|
Post by Sprite on Jul 22, 2012 5:07:19 GMT -5
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-
|
|
|
Post by CJ on Jul 22, 2012 7:49:40 GMT -5
Well, I guess it's spoiler free review time.
I understand this movie will never be as good as The Dark Knight. But that's not the point of the movie. It was a beautiful masterpiece that I'll be happy to watch again and again.
Usual feminist-like rant: I was pleased by the female cast of this movie. Anne Hathaway and Marion Cotillard were stunning in their roles. Catwoman was likely the best part of the whole movie. Not to mention the awesome inclusion of female officers among the police force. That blew me away.
The soundtrack made the movie seem big. It was a fantastic piece of work. The "Rise" theme in particular was incredible, how it was used as the villain's theme toward the beginning and evolved to a theme of hope toward the end. It's really cool how the "theme" has a story unto itself.
The flaws? I'm not going to rant about any differences between this movie and the Batman universe. It's Christopher Nolan's Batman and I'm cool with his unique vision.
My only real complaint is that it was a little too long. It could have been shortened by fifteen to thirty minutes.
Everyone needs to see this movie. Seriously, go see on the big screen. It's definitely worth your time.
|
|
|
Post by Morcombe on Jul 22, 2012 12:08:55 GMT -5
Best of the 3 movies imo.
|
|
|
Post by Sprite on Jul 22, 2012 17:00:43 GMT -5
Nothing can really ever top Dark Knight with Heath Ledger. But I feel Dark Knight Rises did its job very well as a conclusion to the trilogy :)
Not the best movie out of the three, but a very good conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Xero on Jul 23, 2012 12:11:12 GMT -5
It was actually my least favorite of the three. It was a good film, not great. The plot was better than The Dark Knight, however, it was poorly executed in my opinion. The pacing was all over the place. There were bits and pieces that was better than the first two, however, it never took that next step like the Dark Knight did over Batman Begins.
I'll write my review hopefully later on in the week.
|
|
|
Post by crocoduck on Jul 28, 2012 18:50:45 GMT -5
I can't possibly be the one that found this movie to be stupid. Like. It was so stupid. The acting was good, the graphics were good, action scenes were good but omg it was so stupid. Let's just take realism and toss it out the window. OKAY! Spoiler time, to show example Two examples that really stuck in my head.
When he's in the prison and the guy goes "you have a vertebrae sticking out of your back" AND THEN PROCEEDS TO FIXING IT BY FUCKING PUNCHING IT. Then tadaaa, fixed.
Guys, if you ever have one of your goddamn vertebra sticking out of your back, for the love of christ, don't punch it. I shouldn't worry though, because odds are you'd either be A) dead B) in a coma or C) paralyzed.
And then he just toughed through it and was suddenly okay.
Second event?
You want to throw a rebellion, so you amass all your forces into one tiny street and have them charge at the people with guns? When you yourselves have guns? And you, the enemy, you're just going to fucking watch and decide "Eh, guns aren't very effective" and then dive into the crowd and start fist fighting? Hokay.
Also, I love how he randomly appeared in Gotham at just the right place and time. Not like there was an army blockading the entire island or anything, and not like he didn't have any of his batman gear.
|
|
|
Post by mainy on Jul 28, 2012 18:56:45 GMT -5
well i guess i got caught up in the hype because if im honest, it was my least favorite of the three. as a conclusion i liked how they done that but as in overall acting, characters, scenes etc etc it just didn't do it for me as much as begins and the dark knight did
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Jul 29, 2012 23:24:38 GMT -5
I can't possibly be the one that found this movie to be stupid. Like. It was so stupid. The acting was good, the graphics were good, action scenes were good but omg it was so stupid. Let's just take realism and toss it out the window. OKAY! Spoiler time, to show example Two examples that really stuck in my head.
When he's in the prison and the guy goes "you have a vertebrae sticking out of your back" AND THEN PROCEEDS TO FIXING IT BY FUCKING PUNCHING IT. Then tadaaa, fixed.
Guys, if you ever have one of your goddamn vertebra sticking out of your back, for the love of christ, don't punch it. I shouldn't worry though, because odds are you'd either be A) dead B) in a coma or C) paralyzed.
And then he just toughed through it and was suddenly okay.
Second event?
You want to throw a rebellion, so you amass all your forces into one tiny street and have them charge at the people with guns? When you yourselves have guns? And you, the enemy, you're just going to fucking watch and decide "Eh, guns aren't very effective" and then dive into the crowd and start fist fighting? Hokay.
Also, I love how he randomly appeared in Gotham at just the right place and time. Not like there was an army blockading the entire island or anything, and not like he didn't have any of his batman gear.
First event; his spine wasn't sticking out of his skin, I just watched the movie and this is not what happened. He said the vertebra was protruding from his back. Effectively Bane induced the equivalent of a dislocation in the spine, the dirty Eastern European man was prepping it to allow the gravity to set it. He didn't punch Batman's spine into place, he unset the fracture and hung Batman up so the spine took its natural position and could heal. Second event; the cops were shooting their guns as well. With Batman disabling the Tumblers, the fire line was broken. Bane's forces were a disorganized collection of hobos, they'd break over less. That, and the police were roughly 3000 strong, the criminals didn't have some grand organized firing position set up, they were huddled on the street and when the police (after MANY getting gunned down, watch it again if you don't remember) finally met with the front line, the hobos aren't just going to open fire into their own ranks. Lastly; he's Batman, it should not be difficult for him to find a way into the city. Forget all the hi-tech gear and supplies he might have, he was trained for seven years as a ninja in covert infiltration and stealth tactics. Effectively the equivalent of Manhattan was blockaded, it really would not be hard to find a way inside for someone with his skillset. Hell, the damn special ops guys found their way inside, several of them. --- I just saw the movie. I liked it quite a lot, I have no clue what people's beef with it is. What, the second movie was better? To this day I maintain the second movie was just a crime drama with DC characters added in. That, and Heath Ledger didn't, on his own, make the movie for me. The Dark Knight Rises was to me, much more of a Batman movie than the second film, and for that, I think I might like it more than the second.
|
|
|
Post by Kyubey on Jul 30, 2012 0:02:44 GMT -5
Good parts:
The story, especially everything after the football field explosion. I liked the characters a whole lot, especially Bane and Alfred, which were both superb performances. There were a lot of great twists that kept me surprised throughout, though I'm guessing that most of that came from me never reading the comics. Everything else has been said. On par with the Dark Knight, though for entirely different reasons. Action scenes were fun, I don't really think about them though, so I'll let you guys decide whether they were good or not.
Bad parts:
Honestly, I really didn't like Catwoman. I know it's different for other people, but, well, the writers succeeded in writing a strong female, but not a strong female character. I realize that's the way the character is, but I don't know, I really didn't enjoy it in this movie. I probably would've liked her performance better, if everything else hadn't been so flawless. Not my favorite Catwoman. Also, Bane's death felt REALLY anticlimactic. It was more like he was just shooed out of the story when the writers no longer needed him, rather than having his character arc end in an appropriate way.
Also, is it just me, or has there been a lot of "oh no, there's a bomb, gonna have to save everyone by flying away and sacrificing myself only I don't die somehow" in movies lately? It's like everyone wants to be Pell. It's hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Xero on Jul 30, 2012 0:20:05 GMT -5
My only real beef was the pacing issues. The beginning of the movie took too damn long to get going which made it boring for the first hour. After that, the movie began to go in a faster pace, which was fine but by then the audience does not have time to comprehend what is going on. It was a well written plot, better than the second. But again, I thought the execution was not on par as the second.
I will agree that the second one was mainly a crime drama with Batman in it. Well, the third was mainly a domestic terrorism movie with Batman added in. For me, the second seemed more of a Batman movie because Batman is for the most part, a detective. So crime is his forte, not terrorism. But this is Batman for the 21st century, so it still makes sense.
Quite frankly, this was more of a Joseph Gordon Levitt movie than anything.
I agree that Bane's death was handled poorly. The man who utterly defeated Batman was killed in such a "bitch" way.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Jul 30, 2012 0:34:55 GMT -5
I will agree that the second one was mainly a crime drama with Batman in it. Well, the third was mainly a domestic terrorism movie with Batman added in. I'm gonna have to disagree on account of how over the top the actual terrorism itself is. That, and the fact that the terrorism aspect itself doesn't really play out until after the Stadium scene onwards, which is after the halfway point of the movie. Plus, Batman isn't even there for it until the last 15 mins. For the most of the "domestic terrorism" part, Batman is in a pit. The reason I equate the second film to a crime drama is because if you took out Batman and the Joker, I feel that for the most part the movie could still work and basically stands up as a crime film. The Joker just goes a little mad bomber at the end. This movie on the other hand, at least in my opinion, is not as plausible without such characters around. It really is a more fantastical (or, unrealistic if you will) plot, that wouldn't stand as well unless it were a Batman/superhero movie. At least, that's my two cents. --- As for Bane's death, I agree that it was kind of wonked. I at least expected him to have some dying words or something. Then again, if you get shot with something which can destroy an armored tank, then you don't really get last words. That, and we didn't literally see Bane die so it might not count as him actually being dead. Me though, I'm more annoyed by the Mayor's death. He was a pretty recurring character, and his death was handled even more poorly, at least in my opinion. It was just like "EXPLOSION MONTAGE AROUND THE CITY OH MAN THE WHOLE PLACE IS COMING DOWN! Oh and by the way, one short quick small explosion in the room the Mayor is in, because fuuuck him!"
|
|
|
Post by Xero on Jul 30, 2012 1:14:12 GMT -5
Well see, the reason why Dark Knight Rises did not seem like a Batman movie to me was because of the fact Batman was only in it for 15 minutes. I felt like this was more of a Robin Begins movie lol. The fact that both this movie and The Dark Knight could work well without the use of Batman shows how talented the writing staff is, at least in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by CJ on Jul 30, 2012 9:38:03 GMT -5
To this day I maintain the second movie was just a crime drama with DC characters added in. That, and Heath Ledger didn't, on his own, make the movie for me. The Dark Knight Rises was to me, much more of a Batman movie than the second film, and for that, I think I might like it more than the second. I couldn't agree more with this statement. This isn't to say that the second movie is bad, of course. The Dark Knight is more of a crime drama than a Batman movie. That's why the mainstream audience loves it. They're not familiar with Batman or how his stories usually flow (I'm talking about current Batman comics and the Arkham video games). This is why I see Heath Ledger's Joker as a completely different character than any other incarnation. Again, this isn't a negative thing. It's Nolan's vision of the character. There's no Harley Quinn (I know she wasn't originally part of the character, but she's becoming more so) and there's not as many crazy antics. With the exception of the terror aspect of the character, the guy was toned down greatly for public audiences and that's why they liked him. Oh, but one thing about Heath's amazing performance, you got to love the laugh. This movie, as Shark said, was more of a Batman movie. It really dug into the character and created a situation so ridiculous it was only suited for Batman. This was the first movie I actually cared for Bruce Wayne or the Dark Knight. Nolan and Bale did an amazing job with his character. Honestly, I really didn't like Catwoman. I know it's different for other people, but, well, the writers succeeded in writing a strong female, but not a strong female character. I realize that's the way the character is, but I don't know, I really didn't enjoy it in this movie. I probably would've liked her performance better, if everything else hadn't been so flawless. Not my favorite Catwoman. Shoot yourself in the foot. I adored Anne Hathaway. In fact, I like this incarnation of Catwoman best. Bringing up my point before about mainstream audiences again, this is probably because I don't know much about the character. I'm subscribed to "Batman and Robin" and "Batgirl" but almost ignore Catwoman completely. I guess it's her constant sexy allure that bothers me. I liked that I could watch Anne Hathaway comfortably without cringing at a low cut top or bad cat puns. This could be just because I hate the comic version of Catwoman but I actually liked Nolan's vision of her. ... You're redeemed. I also thought that.
|
|
|
Post by Kuro on Jul 30, 2012 13:27:34 GMT -5
To the mayor's death, I thought that they did it in that anticlimactic way to show that bad, important stuff was happening, which was shown by killing off such a recurring character in the sudden fashion.
|
|
|
Post by crocoduck on Aug 23, 2012 14:55:12 GMT -5
|
|