Jul 20 2012

Dark Knight Rises Was Really Strong

Published by at 3:52 am under Superhero Movies

 

Some initial thoughts (with some spoilers):

  • Catwoman was serviceable, but I was hoping for more.  (That opening scene with the missing congressman was pretty awesome, though). I really like the tweaks they made to Blake’s backstory, but the character would probably have benefited from more interaction with Batman.
  • I missed maybe 10-20% of Bane’s lines due to the quality of his voice. I hope this was just an issue with the sound quality of my theatre rather than the voice being horribly garbled.
  • Gotham’s police held the idiot ball the entire movie. Letting random gang members escape on motorcycles from a completely-surrounded stock exchange was weak, but the climactic battle was just decrepit. Rushing into a battle with clubs and light weapons against assault rifles is stupid. I find it hard to believe that the writer(s) that came up with Catwoman’s opening scene couldn’t have done more here. (Diversionary tactics? Setting a trap/ambush? Any use of cover? Any smuggled explosives from the army? Anything to reduce visibility besides a few smoke grenades too late to change anything?) This battle is perhaps the only moment when the police actually have any semblance of initiative, and it’s disappointing that they mishandled it so badly. Overall, the police force was so thoroughly idiotic that the commissioner taking part in a SWAT raid was barely noticeable.
  • The villains were better than average.  Dr. Crane (Scarecrow) makes a hilarious appearance and I’m glad that he eschewed his mask.
  • Some plot developments didn’t really go anywhere and/or make much sense. For example, Bane reads the letter from Gordon to dispirit the people of Gotham. Most importantly, there aren’t any consequences here. Secondarily, the evidence is so weak and the speaker’s credibility so shaky that I can’t imagine many people would pay much attention. Moreover, this plot arc just reinforces that it would have been smarter for Gordon to pin Dent’s death on a criminal group (like the mob) rather than Batman.
  • Instead of repelling an invasion in a matter of hours (a la Avengers), Gotham liberates itself over three months. I thought this really helped the filmmakers show the grinding effect of the war rather than just showing, say, buildings exploding. Additionally, it opens up avenues of character development (e.g. it’s more believable that the police commissioner opts to “keep his head down” after 2 months of occupation rather than 2 hours).
  • Depending on your political preferences, the portrayal of the Occupy Wall Street movement (e.g. terrorists, a Robespierre-style reign of terror, no remotely likable goals, no likable characters, and a nuclear massacre plot) might be cause for surliness. If you’re writing a political conflict vaguely tied to the real world, I’d generally recommend making it more of a conflict between likable protagonists than between protagonists and psychotic antagonists. (Catwoman could have used some work on the likability front, by the way). On the other side of the political spectrum, X-Men: First Class could have done a better job making the CIA less one-dimensionally evil.
  • As expected, the fiery death of Ben Roethlisberger was the movie’s main feel-good moment.
  • A newspaper headline misspelled “heist” as “hiest.”

54 responses so far

54 Responses to “Dark Knight Rises Was Really Strong”

  1. deadmanshandon 20 Jul 2012 at 10:06 am

    This movie was awful. From beginning to end. Numerous extraneous subplots that either didn’t go anywhere or had no effect on the main story what so ever, poorly choreographed fight scenes, the dialogue was this melodramatic cheesefest, the twists were painfully obvious, the main story was nonsensical to this ridiculous extent, the whole breaking of the bat – and how it was fixed – was idiotic, the John Blake character was god awful and his explanation for knowing Batman’s secret identity was physically painful, and the Batwing looked like it was made from sheet metal and cardboard.

  2. B. McKenzieon 20 Jul 2012 at 11:56 am

    “This movie was awful. From beginning to end.” I think it mostly delivered on what most of the audience expected. 86% on Rotten Tomatoes puts it nearly in the top tier of superhero movies and among the highest-rated threequels. (The only ones to beat 86% were The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; Goldfinger; Return of the King; Prisoner of Azkaban; and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*). Except for the handling of the police, I don’t remember anything I’d characterize as “awful.” I’ve watched Green Lantern too recently to throw around such hyperbole.

    *I believe this is the first time in my life I’ve ever used semi-colons in a list. Thanks, TGTB&TU.

  3. deadmanshandon 20 Jul 2012 at 12:22 pm

    I’m not throwing hyperbole. It was awful. Nothing in it made any damn sense what so ever. John Blake should have been cut from the movie because he added nothing to it. Talia al Ghul should have been cut because she added nothing to it besides an extremely poorly done mastermind reveal and do’t get me started on her final scene. There were numerous throw away plotlines that went nowhere and did nothing.

    And why do you quote Rotten Tomato numbers? They don’t mean anything. A good movie is a good movie regardless of what a website tells me. Same with a bad movie.

  4. B. McKenzieon 20 Jul 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “I’m not throwing hyperbole… Nothing in it made any damn sense what so ever.” I hope you’re being ironic here.

  5. deadmanshandon 20 Jul 2012 at 1:54 pm

    *sigh* No. I’m not. But I also don’t feel like arguing this movie the way I did the Dark Knight. It is enough that neither I nor anyone I watched the movie with enjoyed the movie. Arguing with other people’s interpretations is not something I actually feel good enough to do right now.

    So I am going to bow out of any forming argument, take some pain pills, and watch a movie I actually enjoyed seeing.

  6. B. McKenzieon 20 Jul 2012 at 2:04 pm

    “I am going to… watch a movie I actually enjoyed seeing.” I’d recommend Avengers and Amazing Spider-Men if you haven’t seen them already. Brave was sort of underwhelming–I thought it suffered from a bizarre plot and characterization significantly weaker than Pixar’s high standards. Among indy films, I haven’t seen The Impostor yet, but the premise sounds interesting and the reviews so far have been very favorable.

  7. deadmanshandon 20 Jul 2012 at 2:42 pm

    I didn’t care for the Amazing Spider-Man. There were a lot of idiot balls being carried in that movie. Not horrible but it didn’t do anything for me. Brave I’ll see on dvd. The Imposter doesn’t sound like my kind of movie. Indy movies usually aren’t. Avengers I might go see for the 4th time – just not in 3d.

  8. crescon 20 Jul 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I wouldn’t consider it “Awful” Electra was “Awful”.

    I wouldn’t use the word “Strong” either though. Though I liked the movie i felt it was the weakest entry in this series of Batman movies.

    (Spoilers)

    -Bane: Good performance from Tom Hardy, but he never really progresses beyond a 2 dimensional villian. Yes, he’s well written, but he’s no Joker.

    -Also good showing from Anne Hathaway, but she didn’t have a lot to do. They didn’t really clash at all, and I don’t really know why both of them make there respective lifestyle changes at the end.

    -I thought the sci-fi elements were out of place. Instead of a bad-ass yet practical mini tank, we have a hover car (still pretty cool). A fission reactor that isn’t the size of a city block, and what is this the cold war? That part reminded my of Highlander 2. I liked Bane but the Darth Vader mask had no real explanation. Batman is now a world of space ships, doomsday weapons, and Cyborgs.

    -I felt the scarecrow cameo was forced, why would he be in the role of a judge? Someone like Zaz or even a yet to be introduced villian would have been more appropriate. He was only there to give Cillian Murphy a few days work.

  9. aharrison 20 Jul 2012 at 6:48 pm

    I think the DKR has been in the works for longer than the Occupy Movement, so I’ll call any resemblance accidental. I’d say it’s likely more meant to be a parallel with the French Revolution and other such “people’s” revolutions of the type and where they almost inevitably end up.

    As to the police force holding the idiot ball, wasn’t it mentioned that Gotham had been enjoying a nice 8 years of peace? If so, wouldn’t it be plausible that the police might actually have gotten fairly complacent and be woefully unprepared to handle a real crisis? 8 years is almost a decade to get fat after the darker years of Batman Begins and TDK.

    Also, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families in Aurora, CO. Words cannot even begin to express.

  10. B. McKenzieon 20 Jul 2012 at 9:21 pm

    “As to the police force holding the idiot ball, wasn’t it mentioned that Gotham had been enjoying a nice 8 years of peace? If so, wouldn’t it be plausible that the police might actually have gotten fairly complacent and be woefully unprepared to handle a real crisis?” I’ll defer to any people here with LEO or military experience here, but I feel pretty confident that the average marksman (let alone anybody with actual tactical experience, such as the SWAT officers they had on hand) would have been able to put together a better plan than rushing into a wall of guys with assault rifles.

    One possibility which probably would have been more visually interesting would have been having Batman and/or the Army smuggle in explosives, which the underground police officers could use to undermine the streets around City Hall and send most of the mercenaries tumbling underground. THEN having hundreds of cops swarm the surviving mercenaries at City Hall would be more likely to succeed. (Alternately, the focus of the scene could be in the tunnels beneath the city, like the police officers fighting with the mercenaries that have been bombed below). Alternately, maybe something more guerilla-esque, like plans to draw out teams of mercenaries and then eliminate them with surprise attacks. (For example, Gordon’s ambush with a Greyhound bus is intelligent and makes for an exciting, fun scene).



    While complacency probably excuses some of it (like the stock exchange scene, before the police realized what was happening), the Gotham police were still making terrible mistakes 3 months into the war (e.g. trying to rush a wall of assault rifles). Additionally, the Gotham PD made some serious mistakes even before the lull in the war on crime. For example, SWAT sharpshooters didn’t notice that the “hostage-takers” were taped to their weapons in Dark Knight.

  11. B. McKenzieon 20 Jul 2012 at 9:33 pm

    “I felt the scarecrow cameo was forced; why would he be in the role of a judge?” I think it’s an allusion to the Reign of Terror (i.e. judges trying to terrorize the population into a particular course of action). Given Scarecrow’s fear-related motivations, I think it’s sort of fitting. I suppose they could have introduced a new character, but I’m not sure it would have been worthwhile to introduce a new villain if he only got 3-4 lines of dialogue.

  12. YellowJujuon 21 Jul 2012 at 7:17 pm

    I haven’t seen it yet, so I didn’t read the article or any comments. Some reviews I’ve seen say that the movie was awful. I refused to believe them.

  13. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Well, then, I have nothing to say but “get to the cinema!” 🙂

  14. YoungAuthoron 21 Jul 2012 at 7:54 pm

    I heard it was better tham the previosu two but i also heard it was a cut under them. Who do i believe?!?!?!

  15. YellowJujuon 21 Jul 2012 at 8:04 pm

    I couldn’t help myself, I read the article. Didn’t spoil much! I realize that what I said some reviews said, is exactly what deadmanshand said. So, deadmanshand, I don’t believe you.

  16. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 8:22 pm

    “I think the DKR has been in the works for longer than the Occupy Movement, so I’ll call any resemblance accidental.” That’s possible. Maybe they were only going for a Reign of Terror feel and any resemblance to Occupy Wall Street is completely unintended. Shooting on the film started in May 2011 and post-production began around around January 2012, so maybe it would have been really inconvenient/impractical for them to alter the script by the time anybody realized the villains might appear too similar to the Occupy crowd. (The OWS movement first started getting substantial media coverage in October 2011, and DKR wrapped up shooting in November 2011). Okay, I’m inclined to retract my previous point here–the filmmakers probably deserve the benefit of the doubt here.

  17. Janon 21 Jul 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Are you planing on writing a review for ‘Heroes’? I picked it up from the library and found it to be horrible. Justice’s orgin was the worst: His parents sent him off a space ship seconds before his planet exploded, where he was found by an elderly couple. They don’t even try to separate it from Superman. I’m not sure if this is a hack or on purpose…

  18. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 8:50 pm

    “I heard it was better than the previous two but I also heard it was a cut under them. Who should I believe?” Bottom line: I think it’s worth the cost of a ticket to see it yourself. The worst case scenario is that you spend $5-10 on market research–even if you end up hating the movie, it might be worthwhile to see a superhero movie which will sell hundreds of millions of dollars of tickets and did very well in reviews (87% on Rotten Tomatoes).

    It’ll give superhero authors another look at some innovative storytelling methods in their genres. For example, one element which I’d really like to try in my own work at some point is the idea of cops/agents and/or soldiers and/or superheroes working in an anarchic First World city without much/any hope of backup, but I’m not really into global meltdown/apocalypse stories. I was very interested by how TDKR has a single city go berserk without the outside world able to offer (overt) assistance.

    PS: If you really liked The Dark Knight, I can’t see any reason you’d hate the sequel.

  19. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 8:53 pm

    “Are you planning on writing a review for Heroes? Justice’s orgin was the worst: His parents sent him off a space ship seconds before his planet exploded, where he was found by an elderly couple. They don’t even try to separate it from Superman.” I assume we’re not talking about Heroes the TV show? Could you please clarify, Jan?

  20. Janon 21 Jul 2012 at 10:40 pm

    I’m sorry, I misidentified. ‘Hero’ by Perry Moore, a superhero novel. Whoops!

  21. deadmanshandon 21 Jul 2012 at 11:22 pm

    “I realize that what I said some reviews said, is exactly what deadmanshand said. So, deadmanshand, I don’t believe you.”

    You will, YellowJuju.

  22. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 11:47 pm

    “So, deadmanshand, I don’t believe you.”
    “You will, YellowJuju.”
    Haha! 🙂

  23. B. McKenzieon 21 Jul 2012 at 11:53 pm

    “Hero, a superhero novel by Perry Moore.” Oh, okay. Sorry, but I don’t think I’d be the best person to review it.

  24. YellowJujuon 22 Jul 2012 at 12:35 am

    “You will, YellowJuju.”
    I shall take that as a challenge. As I said before, I refuse to believe such reviews. Haha

  25. Anonymouson 22 Jul 2012 at 12:59 am

    As soon as you’ve seen the movie, you can taunt friends that haven’t seen it with lines like “This reminds of the time the Mad Hatter killed Batman in The Dark Knight Rises” or “The Dark Knight Rises is a pretty misleading name for a movie in which Killer Croc throws Batman’s body out to rot with the fishes” or “POW! Just like Clayface/Gordon finishing Batman with the shotgun in The Dark Knight Rises.” Man, they better have Clayface.

  26. B. McKenzieon 22 Jul 2012 at 2:02 pm

    This reminds me of the time that they casted Michael Clarke Duncan as Riddler! 🙂

  27. deadmanshandon 22 Jul 2012 at 2:59 pm

    I thought Channing Tatum was magnificent as the Red Hood. Superb.

  28. B. McKenzieon 22 Jul 2012 at 4:01 pm

    And Joan Rivers was impressive as Clayface, although that first transformation scene was a bit intense for a PG-13 movie.

  29. deadmanshandon 22 Jul 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Nasty but Mickey Rourke’s Killer Croc was surprisingly poignant even when he killed Haley Joel Osment’s Robin.

  30. B. McKenzieon 22 Jul 2012 at 5:21 pm

    If you look very carefully during the Scarecrow scene, Johnny Depp does a silent cameo as the bailiff (Arnold Wesker, the guy holding the dummy with a gun).

  31. deadmanshandon 22 Jul 2012 at 7:13 pm

    And it was nice to see Al Pacino playing the dummy.

  32. Aj of Earthon 22 Jul 2012 at 8:33 pm

    “And Joan Rivers as Clayface was pretty impressive” HA!

  33. Anonymouson 24 Jul 2012 at 6:12 am

    I like that they didn’t kill Batman, but why make Morgan Freeman the Riddler? Fox and Batman didn’t hate each other that much in Dark Knight, did they?

  34. deadmanshandon 24 Jul 2012 at 8:23 am

    Still not as much of a twist as finding out Rachel Dawes was actually Ra’s Al Ghul’s heir.

  35. YellowJujuon 24 Jul 2012 at 9:16 am

    SPOILER! Banes in this movie. END SPOILER!

  36. WritingNinjaon 24 Jul 2012 at 6:31 pm

    I didn’t like the movie. Which is surprising. I’m a huge batman movie/cartoon fan. It was a ton of senseless violence. Simply because, they can. The characters weren’t really developed that well. It didn’t make sense that Miranda was suddenly important enough to make out with when all they had was a lot of conflict. Batman’s obsession with catwoman becoming a good person was really forced. And it’s hinted that he ends up with her at the end. I just wish they picked one character and established a relationship that way.
    I was really confused about who was the main evil villain who was running the whole thing. They work up the whole Bane character. But oops! His backstory wasn’t really his, it was Bruce’s fake girlfriend.
    I really like the John Blake character, even though his appearance was more forced. Simply because he wasn’t another dumb person in the movie.
    And Alfred, leaving Batman? Really? Never.

    It just was disappointing. It’s like watching someone who hates their job but still works because he is too wimpy to make a good change.

    I think the best part was the ending of the movie. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. I did like how Batman almost died. How Robin got started…ect.

  37. B. McKenzieon 25 Jul 2012 at 12:52 am

    “It didn’t make sense that Miranda was suddenly important enough to make out with when all they had was a lot of conflict.” How do you think the relationship/romance with Miranda compared to Batman’s relationship with Rachel Dawes?

  38. WritingNinjaon 25 Jul 2012 at 3:56 pm

    I thought the relationship was better with Rachel. Mostly because it developed Batman as a character. Plus she seemed more believeable because she was conflicted with who to choose. It made some twists in the movie. It is nice to see a girl that can be friends with a superhero without turning it into a main love interest. Even though she kissed Batman, it seemed like she was more in love with the idea (secretive guy, strong, good heart) than Bruce himself. Realistically it would be hard to build a relationship with someone who vanishes, lies/withholds truth, and thinks vengence is good. So when she picked Harvey, it seemed natural.
    Whereas, with Miranda, it just seemed like it was tossed in there just to have love interest. Sure it showed that Bruce was lonely, but I got the gist of that from other scenes. It didn’t develope anything. I think they should have spent more time developing Catwoman as a person and let her be the love interest. It would have made more interesting conflicts and developements.

  39. B. McKenzieon 25 Jul 2012 at 4:25 pm

    “So when she picked Harvey, it seemed natural.” Agreed! I think this went further to establishing Bruce’s loneliness than Miranda did. Rachel–perhaps the most ordinary person in the series–passed on Bruce Wayne even though he was an attractive, charming billionaire.

  40. WritingNinjaon 26 Jul 2012 at 11:15 am

    One thing that made me glad was that they mentioned Rachel in the Dark Knight Rises. I just wished they could have played on it more. Visiting her grave, flash backs to some good advice. Perhaps screaming at her head stone for choosing Harvey once Alfred told me the truth….
    I just couldn’t get over the way Bruce gave up and did everything Half Hardheartedly. Even if they did take the route, I would have loved some more development with it.

  41. Edgukatoron 03 Aug 2012 at 5:24 am

    Sorry I’m late to the party, guys. But I was avoiding this article until I had seen the movie. My 5 cents

    ***Here be spoilers***

    First, the negatives.

    1) Bane came off as too much a, to steal a phrase from Alan Moore, Republican Serial Villain. Not only did he “leave him to die” (with two different protagonists, no less), but he killed henchmen for no good reason, fell for the super-villain soliloquy trick (as did Talia, for that matter), and chose to fight hand to hand, despite it leaving him open to his own version of kryptonite.
    2) And his voice threw me off.
    3) If the plan was to use the bomb anyway, why wait? I know they didn’t know it was doomed to blow anyway, but when they found out it was going to blow, why wait?
    4) Talia was a mixed bag. She didn’t carry the gravitas of her father, nor her namesake in the comics, and there seemed little chemistry to explain her short lived relationship with Batman.
    5) Catwoman was underwhelming. There were moments where I think she was deliberately written to encapsulate the Occupy movement (her references to doing more for the poor than anyone in the room) but I think Bane was far more of a French Revolution concept. They had a great character and a great actress, but she seemed to just appear deus ex machina at times.
    6) Let me echo others’ take on the police brawl at the end. Remember we were shown some of these guys as the swat team at the beginning, and as weak as they may have been in that seen, at least it was lamp-shaded (“Go after a kidnapper when we have the killer of Dent”)
    7) As pointless as Gordon’s confession was, the conflict this set off between Gordon and Blake was even more senseless.
    8) While the three month timeline of it was a nice change of pace, I think it risked some confusion because of it. In that time, they smuggle Wayne to the Middle East, drop him in a hole where he manages to recuperate from a broken back, overcome his personal demons and fly back to Gotham just in time to save the day. It was… a bit of a stretch.
    9) I guess its just bad luck, but saving the day by taking the nuclear weapon out into the ocean seemed too familiar to me, considering we’d just seen the Avengers a few months ago.
    10) The “I give you permission to die” line was great from Bane, and horrible from Batman. Yes, it was supposed to be proof that Bane had got under his skin, but there was no reaction to back that up.

    This makes it seem like I hated the movie. These were just the bits that bogged it down for me.

    The positives:

    1) Michael Cain, even in his diminished role, was great.
    2) Ignore Deadmanshand. One of the best things going for the movie was Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He seemed to be one of the most focused characters in the movie, and managed to drive the story when Batman was literally in a hole. The scenes with Gordon coaching him on becoming a detective were hints at what could have been a great subplot, if they had been a bit more selective in their editing.
    3) I loved the idea of a washed up post-Dent Batman. I love the idea of an aging Batman turned emotional shut-in. This was Christian Bale demonstrating that he had some real acting chops as well (but it did make his ‘gravel voice’ stick out all the more when the mask kicked in.
    4) While most of Bane’s moves were off, the scene in the stock exchange was original, as was the scene with Catwoman in the bar.
    5) It’s always a bit hard when they adapt characters for the movie, but Bane was very well adapted (and a thousandfold better than the horrible Batman and Robin adaptation)
    6) Matthew Modine was well cast, and it may just be my imagination, but I think the passing resemblance between him and Harvey Dent may have create unconscious comparisons between the two for me. One the her who goes bad, one the conniving sycophant who dies a hero.
    7) The Dr Crane scene was great, and just where you would expect the psychotic to be, given the circumstances.
    8) The Talia reveal was great, and though I had already guessed it, it was based on subtle enough clues that I felt clever, not insulted by it.
    9) I think the best way to watch this is as a sequel to Batman Begins, because with a few exceptions (Batman the shut-in, the Dent scenes at the beginning, the aborted subplot of Gordon’s confession) this is more in line with the tone and theme of Batman Begins that The Dark Knight. It’s not such a big step down, as a result.

  42. B. McKenzieon 03 Aug 2012 at 6:07 am

    “I guess its just bad luck, but saving the day by taking the nuclear weapon out into the ocean seemed too familiar to me, considering we’d just seen the Avengers a few months ago.” And the NYC invasion angle, although I think Dark Knight Rises handled it more memorably.

    “One the hero who goes bad, one the conniving sycophant who dies a hero.” I really want to agree with this interpretation, but I feel he’s more responsible than anybody for the idiocy of the climactic attack. He’s wearing ceremonial white gloves into war and his battle tactics would have been suicidally outdated in the 1700s. Whenever the Gotham police celebrate V-G Day, the last float in the parade should be reserved for his burning effigy.

  43. Edgukatoron 03 Aug 2012 at 7:23 am

    “I feel he’s more responsible than anybody for the idiocy of the climactic attack”

    I agree, but I think it is more the writing of that particular scene than what is meant to be the arc of his character.

  44. deadmanshandon 03 Aug 2012 at 8:51 am

    “2) Ignore Deadmanshand. One of the best things going for the movie was Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He seemed to be one of the most focused characters in the movie, and managed to drive the story when Batman was literally in a hole. The scenes with Gordon coaching him on becoming a detective were hints at what could have been a great subplot, if they had been a bit more selective in their editing.”

    Let’s not. Every scene with him was pointless. Combine that with Joseph Gordon-Levitt can’t act to save his soul and you get a god awful section of the movie. Nothing he did could not have been done better by giving that action to Gordon.

  45. Edgukatoron 03 Aug 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Well, opinions are opinions, DMH, but I just finished reading the major reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and I couldn’t find any that agreed with you, and a number (even ones that gave the movie a negative review as a whole) that agreed with me.

    I would like to point out one inconsistency that I didn’t enjoy. How is it that the Bike has enough firepower to take out a Tumbler, but the Bat seems powerless against everything? You would think the latest and greatest incarnation of the Bat Vehicl ewould have more firepower, not less.

  46. deadmanshandon 03 Aug 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Why do I care if a number of reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes agree with you? That doesn’t change how I saw things. It also doesn’t change how many people actually agree with me.

    And there is no sane reviewer who will say that Levitt is a better actor than Oldman. So my stance remains that Levitt’s entire subplot – barring the utterly retarded Robin angle – could have been handed over to Oldman. This would have streamlined the movie and removed a number of pointless scenes while giving the better actor time to shine.

  47. B. McKenzieon 04 Aug 2012 at 3:54 am

    “How is it that the Bike has enough firepower to take out a Tumbler, but the Bat seems powerless against everything? You would think the latest and greatest incarnation of the Bat Vehicle would have more firepower, not less.” I don’t remember that scene, but perhaps the difference is the quality of the driver.

  48. Edgukatoron 04 Aug 2012 at 7:46 am

    “I don’t remember that scene, but perhaps the difference is the quality of the driver.”

    This was the scene towards the end where Talia is on the move with the fusion bomb and has the Tumblers as a rear guard. Catwoman is riding the bike, Batman has the Bat.

    Catwoman takes out two or three of the Tumblers with the Bike, while the Bat tries to take out the Tumblers with its guns, fails, then gets chased by the missiles from the Tumblers and uses those to kill a Tumbler.

    In other words, both the Bike and the Tumbler have enough firepower to take out a Tumbler, but not the Bat. On the plus side… It means Catwoman was more effective than Batman in this scene…

  49. YellowJujuon 11 Aug 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Finally saw it today. Loved it.
    Do you think it set it up for an upcoming Batman and Robin/Robin movie?

  50. Hotrod198on 11 Aug 2012 at 11:49 pm

    I watched it today and I have to say, I honestly understood Bane completely. Every time he spoke, I knew what he was talking about. Though I can see why people would find it hard.

    The n annoyance for me was the background music. It played much louder than it should’ve had to be and it drowned out some of the character’s speech. I couldn’t understand that constant chant that was playing al the time though.

    I also thought Anne Hathaway did a BRILLIANT job as Catwoman. The new take they did on her with her backstory was great.

    And the introduction of what is meant/hinted to be Robin played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt was quite good. I liked how he was portrayed in the movie. I also like his role in the ending. Perhaps a Nightwing movie could be in the makes? Since, Batman is more similar to Nightwing than he is to Robin. So personally, I would like to see a Nightwing Movie.

    Overall, it was a good movie and I guess you could say The Dark Knight Rises was really dark.

  51. B. McKenzieon 12 Aug 2012 at 6:48 am

    “I couldn’t understand that constant chant that was playing all the time though.” When I watched the trailer, I thought they might have been saying “We are Arkham!”, which probably would have been more awesome than it ended up being (and a great contrast to the cherubic rendition of the national anthem in the trailer).



    “I also thought Anne Hathaway did a BRILLIANT job as Catwoman. The new take they did on her with her backstory was great.” If she had been taken out, in what ways do you think the story would have suffered most?



    “I watched it today and I have to say, I honestly understood Bane completely. Every time he spoke, I knew what he was talking about. Though I can see why people would find it hard.” My hearing is pretty bad to begin with and, as a hardcore Midwesterner, I don’t have all that much exposure to outside accents*. (For better or worse, 95%+ of Hollywood characters pronounce words like they’re from the Midwest–it helps ensure that they’ll be understood by most English speakers and helps avoid any negative regional connotations of, say, a New York accent).

    *E.g. the main distinction between Chicagoans and other Midwesterners is pronouncing Chicago as Shh-CAW-GO (local) or Shh-CAH-GO (tourist) and pronouncing the Chicago Bears’ current status as “in-CRED-uh-BULL” (local) or “HORR-uh-BULL” (wrong).

  52. Hotrod198on 12 Aug 2012 at 7:16 am

    Yeah, if it was “We Are Arkham” that indeed would’ve been better. Apparently, its some latin translation for “He Rises”. Fitting to the plot yes, but still confusing to hear in the movie.

    Hmmm I am unsure. It might just be my love for the actual Catwoman character herself. But without her, Batman would’ve most certainly have died. Unless of course, the police force itself took a bigger role (or maybe even introduced Robin to help him out properly).

    But getting rid of her probably wouldn’t have made the story suffer too much. Albeit, her criminal acts and such did make her a good ally for Batman to use to get to Bane (despite getting beaten and thrown in the pit). Maybe if instead of her killing Bane,she went after Tate, leaving Batman to try and fight Bane back and destroy his gas mask thing, letting there be a decent fight-ending scene to the movie, and not just a single shot from the Batpod. Having her chase after Tate, jumping on the roof of the truck, running along, pull her out of the truck, have a fight scene between the two where Tate either a) gets knocked out and serves prison time or b) gets ran over by a Tumbler, jsut to kill her off. Either way, I will agree, Catwoman could have had a bigger importance. But what she did in the movie personally, felt good like a good contribution to me.

    Well accents can affect people’s hearing, so it is understandable. Coming from Australia, I find some American accents really hard to understand sometimes. (Not as bad as Scottish though…) But I still manage to understand most movie characters, so that’s something I guess.

    Also, one other thing I liked was the small addition of Crane. I chuckled to myself when he appeared and actually liked his minor role in the movie. Especially Death or Exile considering they are the same thing xD

  53. Nayanon 06 Oct 2012 at 7:39 pm

    I think, TDKR is a very good movie. Not as good as TDK but I will still rate it above Avengers. I think making the final film of a trilogy is very hard. So, Nolan did a great job. I noticed a small error in the film. The policemen were kept captured for three months. But when they came out, their faces were cleanly shaved. I dont know if they were provided with razors along with food by Bane’s men.

  54. B. McKenzieon 07 Oct 2012 at 4:05 am

    “I noticed a small error in the film. The policemen were kept captured for three months. But when they came out, their faces were cleanly shaved. I don’t know if they were provided with razors along with food by Bane’s men.” In an 100% realistic story, they’d be suffering from all sorts of hygienic, medical and psychological issues when they are freed. However, the issue of whether they’re clean-shaven or not is mainly cosmetic, so I’d give the filmmakers a lot of creative license here unless it detracts from the story in some way. For example, casting centerfold Halle Berry as a supposedly-unattractive wallflower in Catwoman made an important part of the character’s plot/quest less believable.

    Additionally, I think it’s just a Hollywood convention that Hollywood tries to avoid things it finds unattractive, even when it causes a minor plot hole. For example, Bruce Wayne has no hair on his chest when he goes swimming with the Russian models in TDK. Every Hollywood guy shaves his chest, apparently… even Batman!

    On the whole, though, I think Nolan did a remarkable job avoiding the Hollywood impulse to make everybody look like models. In particular, Lucius, Rachel, Dent, Gordon and Reese looked at best modestly attractive. For example, compare Rachel Dawes to Mary Jane, the Invisible Woman, Catwoman, or Black Widow. The only Nolan character that looked vaguely Hollywood to me was Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne, and even he looked human compared to, say, the Bruce Wayne of George Clooney or Val Kilmer.



    See also: Hollywood Homely.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply