The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I'm sensing a lotta negativity on this thread regarding DNR in general, dont know why as I thought it was a fine piece of cinema (about as good a movie you'd get about a grown man in a rubber Bat-suit in fact), but I guess it is the nature of the online beast geek to pick at the minutiae of such films.

Look, the internet's fairly simple:

Step 1: Mock popular culture
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT

[TordelBack]

Or perhaps even Grant Morrison & a certain 2000AD fan???

Mark Millar?

[JOE SOAP]

So, it's a cluster-fuck but compared to Prometheus it's excellent, right?

Yep. Prometheus is bland, cliched and boring but as I said TDKR is an entertaining, well-acted and ambitious cluster-fuck, and compelling throughout, which is an achievment for nearly a 3 hour film.

[chaingunchimp]

Meh i thought it was ok just

[Judo]

Oh right Kk... Its some kind of reference to grant morrison wanting to fuck me?  why does that not surprise me lol you board boys, what ye like?

film was ok but lots of it made no sense or was just a bad choice for a film.

eg...
[spoiler]
Police:            WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.
later on in film...
terrorists:        IF ANYONE LEAVES THE ISLAND WE DETONATE THE BOMB.
Police:            OMG SEAL EVERYONE ON THE ISLAND WITH THE BOMB COS TERRORISTS SAID SO!!![/spoiler]

Like thats just bad writing.  Especially considering that noone gave a fuck [spoiler]if the city was evacuated, being evacuated, not evacuated.[/spoiler] in fact the whole [spoiler]evacuation[/spoiler] stuff was a pointless half hour I want back.  As long as it makes sense amongst itself I dont mind, but contradicting your own script every 2 mins was just not helping make things any clearer x

[hoops]

So, it's a cluster-fuck but compared to Prometheus it's excellent, right?

Yep. Prometheus is bland, cliched and boring but as I said TDKR is an entertaining, well-acted and ambitious cluster-fuck, and compelling throughout, which is an achievment for nearly a 3 hour film.

Yeah, that's what i thought you said 

[radiator]

Overall I enjoyed DKR more than Prometheus, though they are similarly flawed in terms of generally being a bit incoherent, overreaching and pompous.

I was actually emotionally engaged with DKR though, and unlike Prometheus I didn't find it laughable (except for the bit where Batman dementedly screams "WHERE IS THE TRIGGER?!?!? WHERE IS IT??!!?!" while punching Bane. That was pretty funny.

[judgeblake]

The only thing wrong with Bane is his confused motivation. Does he want to destroy Gotham or free it?

Bane as a character is fine, he's not the Joker and it's not imperative that everything he says should resonate. He's muscle plus intellect with a neat backstory and completely merciless which creates a far more sinister presence than the Joker. The only thing that deflates his role is why would he bother seizing the most important city in the world if he's only going to pretend at being a revolutionary when his real intention is to blow it into oblivion. It just sounds like they didn't finish melding their thematic with the character, which could easily have been done.


I don't believe that the hero should always directly meet and beat his nemesis in a duel of flying fists; it's one of the worsts aspects of nearly all superhero films and it definitely made both Iron Man films infinitely blander than they should've been, but the Bat/Bane pummeling is enjoyable, and I didn't mind his swift end but again it feels slightly deflated because Bane's character, reason and motivation became even more obscure at his very end when it should've highlighted the difference between his and Bruce Wayne's separate struggles.


It may sound contrarian but I think TDKR is simply not long enough. It needed more time to tell the story it set forth to tell but compressed far too much incident into too few scene beats leaving a lot undramatised. This is what makes the pacing feel hectic/wearing, yet paradoxically too long. It's scale of story is akin to Return of the King rather than the previous films.


The bomb acting as nuclear deterrent to guard against intervention is a great modern idea* - as any 'rogue' Middle Eastern State will attest - using it as a literal countdown to the denouement probably not as great.

There's clunky exposition, under-written characters and lazy writing -Selina ending up in the men's prison- but it is still very enjoyable with admirable ambition and no weak performances. There's similar thematic problems in all Nolan's Bat-films but he still knows how to compel despite them.


The ending is indulgently all things to all men and there's nothing wrong with that.






*I like the visual reference to Edge of Darkness with the ever mobile lead-lined nuclear containers trundling around the city.

I think it's inevitable and right for Bane to be compared with the Joker - and in that respect I think they should have been compared with Ras al Ghul from the first film - but [spoiler]Ras al Ghul stretches his presence throughout the trilogy, something I believe didn't need to exist throughout the trilogy, or indeed exist as a factor in 'capping off' the trilogy and ultimately undermining Bane as a villian.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I think Bane kept threatening to offer lines that resonated like the Joker's did in the 2nd film - but he/the script never came up with the goods. I would have preferred Bane to be the main focus of the 3rd film (sorry to harp on about that lol) and talia al ghul's motives incorporated into Bane's.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]You say Bane was intelligence and brawn with a neat backstory - but I believe his backstory is ultimately completely undermined near the end of the movie;
Bane is built up to be a nigh-on-mythical terrorist leader and ex league of shadows member (like Batman) with eccentricity, athleticism and intelligence, who wants to create the illusion that Gotham will be freed but simultaneously destroying it - however, talia al ghul's expose of who Bane really is completely clashes with his character in the movie previously, and this spoils it in my opinion, appropriately and ironically wiping him out in a single snivelling shot soon thereafter.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]To say I 'loved' Batman and Bane's first head to head punchup is not appropriate, but dramatically I found it to be exactly as good as I thought it would be in my head and having read the comics - Bane showing he is also an initiate of the League of Shadows and so Batman's tricks have little effect on him, eventually breaking his back....so the second fight between the two should have definately been the climax of the film![/spoiler]

[spoiler]- to me you have a first film draft similar to the dark knight that was scripted with Bane being the anarchic revolutionary leader outmatching Batman on paper in intelligence and physicality and knowledge, who wants not only to introduce anarchy to Gotham, but also destroy it completely - But then it seems like alot of Bane has been written out in the final draft of the script in order to make way for talia al Ghul's creeping subplot and ultimately she steels Bane's thunder as a villain at the end of the film.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Summary = Nolan has made a singular mistake to me in TDKR -
in each film he has focused on 3 characters primarily in a sort of The Good the Bad and the Ugly way; in Batman Begins there was Batman, Rha's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow - in TDK there was Batman, The Joker and Two Face. However in TDKR you have Batman, Bane, Catwoman AND Talia Al Ghul - Nolan should have kept to his rule of 3![/spoiler]

[dweezil2]

Oh right Kk... Its some kind of reference to grant morrison wanting to fuck me?  why does that not surprise me lol you board boys, what ye like?

film was ok but lots of it made no sense or was just a bad choice for a film.

eg...
[spoiler]
Police:            WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS.
later on in film...
terrorists:        IF ANYONE LEAVES THE ISLAND WE DETONATE THE BOMB.
Police:            OMG SEAL EVERYONE ON THE ISLAND WITH THE BOMB COS TERRORISTS SAID SO!!![/spoiler]

Like thats just bad writing.  Especially considering that noone gave a fuck [spoiler]if the city was evacuated, being evacuated, not evacuated.[/spoiler] in fact the whole [spoiler]evacuation[/spoiler] stuff was a pointless half hour I want back.  As long as it makes sense amongst itself I dont mind, but contradicting your own script every 2 mins was just not helping make things any clearer x

And don't get me started on that
[spoiler] Rha Al Ghul dream sequence [/spoiler]
A plot device that would of shamed Bouncer era Neighbours!

Far too much fat and cheese for my liking and I love dairy.

[JOE SOAP]

You say Bane was intelligence and brawn with a neat backstory - but I believe his backstory is ultimately completely undermined near the end of the movie;
Bane is built up to be a nigh-on-mythical terrorist leader and [spoiler]ex league of shadows member (like Batman)[/spoiler] with eccentricity, athleticism and intelligence, who wants to create the illusion that Gotham will be freed but simultaneously destroying it - however, [spoiler]talia al ghul's expose of who Bane really is[/spoiler] completely clashes with his character in the movie previously, and this spoils it in my opinion, appropriately and ironically wiping him out in a single snivelling shot soon thereafter.

I like that Bane was not all he had presented and built himself up to be, it was meant to be a game of sorts. [spoiler]Talia's reveal[/spoiler] made Bane somewhat more human and complicated when the relationship was disclosed but it didn't go far enough beyond that. I just wish Bane's motivations and actions -intended to foment revolt in the general populace- had amounted to more than just invisible Gothamites  staying home and watching TV. I think this is the point they missed but probably intended to communicate:

Zealots, [spoiler]Bane & Talia[/spoiler], were playing a political and psychological game of Martyrs and Revolution to torment the priviliged right-wing vigilante Wayne and ultimately to use the destruction of Gotham as an example to the world of revenge and sacrifice for the 'greater' cause and ideology of [spoiler]the League of Shadows[/spoiler]. But the film didn't spend time on it or have long enough to develop this.

Summary = Nolan has made a singular mistake to me in TDKR -
in each film he has focused on 3 characters primarily in a sort of The Good the Bad and the Ugly way; in Batman Begins there was Batman, Rha's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow - in TDK there was Batman, The Joker and Two Face. However in TDKR you have Batman, Bane, Catwoman AND [spoiler]Talia Al Ghul - Nolan should have kept to his rule of 3![/spoiler]

You can have as many characters as you want once you can make it work, which is not impossible despite what critics say. Any Lord of the Rings film had no problem juggling and introducing new characters in each film.

[judgeblake]

You can have as many characters as you want once you can make it work, which is not impossible despite what critics say. Any Lord of the Rings film had no problem juggling and introducing new characters in each film.

surely LOTR and the dark knight trilogy movies are different beasts altogether. Fine I see what your saying - that you can have any number of characters - an ensemble cast - as long as you juggle them and write for them well, Joss Whedon for instance is an expert at this. But what I'm saying is Nolan has really focused (whether he meant to or not - I'm just assuming he meant to) on 3 main characters in each film and their 'journey' or agendas - 1) batman, ra's al ghul, scarecrow 2) batman, joker, dent....these character studies also showed the character's different agendas, principles and morality/amorality..................[spoiler]perhaps the reason why alot of fans don't like TDKR as much as the previous two films (though many find it hard to point out exactly why, often simply falling back on blaming Hardy's Bane) is because Nolan expanded on this 3 main character study structure and blended the journey of Talia and her father with that of Bane's onslaught etc[/spoiler]

maybe what I'm trying to say is; [spoiler]Nolan tried overly hard to wedge a nice ending and rounding off of the trilogy onto a film that could have played out the same way dark knight did, therefore instead of 'the rule of three', Nolan expanded in to a more ensemble cast. I'd even say Cmmsioner Gordon became a superhero in his own right in this movie, then of course you have the rise of John 'Robin' Blake - instead of treating the film as another chapter with 'the rule of three', TDKR became a disguised attempt at an ensemble 'super - hero movie'.[/spoiler]

[JOE SOAP]

surely LOTR and the dark knight trilogy movies are different beasts altogether.

The only true difference is genre. Jonathan Nolan has said pretty much that he was thinking of Return of the King with TDKR.

[dweezil2]

surely LOTR and the dark knight trilogy movies are different beasts altogether.

The only true difference is genre. Jonathan Nolan has said pretty much that he was thinking of Return of the King with TDKR.

Shame it ended up as Nolan's Return Of The Jedi.

[JOE SOAP]

Would you rather it be Revenge of the Sith?

/quote]


Better hope he doesn't make his Phantom Menace.

[Judo]

Far too much fat and cheese for my liking and I love dairy.

I think something like Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum would have been a better fit for nolan as I like his style x