film ever made for the first hour and a half but the last act started to lose me. The film seemed to be building to something that never really occurred, and the triumphant rise and return started and stopped to an irritating degree. In the end it did enough to make me feel like I wasn't disappointed, but not enough that I thought it exceeded expectations. The movie tries hard, but in the end just doesn't execute some of the smarter things it sets out to do. Either way, the film is a must see. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 10:41
|
|
|
It was merely okay. My biggest problem with this movie? It tries to link itself up with Batman Begins - a movie that is weak and unmemorable, who shafted what should have been the primary antagonist (scarecrow) to a henchman role in the face of the considerably dull Ra's Al Ghul. Ra's Al Ghul isn't even that interesting in the comics - he's an exotica character that pops in from time to time. The main rogue's gallery of batman is always more inherently compelling and exciting - poison ivy's eco terrorist mutations, riddler's MC Escher mazes of riddles, penguin's pretentious man-about-town attitude & absurd umbrella gadgets, and so on. Ra's Al Ghul is much less visceral and memorable a villain - he serves mainly to let Batman go to exotic places and ideas he doesn't normally go, and brings an element of supernatural and 'secret order' into the Batman mythos. I really didn't want to see a return to batman begins territory, because Dark Knight dispensing with Ra's Al Ghul and just letting Batman be Batman in his element was the way to go. I was disappointed to see a return to those tedious plot elements in this movie - I would have preferred if Bane had a backstory shrouded in mystery as with the Joker. A total focus on the elemental aspects of the character and his dynamic with Batman is much more intense than monologue and flashbacks. The Ra's Al Ghul nonsense just bogs down the characters in stuff I really didn't care to know about. If Bane has some personal philosophical reason for why he must destroy the bat, I'd prefer to hear that rather than tie it to Ra's Al Ghul's nonsense. The movie suffers a lot of the problems of 'begins' - for example, way too many side characters that ultimately are annoyances that drag the film down, and not enough focus on the things that matter most. The 'gotham under siege' thing to me just didn't do it for me either. I will not be interested in seeing the movie a second time, but I'm glad I did at least see it once. It had its moments but so much of the movie felt like filler for a story that wasn't that great in the first place. This is in comparison to Dark Knight, where not a frame of the film is wasted. 3/5 Spacedad fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 12:05
|
|
|
Overall, an entertaining, but drawn out movie. Mostly good acting, and a good-enough "end" to the story. However, if you paid to see Batman, you probably left disappointed; He is barely in it. The rest of the movie focuses on side characters who are always in the right place at the right time. The lack of attention to details was jarring, especially considering this was a direct sequel to the Dark Knight which barely wasted a second of the movie's run time. The film had several scenes of convenience -- once Bruce escapes from Bane's pit, he somehow makes it back into quarantined Gotham with no explanation, and then also is somehow present exactly where Selina needs him to be. It is also confusing why they'd take overall weak villains in Bane and Ras al Ghul, instead of the Riddler or Killer Croc. I suppose it's hard to match what was done in the previous movie with the Joker, but Batman has such a strong history of villains and they went with two of the most boring. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
The Dark Knight In the coming weekend, I think we can expect a lot of four-out-of-five reviews from movie-goers. Which is unfortunate, as this might be Christoper Nolan's apex; but it's just short of what the audience wants. They expect someone to top Ledger's Joker. They want to see Nolan take on The Riddler. They're waiting for Raz-al-Ghul to ascend from the Lazarus Pit. They think Bane is such a minor character, why is he in this movie instead of Killer Croc? Where the hell is Dick Grayson? It is in the audience's continued search for what they can call an epic and make it mean something, this is where TDKR, like many works of all media released in the last decade or so, falls. We want this to win Best Picture, and given this year's cinematic output, it probably will, but we also want this to be our generation's Citizen Kane. So we look for perfection. And thus we find things to criticize. We find that in two hours and forty-five minutes, we don't have a movie we can show our grandchildren and say, "This is everything you need to know about Batman." The Dark Knight Rises is not the definitive Batman experience. The definitive Batman experience is all Batman works. The Nolan films, the Schumacher films, the Adam West series, The Animated Series, Golden Age Batman and Silver Age Batman; Batman is whatever we want it to be, and for Christopher Nolan, Batman is Bruce Wayne. As a result, TDKR is less a movie about a man in a suit beating up bad guys, but a character study of the man who has to live with the responsibility he chose, and dealing with the consequences of the pursuit of justice. Bruce Wayne is shown as a man who doesn't need a cowl to be strong. I don't do ratings, as they have become arbitrary and meaningless. I will say that you need to see this movie. Christopher Nolan knew there were a lot of things that could go wrong with the conclusion of a trilogy (too many subplots, fan-service everywhere, an ending where Nick Fury wants you to join his America Squad which is in the next movie, use of dubstep, etc.) and he has wisely chosen to avoid these pitfalls to make what I think is one of the best movies released in the last decade. Just know that you shouldn't watch this as a Batman movie. This is a movie that happens to have Batman in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
This was, in my opinion, the best of the trilogy. That said, I thought BB was average and TDK was the most overrated movie in years. First, the bad: the pacing was pretty rough at times, and it seemed to take forever for anything to happen. I also just have an issue with the premise of a "realistic" batman story. Maybe that's just my baggage, but if a realistic story can't be told without characters acting selectively and irrationally stupid for the sake of furthering the plot, then maybe realism should be scrapped. In fact, there are just a lot of nonsensical decisions and actions that get shoehorned in so that the movie can be big and serious. For example, the cop conveniently finding Gordon at exactly the right time, or offering a completely unbelievable explanation for how he discovered that Bruce was Batman. Not to mention how loving obvious it is, anyone with a shred of sense should be able to piece it together. But based on his actions and seclusion perfectly mirroring Batman's, and how his limp magically disappears, and how he owns a tech company that actually has the resources to build those giant weapons. But not because he's an orphan and learned to hide his anger. Gee, really? Dude is pissed that his parents were gunned down in front of him, he must be Batman. There's also a lot of unrealistic "right place, right time" stuff. And the police are always slow and incompetent, as was the military. And how did no one react to all the money disappearing? It just happens, and then everyone forgets about it, and no one tries to do damage control for Wayne Enterprises? I mean, it's not a hard sell that your completely irrational business decision was actually done by the lunatic terrorist who just tore down the stock market. I could go on... lots of stuff that just doesn't make sense. The good: this movie was actually fun. Good action, appropriate character arcs for a hero story. Bane was a great villain, excellent writing and believable as the intelligent terrorist. The inclusion of Talia really made the comic book geek in me giddy. I actually liked the callbacks to Batman Begins. Most importantly, I just had fun with it. I thought The Dark Knight was mostly stressful to watch. Low on humor, high on irrational violence and pounding music. The soundtrack was significantly better in this one, it kept me excited and engaged without making me worry I was going to have a heart attack. Oh, and Anne Hathaway deserves a lot of credit. Excellent portrayal of Selina Kyle, one of the highlights. Great entertainment, great villain, fun story. Just don't expect anything brilliant or deep (basically, don't expect what The Dark Knight pretended to be) and you should have a great time. Very fun summer blockbuster. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
The villians here are a little flat and sloppily executed compared to such memorable moments like the pencil scene or the overly creepy-casual of Cillian Murphy who makes a brief appearance in this as well - As the Executioner Judge of Gotham! It just seemed there wasn't enough time to add any new character depth with how heavily saturated the story is. Once the final act began to escalate it became apparent there was little room for anything but narrative. There's once again a minor framing of recent political views but it's kept to a superficial level of detail and minimal screen time. Also, there is far more overlap in this with Batman Begins than with the Dark Knight, which seemed a little odd but I'm pressuming this was out of respect for Heath Ledger, there is almost no mention of the Joker other than the aftermath he left. Despite all that it seemed to squeek just ahead of the rest in terms of just getting it right and conclusion of the trilogy. ...After the Joel Schumacher atrocities I find Nolan's approach to be almost flawless in contrast. This is the closure and sincere apology from the film industry that many fans desperately needed since the summer of '95. - 4.9/5 Captain Hindsight fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
I'm afraid I was extremely disappointed with this movie. The biggest problem with the film was pacing. Unlike its predecessors, there was a complete lack of immediacy to the events that unfolded. This was a problem early on when the film begins eight years after the second film, whereas the first two movies fit together almost perfectly. This deprived the third film of the cat-and-mouse chase between the police and Batman that was promised at the end of "The Dark Knight." It continues to be a problem when Batman has been in hiding for most of those eight years, he is then imprisoned for ninety days, police officers are buried underground for months, and a bomb threatening the city has a timer that takes weeks to count down. The other problem is that two peripheral characters in the story end up assuming significant roles in the story despite not being given much of an identity for most of the film. The first was the character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who gives a mediocre performance despite the film trying to convince us he is a "hothead" police officer. When the end of the film reveals that he is to become Robin, I felt jilted that the film did not work harder to make him interesting. The second was Bruce Wayne's girlfriend Miranda played by Marion Cotillard. After all the drama with Rachel in the first two films, I never bought the chemistry between her and Bruce Wayne, and I could not quite figure out her angle to the story. Then, in the end, when she is revealed to be the primary villain, it completely guts the development of Bane, who was marketed as the main focus of the film. Finally, the net effect of both these characters was that both of the characters that were supposed to be the focus of the film, Bane and Catwoman, both play a very small role in the plot. Catwoman appears and disappears, though she does have a couple very good fight scenes that were my favorite parts of the movie. A greater focus on her would have helped the film greatly as I felt Anne Hathaway was really enjoying her role. Bane is, to the film's credit, much more visible, but the last-minute reveal of Miranda's criminal intentions throws away the film's paintstaking character devlopment of him. Miranda's character even takes away an interesting origin story for Bane that completely effaces his character. I really wanted to like this movie, and I have given it a lot of thought since seeing it, but I just can't get my mind around these problems. When watching the film, these issues came off as unexpected since the first two films developed their characters so well. It is because these problems were so big, and that the confluence of them distracted the trilogy's flow established by the first two films, that I rate this film 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
The Dark Knight was near perfect in terms of consistency in execution. It did so many things well that Dark Knight Rises had expectations that were probably unrealistic. That being said, I can't help but feel that Nolan departed from the gritty realism of BB and TDK with Dark Knight Rises. It's not that Dark Knight Rises is a bad film, but it stands apart from the other films in the series and tries to be so epic in proportion that it collapses in on itself under the sheer weight of so much that it tries to do. Before I get into the problems of the film, I do want to acknowledge the first fight scene between Batman and Bane. It is undoubtedly the highlight of the film and is so raw and original in its presentation that it's a wonder why so much of the rest of the film is injected with groan-inducing dialogue and cheesy scenes, such as an army of police officers running World War I style into a barrage of machine gun fire. The juxtaposition of these two scenes, for example, is one reason why The Dark Knight Rises is so inconsistent in presentation and characterization. The inconsistency in the way scenes are portrayed also applies to the overall themes presented in the series. In The Dark Knight, for example, one recurring theme was the triumph of good over evil. One scene in particular, the two Ferries loaded with bombs and whose passengers are given the opportunity to blow up the other ship to save themselves, represented the good inside the citizens of Gotham. In fact, this is one of the reasons that Bruce Wayne does what he does. In Dark Knight Rises, once the city goes to hell, the citizens become savages ransacking and pillaging the town and participating in the equivalent of tarring and feathering of the cities wealthy and elite. The only good people in the film are the police officers, who were largely incompetent, crooked, and untrustworthy in The Dark Knight. Without going into too much detail, the biggest problem plaguing the film is the enormous amount of suspension of disbelief required to move the plot along. How certain characters discover Batman's true identity, the way Bruce Wayne seemingly travels across the world and into a secluded Gotham City with no explanation, medical miracles taking place, and characters always being in the right places at the right times represent plot holes the size of which we're not used to seeing in this series and it's jarring to say the least. Other personal minor nitpicks of mine include a scene where Bane is punching cement pillars with his bare hands and breaking them (wtf?), and the completely incompetent military "special forces" guys - yeah, they're "special" alright, shortbus special. Finally, a plot twist late in the movie (The Talia reveal) completely undermines what the film had been building up to that point, but by then I had already checked out of the movie and was just enjoying the visuals. Thematic issues, plot holes, inconsistency, and awful pacing aside, I can't say I wasn't entertained. Anne Hatheway in particular was the strongest point of the movie, and I wish they had more of her and cut other characters entirely (Ofc. Blake). The movie was a fun ride, but I left the theater trying to figure out why I felt so empty about the movie overall, and the preceding paragraphs are what I've come up with to explain why this movie falls so flat in comparison to the other two. 2/5 The Shep fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
the movie as a whole was not that great and was the first movie from christopher nolan that i actually didnt like. im a bit surprised that an accomplished director like him would break the own rules and ideals he established in the first two films for this wildely inconsistent film. id say its about as good the final matrix film in that its complete poo poo but you need to see it just for a sense of closure. overall a massive dissapointment. theres just too much wrong with the plot, pacing, and any real underlying meaning to make it memorable. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
This movie was good and I would definitely recommend seeing it. That said, the suspension of disbelief issues mentioned by a few people in reviews above was ever-present for me. The number of times I asked myself "how did they know that" or "how did he know to go to this secluded spot of the city at just the right time" probably got into the double-digits. I think at least three people were saved from death at the absolute last-minute because somebody else showed up right on time. It happened often enough that as I left the theater it was really all I could talk about. I'm echoing the above statement that this should have been two movies. Better editing could have solved some of the suspension-of-disbelief moments, but aside from that, I wish the movie would have lingered longer on some of the scenes and settings. I don't want to spoil much of the plot, but the middle of the film would have been a great part of it to stretch out. A lot was going on and it would have been cool to explore some more of it, but instead time constantly jumped forward in a way that felt really artificial (the movie had to awkwardly go out of its way to tell me how much time had actually passed, more than a few times too). I think splitting up the film might have let the third act, which felt very rushed to me, get a little bit more breathing time. Those were my biggest problems with the movie and IMO everything else was great, certainly not the 1/5 or 2/5 people here are giving the movie. Bane makes for a really badass villain, I really wish there had been more of him because he was one of the better movie villains I've seen in a long time outside of the Joker. Catwoman as great too, I was iffy about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman when I heard the casting but she did an excellent job. Falls somewhere on the higher end between Batman Begins and Dark Knight on a whole. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of superhero movies and this was the first Batman I saw in cinema and the first ever Nolan's Batman I saw. I was pleasantly surprised with the first half. The actors are good (I love Michael Caine) and it was interesting to see weakness and depression as a well executed theme in a superhero movie. However when the villain (Humongous, anyone?) takes over it all turns into an irrational whirlwind. He was shaping up into something interesting but his hatred towards Batman is poorly explained, his masterplan is excessively contrived and unbelievable, and despite all his speeches and gestures the audience is left wondering what the hell does he want. The remote prison part was especially insulting to intelligence. I fought to make sense of characters' motives and actions but had to surrender and let my brain flatline while my eyes watched fighting scenes. I know many people enjoy that kind of cinema experience but I don't. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Very, very disappointed by this. Pacing was atrocious, the film felt very, very lifeless. From a production point of view, it was nowhere near the high standard of Dark Knight. Terrible location sound recording and boring cinematography. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
A lot of fun for a while, but eventually it really started to drag for me. Around the part where the antagonist's big plot comes together the film should have been wrapping up; instead there's another third of the movie left. Nolan needs to face the fact that he makes big dumb summer movies and start approaching his projects appropriately. Tighten your scripts up and get your runtimes under two hours, man. First 2 hours: 4/5 Last 45 minutes: 2/5 I guess it's a three overall?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
The scope of the plot in DKR just isn't appropriate for Batman. The other two Nolan movies gave us some creditable idea of how Batman is supposed to fit into his world. Usually his foundation is that pulpy Detective Comics costumed-P.I. figure, who does his work as a weird, reactionary method of giving something back to society. More recently the moviegoing public has been introduced to the modernist, obliquely authoritarian figure who can operate without regard for silly red-tape like "the fourth amendment" and "sovereign jurisdiction" when there are implausibly skillful terrorists on the loose and the time limit is hours long. In the DKR, the eventual setting of our conflict is a literal warzone run 100% by mob-oriented anarchists, and the official response is the combined might of every Federal millitary service and intelligence-gathering agency, who have, like, half a year to get their poo poo together. Batman shows 'em up in a couple in-universe hours. This, after about 90 minutes of introspection and the character-development of Bruce Wayne. What is even the deal, here? I would have excused plenty of continuity holes and turns of convenience in the script, and there are enough to keep a dedicated nitpick going, but the overarching conceit of the story is just sort of distracting and disappointing. On a scale of 1, being the Nolan movie that you really don't like despite everyone saying how good it is, to 5, being the best batman movie you could have imagined, and, I give DKR a 2. Eikre fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Aug 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
"The Dark Knight Rises" was excellent. Other than its pacing issues, its lack ethical paradox, and its heavy reliance upon the first movie (which doesn't make sense as the second movie is used so frugally to tie in plot points which were unnecessary), it is by far the best superhero movie to date in terms of action. Is the story as psychologically stimulating as "The Dark Knight"? No, but it is ten times more entertaining than it and uses the action scenes as perfectly as "Drive" used anti-climatic chase scenes and sadistic violence to subsidize its slow-paced approach. Batman's "don't kill" attitude seemed so superficial in this movie whereas it was the entire basis of the second movie (which is loosely based on the paradox presented in "The Killing Joke"). That really annoyed the hell out of me. 8.5/10 would view again. People bashing this film for anything else don't understand movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
This is the best superhero movie I've seen in a long time. I thought it was very strong thematically and it did a great job tying together all three films in Nolan's Batman trilogy, as well as providing a satisfying ending to it. I had doubts about Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon Levitt being able to pull off their roles in this but they both did excellent jobs, as did the rest of the cast. I also loved the action and fight scenes in this, Bane was a great main villain too. I give this 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Was just okay. Way too long and still could barely fit the whole story. Didn't care for the villain. Could see how the ending was gonna play out 10 minutes into the movie. 3/4
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Occupy Wall Street Wants to Kill the Rich and Live in Their Homes: The Movie. I mean, nothing in the world was going to top Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, but I was bored to tears with Christopher Nolan's nearly three-hour treatise on class warfare. It also didn't help that casting spoilers ruined the ending of the movie long before it even came out. 1/5 Rabid Koala fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
A very good film let down by certain aspects. The upps: Nolan's film seems to build on the previous good/evil human nature themes with a discussion of negative and positive liberty set against soviet russia/revolutionary france visuals and i found it very interesting - A kind of pastiche that seems to work very well. Characters were done very well. Bane was excellent. The downs: Flow of the film struggles with how epic it tries to be. Characters seem to zip around. Some exposition on how characters show up in the nick of time would have helped. There seem to be problems related to thematic imagery being too intrusive and conflicting with age rating - as other people have mentioned the ww1 style battle scenes seem a little jaring(very few onscreen deaths. No joker cameo(difficult to pull off without being too insensitive i guess) I'd give it a 4/5. Not quite up to dark knight, and certainly not a flop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
Garbage propaganda. Wait, I'm overstating it here, a limp-wristed attempt at modern counter-culture, which essentially amounts to saying "gently caress you" to the poor and middle-class and siding with the rich. Nolan seems to thinks he knows something we don't, however, he's sadly mistaken. The character of Bane is a caricature. The citizens of Gotham defy all logical sense by turning into savages as soon as their reins are slackened. Bruce Wayne is a lost and incompetent child. Themes dramatically contrast with the first two films, and in a film that relies so much on the events and characterization established in the first two, that's a grave sin. Why, all of a sudden, is a series that has traditionally been "for" the common people, is it now an indictment of what Nolan improperly assumes as mob-like anarchy. The film is startling ugly, the action scenes gratuitous in the most eye-rolling way possible, and the speeches are, amazingly enough, somehow even more insipid, insulting, and patronizing than those in the first two. Christopher Nolan has apparently shown his true colors here, as he apparently has joined a long list of modern directors who love insulting their audience for no particular reason other than their apparent incompetence at properly assessing modern events. This film is slack-jawed commentary by a director who has absolutely no idea what he's doing. However, after the collective superficial abortions that were essentially his entire repertoire of film, I don't really know what I expect from this overrated troglodyte. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
This is by far one of my favorite movies. It is one of the few movies where I could watch it days in a row and still be entertained each time. I believe that each movie in the trilogy got better every time. It's sad to think that there will be no more. The only problem I had with this movie was how the government left Gotham alone for several months. Very unrealistic in my opionion 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
I'm so glad Nolan won't be making more Batman movies. Hope Aronofsky gets picked up for next reboot, he does obsessive character studies perfectly and there was very little of that in this one. 2/5 Terminally Bored fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
I have not been a big fan of the reboot. I disliked Batman Begins before seeing it because I felt the new bat mobile looked retarded, and I feel the same way about the tumbler and bat wing. That aside, the plot for Dark Knight Rises was far too slow, this film needed a lot more action than it had. One of the key features in the plot is hilariously unbelievable, especially considering this new trilogy is supposedly a "realistic" look at batman. Bane breaks Batman's back, and Wayne heals by having a "highly trained" professional punch him in the back just to make sure anything that remains of his spinal cord is completely severed, then he makes a miraculous recovery in a couple months time. Holy poo poo. . . I know the comic books included this, but I really, really do feel this could have been addressed in a slightly more realistic way in the movie. I really felt far too many elements tried to be realistic but ended up just being silly instead. Barricading off Also, gently caress Nolan for the "Occupy Gotham" point of view everywhere in this film, I want to see batman not a political debate. I really want to like Batman, he is my favorite super hero, but this trilogy (especially this film) just really ruined Batman. 1/5 Not Wolverine fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Not terrible, but still quite disappointing. I haven't actually seen Batman Begins, but this definitely pales in comparison to TDK in my opinion. The suspension of disbelief was very hard to ignore and does not fit at all with the realistic Batman of at least TDK. Batman's miraculous recovery, his escape from prison, people being in the right place at the right time, etc, etc. As mentioned by others the action scenes were too over the top, and the emotional scenes too unrealistic.(The quote from Tale of Two Cities had me closer to laughing than emotional.) Bane's motivations are extremely thin, his origin story is rather contrived IMO (although I know this is true to the comics) and then at the end it turns out he's not the real villain at all and his entire development is thrown away. Speaking of which the entire character of Miranda seems to be there just for consistency with the comics. She does basically nothing until the last 30 minutes. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman is good but she does not have a major role. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character gives a mediocre performance and seems to be there for comics consistency /setting up the next movie. The film beats the viewer over the head with its political commentary. It really does approach a right wing caricature of "egalitarianism" or the French Revolution, or Occupy Wall Street, or whatever this week's manifestation of Red Communism is. The movie is based on A Tale of Two Cities obviously, but that book was a conservative commentary on politics from 1850s Britain. Maybe it's just because I disagree with such a viewpoint, but the movie really does not give a very nuanced or deep commentary on the subject and it comes off badly. The fight scenes are entertaining, but if I wanted to see that I would see the Avengers. Also Michael Caine gives an excellent performance, as does Morgan Freeman, so I got my money's worth at least. In the end I think it suffered from sticking to the comics too closely, and trying to shoehorn a political message into it. It felt like a superhero movie, and what made TDK great was that it did not feel like a superhero movie. Too many characters, contrived plot, and a cheesy, shoehorned in message. 2.5/5 (with TDK 5/5) icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
This review contains spoilers, but the movie came out a year ago so I don't care anymore. The Dark Knight Rises is a bombastic, pretentious, and illogical mess, a sign that the director and screenwriter let themselves get carried away after the massive success of the previous installment. They've thrown together a bunch of big ideas with no solid foundation and a poorly strung-together narrative. It's a problem the other films suffer from but in this one it has become painfully noticeable. It has deservedly become the target of countless parodies. This film is loaded with faux-profundity. Most of its symbolism has impact because they're not rooted in anything realistic. A key example is a lengthy sequence where Bruce is locked in an Indian prison after being defeated by Bane. The point of the scene is to show Bruce overcoming his doubts and fears and finding the strength to haul himself back onto his feet and become Batman again, but the way this is executed is utter nonsense. His broken spine is literally slapped into place by a slobbish inmate who might no even be a doctor. Maybe he's a mutant with magic healing hands. Bruce then works to escape the prison by free-climbing a shaft to the surface. This is done in full view of the prisoners, so we can only assume that the guards allow this sort of thing, and specifically that method, because the prisoners would be more sensible to co-operate and build a ladder system or something. Why didn't Bane factor this into his plans? The sequence is meant to symbolize rebirth through force of will, but it more represents magic and bizarre stupidity. Why does Bruce have to learn to be Batman again? He already knows how to be Batman. Not even the laws of nature can stop him from being Batman. Despite 8 years of inactivity and physical damage severe enough to require a walking stick, Bruce has no problem getting back into the suit and kicking rear end again. This might sound like nitpicking, but the film tries to carry itself on this stuff, so it is not excusable. There is also a failed romantic subplot with Selina Kyle. She does nothing to earn Bruce's trust and love. In the first half of the film, she robs him, insults him, robs him again, then sells him out to Bane. Yet Bruce keeps going back to her like an abused spouse except they're not even lovers yet. She's an incorrigible criminal but the World's Greatest Detective is too blinded by her huge rack. This is supposed to mirror their relationship in the comic books, but it's done in the worst possible way. The villain, Bane is a mixed bag. His problem is not his distorted voice, which is comprehensible to any fluent English speaker. It is his shallow political subtext. He's trying to ape the Joker's style, but he's privately delivering Ra's Al Ghul's rhetoric. Selina and Bane both make vague references to Gotham's corrupt and unfair oligarchy, but they never show anything specific, so we don't really know what he's talking about. Furthermore, he victimizes everyone in Gotham with his terrorism, so we wonder who he's really fighting. The only way I can make sense of it is to assume it's just a cynical cover to distract the outside world long enough for Bane's improvised nuke to go off, a bit like Hans Gruber's ruse in Die Hard. The film also suffers from serious pacing problems. The middle act where Bruce languishes in prison and Gordon plays a cat-and-mouse game with Bane lasts way too long. Again, the fistfight scenes feel flat. There are plenty of nice things I can say, though. The drama between Bruce and his loving butler and foster father, Alfred, is sweet and perhaps the real heart of the story. Michael Caine's tearful funeral speech is so good that I was mad when Bruce turns up alive later on, invalidating it. Though the middle act is boring, the first act is gripping and the final act is decent. The new Batwing looks fantastic. The cinematography is gorgeous. Hans Zimmer's score is as always fantastic. 3/5 Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
To me the biggest achievement of this film is managing to distance itself from the previous, and somehow having an interesting setting of villains despite the inevitable comparisons. Some very strange decisions and pacing issues. I don't know how to go in-depth about this movie because really, I don't think there is much to say about it. It could have been much better, but it was fine for me. And that's the best I can say about it. It is fine. I enjoyed the overarching plot and villains despite they making little sense and depth. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Batman leading the cops is awful and JGL's character exists only to show how incompetent the other officers are and he is insufferable. A 1/5 because I can't give it a zero
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
2/5 just for giving the world mumbly Bane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlLpHPqrK3o
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2022 00:11
|
|
