Dark Knight Rises

I saw it again last night. This time in IMAX 15x70 screen.

It made me appreciate it more, knowing everyone's likes and complaints about it.

It isn't a weak film by any means at all. After hearing all the negativity after seeing it once, I wasn't so sure but now I am.

The guy in the prison doesn't have magic hands. The film shows that it took over 3 months for Bruce's back to heal.

Sure, we might not have been given a lot of time to appreciate the twist villain, but the backstory was so awesome and the movie was so long anyway, it didn't matter.

I want to know what's with the scar along Bane's spine.

Hat was mine.

With the amount of energy that an army of criminals put into stealing a nuke from a superhero, they could have just normal-bombed Gothma ten times over and saved a whole lot of silliness, and been successful.

Central planning is for the birds. Clearly, the criminal underground was decentralized, yet they just had to go ahead with a 'master plan'. Collectivism fail.

so basically you just want a completely different movie.

He wants the anarchical free market society to prevail, while showing how the members of this society work together in a way that does not at all imply centralized structure.

You missed the point entirely.

In the first movie, Bruce sees evil corruption. Sets to take it out. The League of Shadows wants him to just destroy Gotham and move on. He denies them this and takes out the criminals (including LoS) Batman style. He wants Rachel but she won't want Bruce until Batman is gone.

Second movie, Joker sees corruption of all kinds and just wants to point out how futile it all is (like Ras Al Ghul). He joins the mob of Gotham (evil corruption) but quickly shows he's not on either side. The Joker takes the shining example of what is right (Harvey Dent) and turns him corrupt. The only way Bruce can save the day is by lying to the public to put away the criminals (good corruption). He still wants Rachel, but Rachel not only realizes he'll never stop being Batman, but finalizes this decision by agreeing to marry Dent and ends up dead.

Finally, third movie, criminals are gone thanks to a lie (good corruption). Bruce quits Batman because of this, and Bruce quits Bruce because Rachel is dead. Then the LoS rears its ugly head again wanting to destroy Gotham still and to finish what they started (only this time Gotham is corrupted by the good guys, not the criminals).

Here's what you're looking for: Bane (the assumed new leader) wants revenge against Bruce for going against the LoS and finish what they started. The reason he doesn't destroy Gotham right away, is he wants to destroy Bruce's resolve, his soul if you will all for revenge. He does this by stealing his own project and turning it into a weapon. And Miranda (Talia, the true leader) does this by forming a love relationship with Bruce only to betray him further putting Bruce in the pit of feeling like he will never love again. Anyway, long story short, the truth comes out and evil is stopped so Gotham is no longer corrupt in any regard. And whether or not Batman sacrificed himself for Gotham, Joseph Gordon Levit shows that Batman is a symbol. And symbols can never die. He becomes the new "Batman" at the end (I felt this was implied)

Some think Cat Woman was unnecessary but she wasn't. She was Batman's equal and proof that Bruce could find love outside of Rachel.

Remember how scary and thrilling each bombing in the Dark Knight was? There were not many, but you remember the hospital crumbling. You remember Katie Holmes II calming down and getting cut off mid-sentence by a blast.

I'm not gonna remember much from this movie besides a few scenes that I laughed hysterically at. Some because they were momentarily awesome, some because I felt on the verge of facepalming at the silliness of the scene. Think of the ratio of people shot in DKR vs DK. Sure, that alone does not make or break a film, but having so much more excess and less depth just leaves a bland taste in my mouth. But, I've posted too extensively in this thread to the point where I don't just wanna trash on it if a bunch of people liked it.

Remember when DK came out it was #1 on imdb? Now its #8. DKR is #12 right now, it was 6 last week. I predict it's off the top 250 list by the end of the year, or by the time of the DVD release.

Of course I do, but I have enough of an appreciation for the art of film to not expect all fictional visual tales to aim for this end.

Whatever movie Giggan sees, wherever Giggan goes, he's seeing a different movie. Life is very different in the Gigganverse.

I don't get it. No animal in that video looks like Bane.

It's cuz his accented voice sounds muffled.

I finally watched this. I was alone in the theater and able to smoke, too.

There really wasn't much about this movie that I enjoyed, until the point where the stadium collapsed. Once Gotham became cut off from the world, the bridges taken out, the cops tucked away underground, the insane Scarecrow guy with his courtroom--beautiful imagery, all of it, the destruction and chaos and anarchy--then the movie got interesting.

I'm not sure what I didn't like about it. The last two movies seemed very powerful, and this one just didn't move me. It felt like watching a series of unrelated yet kickass action sequences. Everything was matter of fact, everything was rushed; there was no involvement, as a viewer.

For instance, Levitt's character, the rookie hothead cop, just shows up and instantly knows who Batman is, knows Batman is innocent, knows the Harvey Dent thing is a lie. We don't follow him to these conclusions; he just knows. He's a prepackaged character who doesn't change at all. He shows up with a set of beliefs and applies his will in one direction and never alters, never changes it, never surprises anyone, never does anything unexpected.

And it was the same with Lucius Fox. His introduction to the series was awesome and in the last movie he had powerful ideas. He took it upon himself to do this or that, to stop the Wayne Enterprises guy from exploiting Bruce Wayne, and doing so with such tact. He had clever lines. He had his own idea of justice and argued even with Batman when he refused to be a part of Batman's ploy to invade Gotham's privacy through hacking every cell phone in the city.

In this movie, Lucius Fox just stood there, climbed a ladder, explained things relevant to the plot. He didn't change anything, he didn't do anything, he wasn't exciting.

Alfred felt the same way. What's the point in awl 'dem pushups if you cain't ahven lift a bloody log? He had LINES before, individuality. His story about the diamond thief in TDK, for instance, has the best soundbite in the movie, "Some men, master Bruce, just want to watch the world burn."

In this movie, he did't have such a strong presence. He provided exposition about Bane, said the usual YO BATMAN DAWG YOU NEED A CHICK, told Batman about the letter, and then he got told to leave, which was just silly. In no universe would Bruce Wayne tell Alfred to leave and in no universe, even if he did, would Alfred listen.

Commissioner Gordon had some life in him, haunted by the lie he told, mentor to the rookie cop, getting wounded, making plots to take down Bane. That's a character: he's doing something, he's a relevant part of the story.

Now, Catwoman.

Catwoman is supposed to be Cat-like, and I think the only Cat-like thing Anne Hathaway did was when she jumped up on the window. I didn't find her portrayal sexy, I didn't find her costume sexy, and nothing about the character displayed anything I think about when I think about Catwoman.

Catwoman doesn't dress like a human and go to an airport. Catwoman doesn't give a shit about having a clean slate--she WANTS her dirty slate, she wants to be a thief, she wants to be notorious. She is an acrobat who fights with a whip; she's a selfish thief who steals only to please herself. She isn't interested in money and she has no agenda--she steals something because it's pretty and she wants to hold it and purr, she steals because she's jealous of somebody's undeserved wealth, or she steals something only because it's really hard to steal and she wants to prove to herself that she can do it. Catwoman is a material villain; her actions don't result in death. I don't see her betraying Batman out of fear for her own life. Catwoman doesn't supposed to afraid of anything.

The character was cool for a lot of different reasons. She was a tough bitch, with a believable agenda. If I knew nothing about Catwoman I would have no problem with the character in Rises, but knowing there won't be another Catwoman on screen for 5-10 years, this felt like a waste.

And I don't think she was relevant to the plot. Nothing she did really changed anything. She was a body that drove the Bat-bike and shot things, and when she betrayed Batman it didn't even really matter. Because she betrayed him, he had to fight Bane, who he was on his way to fight anyway, who he would have fought anyway. Her betrayal was an irrelevancy. Without her betrayal, things would have happened exactly the same.

Catwoman doesn't get on a motorcycle because Batman tells her to. Catwoman doesn't need the Batmobile to escape and she doesn't need Batman to save her from a bunch of regular foot soldiers. She isn't a victim; she doesn't get arrested, she doesn't do what she's told, she doesn't fear for her life, she doesn't make a deal with a mobster and then get tricked by him and almost killed.

Catwoman, in my mind, from the comics I've read, has a set of skills, qualities, and weaknesses, and the Catwoman in this movie didn't portray any of them. She gets caught opening Bruce Wayne's safe. That's her first real scene: Bruce shooting the arrow and scaring her. If there is one person in Gotham you can't sneak up on, it's Catwoman.

And as I said about everything in the movie happening too fast, being too matter of fact and feeling rushed, the relationship between Bruce and Selina was the same way. Selina isn't just playing hard to get, in the comics. She doesn't, can't trust anybody. That's her peril: as a thief, as a person whose skillset in life revolves around trickery and conniving, how is she to trust a person? But then Batman shows up and she can't stand him: his resolve, his indomitable will, his impressive wrath and more impressive ability to hold it at bay. She calls him a flying rat, a rodent; if she loves him, it's because she can't fucking stand him, because she has designed herself around the principal that human beings cannot be trusted, and she has become the ultimate player in the game of broken trust, but then along comes this badass who can be trusted.

The Catwoman in Rises could have been going door to door selling cookies. Her betrayal is her only real indecent action, which due to its grave nature is not the style of a thief. And yes, Catwoman is lonely and haunted and sometimes does need help, but she hates needing help. She is not a victim. She has no guise in Rises, no mask--she's openly sad, wounded, and empathetic. When she saves women, in the comics, from being mugged or raped or assaulted, she does so as if she can't help herself and she often insults the person she just saved.

It also felt rushed when Batman returned to Gotham and forgave her for betraying him. Batman is not nice to Catwoman after a betrayal; he scolds her, he explains to her why what she did was wrong while she refuses to listen. This is give and take, it's the play of two opposing minds, two characters who are changing through each other even while refusing to do so.

In Rises, he instantly forgives her and she's like, "Yeah, sorry bro." Five seconds, and it's all over like it never happened. When they're together at the end, it's really hard to care. There's no depth to the relationship.

As Joker is a good villain because he makes Batman double-think his policy on not killing people, Catwoman is a good villain because she makes Batman double-think his policy on crime. The grey area between law and justice is where Batman plot elements come into play, and Catwoman brings this to the story. She is a worldly renowned criminal, but she doesn't really hurt anyone. She forces Batman to think: why should I stop her? People are being raped and murdered and she's stealing diamonds from people with too much money, who should I be going after? She isn't worth his Bat-time, but she's crawling around his city, she's in the newspapers, as clear as the Bat-signal can be seen in the sky saying, "This is Batman's Gotham, this city is safe," the silhouette of Catwoman on the rooftops is saying, "Your Batman can't stop me! Neener neener neener!" She is an insult to Batman, a slap in the face.

The problem, I think, is that Catwoman didn't fit in this movie. Not with so many different comic books smashed together into one plot, not with the League of Shadows and Bane and the Gotham-in-Anarchy element and the restructured emergence of Robin.

Also rushed was the unveiling of the Harvey Dent lie. What was that? The almost tear-worthy sacrifice in TDK, this amazing and gigantic lie to end all lies, and we have Bane reading the letter for about twelve seconds and nobody at all even reacting to the truth being revealed, as if it never really mattered.

Still, the movie kicked ass. It was the third best Batman movie ever and will probably remain so for a long time. I wasn't disappointed, I'll watch it again, Nolan is awesome, but there's a bad taste knowing it took over a decade to see another Catwoman on the big screen and I didn't see any acrobatics, no rooftop prowling, no diamond heists, and it might take another decade before somebody else makes an attempt to put her on the screen.

Catwoman had no claws. She didn't lick anything, she didn't purr. I mean, symbolically, she had no claws... but she actually had no fucking claws.

I agree with most of that.

Except you seem to forget the fact that Bane isn't a bald guy with asthma in the comics. What I mean is, these are interpretations of the characters you know. This Joker never fell in a chemical bath. This Ra's Al Ghul doesn't continually become young again after bathing. This Talia isn't torn between loyalty for her father and love for Batman.

You'll notice that they never once call her Catwoman. I think Anne Hathaway served her purpose, though wasn't the best choice for the role (the first time I've felt that in this entire trilogy). Perhaps Charlize Theron would have been better.

As I said in a previous post, I didn't find her inclusion unnecessary. Seeing as this movie was more of a Bruce Wayne movie than a Batman movie (you could say the same for Batman Begins). She was proof that Bruce could find love outside of Rachel. And knowing it's Selina Kyle and not some random woman, we know she's worthy of Batman.

It did feel more than a little like she was in there just to fulfill the YO BATMAN DAWG YOU NEED A CHICK story arc

My point is, Bruce DID need a chick. He gave up on life. Getting the girl was a symbol of (how Alfred put it) he's made it.

She is more than a chick. She is a symbol that Bruce doesn't need Batman anymore.

The inclusion of a female for Bruce Wayne to love was necessary. It was not necessary that it be Catwoman, or rather, nothing about the relationship had anything to do with Catwoman or Selina Kyle; nothing was made apparent about his affection for her. What could one say, using only that movie for reference, about why Bruce Wayne chose her? One could assume that he respects her for being able to steal the pearls, but nothing of the sort is even suggested.

You say that the woman has to be worthy of Bruce Wayne, and that she was worthy because it's known that she's Selina Kyle. But to agree that these characters are outside the comic-book realm and are isolated representations means that all the weight of the name 'Selina Kyle' comes from this one movie, and there isn't much anyone could say about why Selina Kyle of Rises and Bruce Wayne of the trilogy are in love.

If Bruce Wayne needed to have a love interest and if it needed to be somebody of importance in the Batman-realm, it still didn't need to be Selina Kyle for any reason other than there being nobody else it could be. She fulfilled the role by being a female Batman-realm character; not by being Selina Kyle. It was a one way street; his necessity, not hers; his character development, not hers.

What exactly unites them? What dialogue, in the movie, reveals anything about how they feel toward one another? She doesn't even fulfill the role of helping him to get over Rachel, because Bruce Wayne had already conceded to Alfred's advice when he got together with Talia. The lose end of him not being able to get over Rachel had already been tied up; Selina did not prove that Bruce Wayne could find love outside of Rachel; it was Talia who did that.

Romeo, of necessity, had to fall in love; it was not necessary that he fall in love with someone from a rival family. Therein lies the depth of their relationship: the part that isn't necessary. With Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne, in Rise, there is only necessity, and there is nothing in or of Selina Kyle that makes her anything more than sufficient. If Talia hadn't betrayed Bruce Wayne, everything would have been K.

I accept that these are interpretations of the characters and that Joker doesn't have to fall into the vat and so forth, but I see this Selina Kyle as a bland --I wouldn't even say bad-- interpretation, and the only manner in which she fulfills any necessity is in being Bruce Wayne's second but last available love interest.

Bruce Wayne could have at least brooded on the inconvenience of falling in love, as a crime fighter, with a criminal. But there was no room for that in the movie because he was never in love with her. This movie was about Bruce Wayne more than Batman, but Bruce Wayne's only involvement with Selina Kyle was as Batman. She needed a clean slate, he needed to stop the League of Shadows--that makes perfect sense, but how come they were in love when they got all that over with and took off the masks? If Selina Kyle was only necessary in the movie for her relationship with Bruce Wayne, and if the depth of that relationship can only be assumed by the viewer, with nothing concrete to go on, then she's almost objectified; she's only so much the Bat-love-interest as the Batmobile is the Batcar.

Good point. I guess she is kind of an object. I don't like Anne Hathaway. This part of the ending was a little too neat and tidy. But who knows, maybe they won't stay together. As you pointed out, they hardly know each other.

Though Talia kind of twisted the knife in Bruce's heart. She did the cruelest thing someone can do to someone getting over the death of a loved one: made him think she loved him and that everything was going to be ok, then betrayed him.

Basically making him crawl deeper into his "I'll never love again" hole. The problem in this is that the movie is already 2 hours and 45 minutes and there's a bomb that's going to blow up the city any second. There isn't any time for Bruce to actually go in that hole and come out of it.

Also, they showed Batman in the cockpit just seconds before it blew. You can call it "movie time" or whatever, but there is no way he would feasibly be able to escape the blast of a 6 mile wide nuclear radius and live.

But, "Why'd he have to be named Robin?" aside, I liked the ending with Blake discovering the Batcave. It shows that Batman truly is a symbol and symbols never die. Blake will be the new Batman of that Batman universe. (This is kind of why I kind of forgave the whole "I knew you were Batman just by looking at you" thing).

Although, you'd figure one day one of the orphans who lives in Wayne Manor would discover the Batcave accidentally..

I would like to see the alternate ending where batman fails and everything explodes....I thought change was good...isnt everything just staying the same now? I don't understand

no big long ass academic answer for that one huh?

Change can't be solely good because if things were good and they changed and change is good then good would change to good, which wouldn't be change, it would have to change from good to bad, but it couldn't, because change is good.

But how much good would a good change change if a good change could change good?

42

I thought the Talia/Bruce love story was equally as unbelievable as the Selina/Bruce one, personally. They didn't seem to have any kind of connection, either. Seems like all they had was a business relationship (though apparently he never knew what she looked like, hence all the 'quite lovely' comments), a choice exchange at her benefit ('society hag' , etc), he decides to trust her with the knowledge about the reactor, she shows up at his house in the pouring rain, and suddenly it's sexy times in front of an open fire? I mean, I know the guy was in an emotionally vulnerable state with Alfred leaving and all, but that's some James Bond level relationship depth right there.

Fair enough, I'm not a batman expert so please help me out...I thought things were bad, which is why the league of shadows wanted to destroy Gotham which would make things good again....Or was it the second movie that made things good and the league of shadows was just trying to be a dick?

I'll summarize my long ass post.

1st movie, things bad. Corrupt.

2nd movie, things still bad until the end. But still corrupt.

3rd movie, things start good but corrupt. Bane turns things bad with the intention of letting corruption make the city destroy itself. Things Ed Wood. Not corrupt.

THIS IS YOUR FAMILY. I AM YOUR FATHER.

Yeah then he just gets some chiropractic care down in The Pit for a couple months and he's all better. It made no sense.

I really enjoyed reading Dan's posts about the movie and I agree with most of what he said.

I loved commissioner Gordon's role, I'm unsure how to feel about Levitt's part, and I really missed Alfred. That said, I really want to see the movie again, because it was exciting and awesome. The music gave me goosebumps now and then as well.

I went into the movie knowing absolutely nothing about it. I didn't know who the new cast members were, I didn't know who the villain was. I really enjoyed it. I especially enjoyed Anne Hathaway, I thought she did a great job.

The trilogy is one big mess and an overall disappointment. This last film (like the previous one), despite some too fugitive and poorly exploited good shots (I'm not even talking about scenes !), just rushes through a multitude of mutually defeating climaxes and reaches nothing in the end. The villains are uninteresting (Bane and his stupid mask !), the good guys are inconsistent, the story is weak.

Chris Nolan is simply a bad director.

I think he did well considering that ever since Ledger's death, he didn't even want to make the third one. But he was under contract. The presumption that he would make Rises is why he was allowed to make Inception.

Don't worry, Mike. He just has Frenchish sensibilities.

Just fuck off, Lib.

Mike, are you sure about him not wanting to do nr 3 ?
The ending of The Dark Knight suggested quite clearly a sequel.

I'm sorry. I didn't know you didn't like being Frenchish.

He's been under contract to do three Batman movies ever since Batman Begins. When Heath Ledger died (after everything from DK was shot, but before editing was complete), Nolan didn't want to make a third, but due to being under contract, and the fact that they wouldn't give him the go ahead to make Inception if he didn't, he had to make a third.

So in short, yeah, there was always going to be a third one, but Nolan didn't want to without Ledger.

Though, I guess a good actor wouldn't change an ultimately broken movie ( if you happen to think that, because I don't).

The villains are uninteresting

I pretty much love the movies overall, but I'll give you that The Scarecrow and Bane weren't all that interesting. But to call Heath Ledger's Joker uninteresting? Are you fucking kidding me?

I agree about Scarecrow, but I actually found Bane to be very interesting, although a tad underdeveloped (which in some ways adds to the intrigue).

Yeah, and you don't call Liam Neeson uninteresting either.

Edit: Or Harvey Dent! Geez... Just a false statement overall.

Giggan wrote:

Since there's really no other place to put this, has anyone noticed that the only good Ninja Turtles movies have raps about them. (MC Hammer in the first one, and Vanilla Ice in the second)

He was definitely more interesting than scarecrow. And maybe underdeveloped is more of what I feel about him, I don't know.

I think it may have been difficult to make Bane a more developed character without giving away the Talia twist. Really, they should have focused on developing Talia's character, more than Catwoman and Bane. Had they focused on developing Talia's relationship with Bruce Wayne a bit more the twist ending would have been more of an impact. They could've even showed less of Bane since he was merely just a pawn doing Talia's bidding and had they alluded more to someone in control over Bane could have made the ending that much more interesting.

For those still following, my next feature film is now apparently called Still I Rise (its 4th or 5th title). It's the tale of two embattled women's struggle against an irreparably damaged System. Should be right up Giggan's alley.

I play Worried Parent Snuggled-Up Against Japanese Ballerina.

@Mike : thanks for the info.

@Melody : my remark about the uninteresting villains was only about the 3rd film.

@Jaz : calling her Tlia is already giving away the twist

The following link states pretty well my problems with The Dark Knight Rises :
http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/the-big-murk-a-conversation-about-christo...

Wow. That link had the worst interpretation of politics in a movie I've ever read. Particularly, the implication of axiomatic thinking.

All dose comics book charachters are underdeveloped!