|
|
I didn't know that twist before I went into the film, but guessed it from their intimate scene in front of the fire , so yes, it wasn't much of a shock.
It's been moaned about for being too dark, but I certainly don't agree with that. I think that's how Batman should be.
A lot of people have said that it's bloated, but I don't know. I felt that almost all of it needed to be there, and there wasn't much that was unnecessary. In fact, there were even moments that I felt were just put shoved aside too quickly (which I'm about to go into), though obviously it couldn't have been any longer.
I thought Bane was great, (and loved his voice too) however even though it turned out that there was another, perhaps higher villain his fall seemed slightly anti-climactic. I was almost disappointed that such an awesomely, evil villain turned out to be an accomplice to someone with far less personality, and shows evil for about ten minutes, whose death, just to be annoying, while significant to the plot, really boring. I don't mean I want a cliched falling from a great height, or giant explosion, but it didn't seem quite right .
But if I were to choose one thing really hacked me off... THE ENDING! As melodramatic as closing on Batman's death would have been, I was disappointed that he survived. In the Batman universe there is always something nasty, as Gotham has its dark spots, and such happiness for all the nice people seemed a little too squeeky clean. While I wanted a happy ending, and having a twist there was nice there, it was too 'happily ever after'.
The film though was good. I'm not going to gush over it like others have because it's not that brilliant. I'm giving it a 7/10 methinks. I might warm to it more in time though. We shall see.
EDIT: Was there any point in me blocking out select points in this post rather than the whole thing? Probably not.
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
I know what you mean regarding Bane. There was so much more going on that defeating Bane didn't even seem that important in the end. I suppose the real 'villain' was - in a sense - the bomb, and Bane/Talia's whole idea in general. Because of how important it was to prevent a nuclear explosion, the two main villains seemed slightly irrelevant towards the end of the film.
But I suppose it had to be that way because of the fact that Batman had to 'sacrifice' himself to save Gotham. I mean usually in a film situation like that, the main threat is eliminated and THEN the villain is killed off in a big epic battle at the end, but because of the nature in which the threat of the bomb was removed, Batman wouldn't be able to come back and stop the villain/s... so it had to work in that order. If you get my drift.
Small change got rained on with his own thirty-eight, and nobody flinched, down by the arcade.
|
|
|
Spot on. The trouble was that such an important plot point took place at the scene of his death, over-shadowing the fall of the man who we are supposed to have despised for the last two hours. So he was shoved aside as not being important, and the more important person was picked off really quickly. But yes, regarding the plot, it probably couldn't have been done any better.
Imagine if in the Star Wars series, if Palpatine was only introduced in Return of the Jedi, and the whole transition that takes place from Episodes 1-3 happened throughout and was only truly revealed as the evil Emperor 10 minutes before his death. That's how it felt.
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
10/10 oh and the man of steel teaser had me in tears. Beautiful.
House : What you dont face cant crush you.
Clear Eyes Full Hearts Cant Lose!
Dr Spencer Reid : Whats twilight ?
16/6/07 wembley stadium !
|
|
|
I'm really disappointed they didn't show the Comic-Con trailer for Man of Steel.
Sheffield Arena - 04/11/09
Wembley Stadium - 11/09/10
REAL FAN
|
|
|
I'm trying to fight the temptation to look at the spoilers. I've already had a couple of really quick glances. 
Best Newbie in town, voted by YOU! - Muselive awards 2008.
Winner of the Services to Mankind, and Generally Being Awesome award - Muselive awards 2010.
|
|
|
Oh God, too many spoilers.
|
|
|
Just be glad we use spoilers.
And yeah, Bane's death (or did he die? given the film full of miraculous survivals, I'm not sure) was quite anticlimactic. I expected Batman to defeat him, not Catwoman arriving at the exact right time and shooting Bane with the motorcycle rockets.[\spoilers]
|
|
|
For those that mentioned it the Man of Steel teasers are now online.
Best Newbie in town, voted by YOU! - Muselive awards 2008.
Winner of the Services to Mankind, and Generally Being Awesome award - Muselive awards 2010.
|
|
|
They are. It looks very good. I hope it's taken in a similar direction to Nolan's Batman trilogy. It would be great for the world of Superman to taken into darker territory, and that trailer looks grey enough that that could be the case. Nolan is the producer after all. Though I'm not sure about Zack Snyder. I can't say I've really warmed to either 300 or Watchmen.
Still, I don't know if it can be made darker without instant comparison to the recent Batman films.
Something else I realized about the film, is that despite being so long, there are still things that there didn't seem enough of, or were but if they featured, it would have shot over the 3 hour mark. Such as...
More bonding between Bruce and Selina. I don't mean in a perverted way but not a whole lot goes on between them, at least outside of action scenes, before a sudden snog. We kind of knew where it was going, but was it enough?
More Scarecrow! While his appearances in the last two films were only cameos, Crane was the only villain to appear in all three films and I felt that he needed closure rather than a quick background part. However, then it REALLY would have been bloated, so it was impossible. A shame though.
More between Batman and Bane. As I've already said, I thought Bane was brilliant, but with a lack of Batman for half of the film came very few scenes where they met. Bane was a terrific villain, but (alongside his anti-climactic demise) was almost wasted for not coming across as a true nemesis to Batman.
The shortcoming of Bane against Joker isn't the quality of the character, but how he was used. Jamie rightly pointed out that the true villain of the film was really the situation (in this case, the bomb) rather than the people behind it. It was more a rescue mission than a matter of defeating the opponent, whereas the Joker's crimes had a far bigger connection with his personality. Bane's personality just didn't have the opportunity to appear. We know enough that he didn't just want to blow shit up, but what we saw of him didn't really seem enough.
Wow. Big post.
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
Yeah, you're absolutely right. It would have been nice to see a bit more development between Bruce and Selina, although I'm not sure how that could be done, seeing as they weren't really together until the end. I mean it was like tense flirting for most of the film, and at the end she finally gave in and had a little nibble on his face. It'd feel more natural to have more of a build-up between those two, but I think the idea was that their meetings, despite often being fleeting and slightly bitter, were very significant to both of them (her in particular, I suppose). She was sort of trying to assert that she didn't really care and that she was a mercenary etc but all the while she was slowly falling in love with him. So if you look at it that way, I think their relationship was done pretty well.
The problem with having a plot with so much at stake in a huge threat situation is that it takes away from the person behind it, yeah. The thing with the Joker was that he was spontaneous, and he would carry on doing random acts of violence until someone stopped him, whereas Bane had it all set up, and stopping him would simply be a bonus as opposed to a full end-point. It's a matter of priority for the hero - in some cases you have to stop the situation by silencing the villain, whereas in others (like TDKR) the situation is much bigger than the villain. I suppose it's a judgement call - Nolan wanted to sacrifice that for the spectacular and slightly heart-wrenching (in a way) ending in which Batman takes the bomb.
Unfortunately, I think the Batman/Bane conflict would have been hard to make more of. Sad, really, because if Bane had been more of a nemesis, as you say, it would have made for a brilliant finale. As the Joker put it in The Dark Knight, their battle was a matter of irresistible force vs immovable object. They cancelled each other out. The Joker and the Batman was an even fight, and almost personal, in a way. Bane seemed to have higher priorities - Batman was something in his way, whereas the Joker sort of wanted to tease Batman and occupy him.
I also agree about Scarecrow! Would've been nice to see him having more of a direct role on the action, but as you say, there wouldn't really have been time. Either way, when I heard his voice in that massive courtroom I was like 'wait... is that..?' and when he came up on screen, I was so happy to see that he was in it. I just loooooove Cillian Murphy. To be honest, he's one of the main reasons why I prefer Batman Begins to its successors.
Ahh, wouldn't it have been great if Nolan had gone Peter Jackson-style and made them all 3-4 hours long?
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, the ending to TDK was a bit of a weird shift in focus as well. As far as I remember, Dent only became Two-Face quite near the end, and the Joker lost our attention as he came in. That felt slightly abrupt, just as the shift from Bane to Talia was. In fairness I think I actually prefer the way the third film was handled, even though the Joker was probably better as an archvillain/nemesis.
To be honest, despite all those comments, I can't say I was particularly disappointed with TDKR. I still bloody loved it, simply because it was so well made and acted out. I might have made the odd modification here and there but I think Nolan did a great job in rounding off the series.
Small change got rained on with his own thirty-eight, and nobody flinched, down by the arcade.
|
|
|
The only things that really disappointed me was the fact that the bomb supposedly had a blast radius of 6 miles, but batman takes it out about a mile and everyone's fine. They could have just mentioned one line about how it had decayed so much that it was much weaker, or something like that, and it would have been OK. Otherwise, great movie. Not necessarily better than TDK or even BB, but a great conclusion nonetheless
|
|
|
Quote
Corruption :
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, the ending to TDK was a bit of a weird shift in focus as well. As far as I remember, Dent only became Two-Face quite near the end, and the Joker lost our attention as he came in. That felt slightly abrupt, just as the shift from Bane to Talia was. In fairness I think I actually prefer the way the third film was handled, even though the Joker was probably better as an archvillain/nemesis.
That's true, but that was an important plot point in TDK, part of a bigger story, the trilogy. While Joker was defeated and Dent was dead, it functioned as the set up to TDKR. However the Bane/Talia situation was at the finale of an eight-hour masterwork. In something of such scale, that's way too late.
Looking back at TDK, having seen the trilogy as a whole, despite being an amazing film, it wasn't that much more than giving Batman the time to be Batman, closing on that plot point, before returning to the trilogy's original story in TDKR.
While important in Batman's evolution, Joker was more a pawn, far more minor in the plot than it seems at first, as the trilogy's main story was more about the characters (primarily the Ra's al Ghul connection). While he had some prophetic lines, most of his role an entertaining figure for Batman to fight.
Still yes, great films! I don't mean to make it sound like I'm moaning! It's just my analysis.
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
Holy spoilers Batman.
But when I was saying the plot twist didn't really affect me much, it was because it felt so anti-climatic, like everyone here is saying. Bane was kinda forgotten about after Talia entered in. I didn't really think she'd be the villain, so that was surprising to me, but I wasn't really on the edge of my seat in excitement for what was going to happen next.
I definitely agree that the lack of Batman for more than half the movie really brought the film down a bit for me. I wanted a lot more Bane vs Batman moments. At least in TDK, there were a lot of Batman/Joker moments. Joker was far more interesting and surprising. Even when Dent turned into Two Face, the Joker was still kinda the main villain, and they balanced it well imo. I think if Heath Ledger did not pass away, we would've definitely seen Joker in this movie again, and he would've been a major part of the story as a whole.
Also, Nogli's and Corruption's posts have been spot on.
Band page - facebook.com/petersdenial or petersdenial.net
Check it out if you have nothing better to do.
|
|
|
^ I was literally on the edge of my seat with excitement lol, don't take my word for it though I've always been a huge Batman fanboy
Just wanna say again how intense those fights between Bane and Batman were.
That first fight was so brutal. No music, just Bane beating the snot out of Batman, whilst he eats every punch Batman lands on him like it's a pellet gun firing at him. Then when he starts to hammer Batman's skull until his mask shatters and he finally breaks him. It was the most brutal fight scene ever in a comic book movie IMO.
Sheffield Arena - 04/11/09
Wembley Stadium - 11/09/10
REAL FAN
|
|
|
I loved that bit you mentioned where Batman damaged part of Bane's mask, and Bane went mental. Absolutely terrifying though - imagine having him flying at you, punching through concrete! Gave me a bit of a rush 'cause I thought, if one of those punches connects, Batman is fucked.
Small change got rained on with his own thirty-eight, and nobody flinched, down by the arcade.
|
|
|
what a brilliant film just as good as The Dark Knight if not better
Sheffield Arena 4/11/09
Wembley Stadium 11/09/10
|
|
|
Quote
Cross_Pollination :
^ I was literally on the edge of my seat with excitement lol, don't take my word for it though I've always been a huge Batman fanboy
Just wanna say again how intense those fights between Bane and Batman were.
That first fight was so brutal. No music, just Bane beating the snot out of Batman, whilst he eats every punch Batman lands on him like it's a pellet gun firing at him. Then when he starts to hammer Batman's skull until his mask shatters and he finally breaks him. It was the most brutal fight scene ever in a comic book movie IMO.
The Bane and Batman fights were incredible. Hands down my favourite parts of the movie. I honestly wish Batman was in it more though, I really wanted to see him in action more.
Band page - facebook.com/petersdenial or petersdenial.net
Check it out if you have nothing better to do.
|
|
|
On the subject of Bane, what's everyone's opinion on his voice? Opinion's seem to be split right down the middle, love or hate.
I really liked it, but a lot of people think it was stupid, and while I understood every word, some are still ranting about not being able to understand him.
Thoughts?
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
I didn't watch the prologue so I don't know how it was before but I loved his voice in the film. The bit where the kid is singing and Bane says "That's a lovely voice" made me laugh.
Twitter
London 2009 | Wembley 10+11 2010 | Reading 2011 | O2 arena 2012 | Shepherds Bush 2013|25-26 Emirates 2013 |
|
|
|
Indeed. A few reviews have remarked that the humour of TDK was gone, and so it wasn't so good, but it did have its daft, witty moments like that.
As for the voice, I think it was a great choice to have a bizarre clash of stereotypical hardnut villain body with a creepy mask, with a well spoken voice. It really showed that Bane wasn't a mindless nutcase who just wanted to smash things, and there was a brain in there somewhere (that as I said, we sadly didn't get to appreciate that much). In a Hannibal Lecter kind of way.
And the distortion that the mask gave added to it.
(I could put something really funny and intelligent here, but that would just be showing off.)
My blog: http://www.npollard.com/
|
|
|
I thought it had more humour than either of the first two films in all honesty. As for Bane, he was no more difficult to understand than Darth Vader.
Sheffield Arena - 04/11/09
Wembley Stadium - 11/09/10
REAL FAN
|
|
|
So is The Dark Knight Rises more like Batman Begins or more like The Dark Knight?
Best Newbie in town, voted by YOU! - Muselive awards 2008.
Winner of the Services to Mankind, and Generally Being Awesome award - Muselive awards 2010.
|
|
|
^^ I think it's a combination of both. More like Batman Begins at some points, but also like TDK in some aspects. It feels more like a sequel to Batman Begins than to TDK, though.
Bane was quite easy to understand, I don't see how people could say he was difficult to hear. It's one thing to not like the voice, but his words were pretty clear, I thought. His voice was cool, sounded like a 1940's villain.
The humor from TDK was pretty non-existent in this one. I think Alfred in TDK added a lot of uplifting humor, and that was definitely missing. I think I only smiled once in the entire movie because of something funny or witty being said.
Band page - facebook.com/petersdenial or petersdenial.net
Check it out if you have nothing better to do.
|
|
|
I wasn't particularly bothered about the lack of humour. To be honest, I prefer a darker film, and that includes a lack of silly comments and jokes. It can work sometimes - it did at a few points in TDK - but with TDKR I think it was appropriate to make it pretty serious.
I understood pretty much every word Bane said and thought that the voice sounded great. As Nick said, it suggested that he wasn't all brawn. In fact, it was kind of sinister, and also refreshing. You've got a barbaric looking monster of a man who at the same time is actually relatively composed and knows what he's doing. Plus I think Tom Hardy's body (presuming that was all him) was perfect for the role in that he looked terrifying whilst not appearing to be over-doing it. He didn't have ridiculously bulging outlined muscles with veins everywhere (I mean Arnie-esque) - he was in complete bear mode. You really wouldn't want to take him on. Bit of a random point but to me, his bulk really gives you an impression of how physically powerful he is.
In terms of similarity to the other two, I'd say it had the crisp sheen of production that TDK had with all the dark gloominess of Batman Begins. I suppose it relates more to the first film as there's a lot more to do with back-stories and personalities. Because we knew nothing about the Joker there wasn't any depth in that sense - not that that's a bad thing, though.
Small change got rained on with his own thirty-eight, and nobody flinched, down by the arcade.
|
