Registered: 03/05/11
Posts: 5446
Loc: The Royal County
Originally Posted By: Logan510
Originally Posted By: Hawkman
Originally Posted By: Logan510
Originally Posted By: littlebill
yeah he was thinking they forgot to put batman in the movie
The clincher was people on here saying it wasn't as good as the last one. If I didn't like the last one and this one isn't as good....
as far as i've read, it seems like more people like this film than any other in the trilogy.
I've read some of that. But the reasoning behind it is a turn off for me. Batman isn't in the film for more than 30 minutes, it's a thinking mans film, it's so deep...etc etc.
You mean Batman in costume right?
Because there was more Bruce Wayne then Batman in Burtons first film, I'm pretty sure of it.
_________________________
Jamie Hughes: "I'm just a normal guy in an impossible situation."
No Jamie, you were one of a kind and you will be missed my friend. RIP.
all i was saying is that as far as depth and story it is really good. to a younger child who wants to see a comic book movie this isnt it.
i understand this movie is different. my nephew wanted to see batman kicking some butt. he was upset that batman the dark knight who they titled the movie after was not in the movie more then 30 minutes total. yes bruce wayne was.
im sure he would have been just as upset if we had gone to see the avengers and banner was on the screen and the hulk never showed up.
obviously this movie is going to make money. you will not have the children wanting to see it multiple times and dragging their parents back multiple times. that will be the difference in this and the avengers.
yeah he was thinking they forgot to put batman in the movie
The clincher was people on here saying it wasn't as good as the last one. If I didn't like the last one and this one isn't as good....
as far as i've read, it seems like more people like this film than any other in the trilogy.
I've read some of that. But the reasoning behind it is a turn off for me. Batman isn't in the film for more than 30 minutes, it's a thinking mans film, it's so deep...etc etc.
You mean Batman in costume right?
Because there was more Bruce Wayne then Batman in Burtons first film, I'm pretty sure of it.
Why did you have to remind me of that movie...I thought we bonded over Manhunter
#5871399 - 07/24/1212:49 AMRe: The Dark Knight Rises Reviews
[Re: AnkurJ]
BuffyfanBuffyfan "I don't feel like a freaknut..."
"Sometimes you don't."
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 13267
Loc: Watching the Lunatics Run the ...
Just got back from seeing this movie and I'll try to be brief, which is unlikely for any of you who actually read my posts but oh well.
Spoilers below. First, most of you know that I am a huge detractor of these films, primary the last one. Nevermind the weak acting, the failings in the plot and the failings in the production, I just feel that they are extremely overrated and have ruined the core of what Batman is suppose to be, a crime fighter and a detective! What this means is no where does Bruce Wayne solve anything, he just happens to beat up super villains in these movies. Where's the real crime fighting? Crimes have motives, even if they aren't fully understandable and these movie villains don't really have a true motive other than destruction and following some plan of their dead leader.
Ok, onto this film and I'll jump around a bit as I recall it all. I felt like I watched two different movies directed by two different people. The first half of the movie was a film making mess. The edits were poorly executed, the soundtrack was dull, and like the last one, fell apart in several places.
Can Christian Bale not completely close his mouth, especially while he is Batman? I also have a problem with the make-up, of which I have always had a problem with even in the Burton films. They use black make-up around the actors eyes to fill in the darkness of the cowl but suddenly as soon as it comes off... no black make-up. This was so poorly executed in Batman Returns that when Keaton removes his mask in a major scene you can clearly see the cut so that he can be sans make-up.
There was a scene in this movie that was nearly as blatant, no make-up.
I detest the Bat-Vehicles. These do not appear to be anything but mini-Transformers. There is nothing even remotely interesting about them and even the desert camo Batmobiles have a goofy gun that appears it was specifically designed to be a toy rather than something truly functional.
The Bat-Pod (bike) still seems slow and cumbersome which was one of my major complaints in the last film. In the CG versions they did manage to speed it up, but the tighter scenes that required the actors it still lumbered along. I will say that when Anne rotated her hips down just before she cleared the tunnel it was a nice view on the "Pod".
Bane was nearly impossible to understand at least 40% of the time. Does it matter though? There's really no sympathy for any of these characters so do we really care what he's rambling on about instead of actually accomplishing his tasks? He would rather rattle on with some soliloquy rather than actually doing what he's mumbling about.
It was Darth Vader with the helmet removed in Return of the Jedi. An Ian McKellen impersonating Patrick Stewart impersonation. Completely uninteresting.
Gary Oldman is one of the weakest links in this entire franchise. This is a great actor who is given weak lines. So weak in fact that he has difficulty delivering them and in fact mumbles like Bane a few times.
Anne Hathaway? Everyone is acting like she stole the show yet I disagree. Anyone else could have played the part, equally as well, and it wouldn't have made a difference. Sorry, but I feel the same about Heath as the Joker too.
Wayne Manor. Wasn't this place completely destroyed? So why does it look EXACTLY the same?
I don't care about any of the characters, what I mean is, I'm not sympathetic to them and there is no relating to any of them at all. I don't necessarily believe this to be strictly a Nolan problem but a general problem with many DC characters.
Multi-megaton bomb gets bumped around like it's a ping pong ball? Seriously? Less than 2 minutes to go off and Bruce and Selina have to neck?
This movie could have had an entire hour cut out of it and it would be exactly the same film. I believe that the Nolan's tried a little too hard to make this "Epic" when in fact a much tighter cleaner cut would have done wonders for this film.
If Frank Miller were dead, I believe he'd be rolling in his grave due to the have and have-nots push in this film.
Plot holes, too numerous to mention.
All of this yet guess what, I actually preferred this movie over the last two. I wouldn't go quite as far as saying I "liked it" but it was better.
Bale did manage to not use the goofy Bat-Voice nearly as much. It was subdued accept in the final Bane scene where he repeated himself about 5 times too many.
I know I said I didn't care for any of the characters and I will retract that simply because of Gordon-Levitt. If anyone stole the show he did! I believe his character might have actually had more screen time than Bruce/Batman himself.
Blake is the real Batman, without the gadgets (at least until the very end). He's what Batman is really suppose to be. His head is in it for the right reasons and fighting crime is his true goal. Some how I believe that this was Nolan's real intent.
So, there you have it. I'll give it 2 out of 5 stars which is about equal to the first two IMO. It's opening weekend barely surpassed The Hunger Games which I'm sure 100% of the blame will be cast on the tragedy rather than the film itself. Do I think it will make as much as The Avengers? Most definitely not. I'm not comparing it to that film, just only making a guess.
It may not even make as much as The Hunger Games for that matter or at the very least only slightly more Worldwide.
_________________________
WANTED: (preferably pedigreed) Extreme High Grade Vampirella's Savage Sword of Conan Magazines needed VF++ or better: 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 129, 132, 192, 194, 196-200, 204-210, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223 http://www.donwalthropphotography.com
“Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. -Robert Langdon”
Frankly, I never thought any of these movies were for kids. I wouldnt take a 6 year old to see any of these.
Saw the movie yesterday and I thought it was a great movie but bit on the long side. I didn't mind but what made the length obvious was my wife asking me the time during the movie. I have two daughters 8 and 11 and my older kid was disappointed she was not going - it was the right decision for us.
#5872360 - 07/24/1202:41 PMRe: The Dark Knight Rises Reviews
[Re: airwalker]
BuffyfanBuffyfan "I don't feel like a freaknut..."
"Sometimes you don't."
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 13267
Loc: Watching the Lunatics Run the ...
Originally Posted By: airwalker
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
Frankly, I never thought any of these movies were for kids. I wouldnt take a 6 year old to see any of these.
Saw the movie yesterday and I thought it was a great movie but bit on the long side. I didn't mind but what made the length obvious was my wife asking me the time during the movie. I have two daughters 8 and 11 and my older kid was disappointed she was not going - it was the right decision for us.
Took my son to watch it and he was not frightened the least during this movie like he was of the Lizard in The Amazing Spider-man. He's 9
_________________________
WANTED: (preferably pedigreed) Extreme High Grade Vampirella's Savage Sword of Conan Magazines needed VF++ or better: 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 129, 132, 192, 194, 196-200, 204-210, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223 http://www.donwalthropphotography.com
“Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. -Robert Langdon”
I don't really see Heath Ledger as Joker some oustanding role he played... (shrug)??? and to find out by someone that he played in BrokeBack Mountain (which I will never watch) makes me think even less about it.. Maybe I'm in the minority..I actually think Jack Nicholason played a better Joker.
Don't know if the Heath Ledger being Joker was hyped up because of his death if we were to be honest about that...
#5873798 - 07/24/1211:15 PMRe: The Dark Knight Rises Reviews
[Re: C.P.C.I.V.]
AndyBoBoAndyBoBo
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 04/24/11
Posts: 4048
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: 3P39V
I don't really see Heath Ledger as Joker some oustanding role he played... (shrug)??? and to find out by someone that he played in BrokeBack Mountain (which I will never watch) makes me think even less about it.. Maybe I'm in the minority..I actually think Jack Nicholason played a better Joker.
Don't know if the Heath Ledger being Joker was hyped up because of his death if we were to be honest about that...
Why would Ledger starring in Brokeback Mountain impact your opinion on his role as the Joker in the DK?
Oh and there is no need to actually answer the question -
#5873804 - 07/24/1211:18 PMRe: The Dark Knight Rises Reviews
[Re: AndyBoBo]
AndyBoBoAndyBoBo
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 04/24/11
Posts: 4048
Loc: Boston, MA
^ and in all reality, his death might have, and probably did have, an impact on how well the DK did at the box office; but again, I'm missing the correlation between his ability to act and his death.
Maybe I'm in the minority..I actually think Jack Nicholason played a better Joker. 
