Was going to say something but AweSam and Batnandez have it covered. I personally thought the movie was great, just as good as TDK. I do agree though, that as a huge Batman fan, I do not think this trilogy did the character justice. While good, and a lot more believable than most comic book movies(Avengers is not that far from watching a cartoon), I want a REAL Batman movie made.
Reasons The Dark Knight Rises Was a Mediocre Film
@The Stegman:
Keep up with Joker's mind games? Joker outsmarted him throughout the entire movie, the only time he got the one up was at the end once he teamed up with Fox against his final assault against Joker. Truth be told throughout all three films he showed very little detective work, so to point it out in this one seems to just be nit picking.
Again, it is the least of my concerns with the film, but I do think they could have incorporated detective work into the film. In the Dark Knight, we saw Batman at the crime scenes piecing together clues. Bruce took a bullet, reassembled it, and got a fingerprint. He broke the legs of the mob boss to get him to talk about Joker. He marked the bills so they could be traced later. You are right that he never caught up with the Joker until the end, but at least he was one pace behind him the whole way. Again, that is what made it exciting. As opposed to, “WHERE IS THE TRIGGER!” which is rather boring.
He didn't stop his war on crime, he WON the war on crime, big difference. It was stated that crime was almost non existent in Gotham thanks to the Dent Act, it was so small that police alone could handle it, Bruce's whole goal was to make Gotham a better place, which he did. Also how does the Dent Act invade civil rights? it made it so some criminals could not be eligible for parole, the kind like Falcone who could easily use his connections to elude prison and be right back on the streets, with the Dent Act, ALL criminals, even the powerful mob bosses would stay in prison regardless of outside ties, it doesn't deny ALL criminals parole, just those who have ''friends in high places''
Unless crime in the city had completely ended, I don’t think you can say we won the war. It was stated that crime is nearly non-existent by a politician. Spin, spin, spin. You might be right about the Dent Act, but they never really said what it was about. I would have to watch the movie again, but I sure thought one of the reporters at the press conference said something about it being a violation of civil liberties. I guess if it was just denying parole, I have no problem with that. I will defer to your memory of the film and say you are right on this point.
1. He wasn't a criminal in The Dark Knight, he was a public hero, that's how he could just enter crime scenes that were full of cops without being arrested, that's why the Bat Signal was built, the police weren't gunning for him, they accepted him, however due to the events at the end of The Dark Knight, he WAS a criminal and on the run.
1. He was still technically a criminal. He interferes with police investigations and he is a vigilante…not to mention his car can’t possibly be street legal and he flees crime scenes all the time. He also violated the border of a foreign nation which could possibly be a treasonous offense, but I’m not sure on that one. That is just all the laws Batman broke off the top of my head. The fact that the police cooperate with him does not change the fact that Batman breaks the letter of the law. Granted, the police were working with him in the Dark Knight, but they were not in Batman Begins. Weren’t they after him in the building when he used the Bat Calling Device to escape?
2. He wasn't targeting street thugs, they were Maroni's men. His goal was to clean up the streets of Gotham, to stop those who the regular law could not, namely Falcone, Maroni, Lau etc. However, as I said, thanks to the Dent Act, the law COULD now stop them by severing their ties to the outside and keep them in jail, the police could now clean up Gotham without Batman's help, and with the Joker gone, that only sealed the deal.
2. I have not seen Batman Begins since it came out on video. If you say he was only targeting mafia thugs, I will defer to you.
3. But he wasn't a quitter, Gotham didn't need Batman any longer, however the minute it DID need him, he didn't hesitate to step back into the role.
3. I maintain that he could have continued to fight crime or he could have at least used his civilian identity to do good…which he did for awhile until he became a sad sack of crap.
So you believe that technology like the Arc reactor, the Bat, the Tumbler, Sonar city wide tracking devices, cell phones that could disable the security of an entire building are all possible, but a device that can allow a man with no cartilage to walk is far fetched? Nolan's Batman is grounded in more reality, but many devices used don't exist in this world, I don't know why you would question that one.
First, I don't believe in the Arc reactor, the Bat, or the Sonar tracking device would work, but they are all plausible with a little scientific breakthrough. That is fair game in my book. On the other hand, the Tumbler does exist. Those things are real...and really awesome.
Regardless, I think you’ve missed my whole point on Batman’s leg brace. First, it had to be more than just a brace. A typical leg brace, like a splint, would add support to a broken bone simply be keeping the leg straight. Clearly, this is not what Batman had because his problem was not with a broken bone and the brace was capable of movement at the knee. The device made a whirring sound when it moved back and forth presumably working as a mechanism to strengthen Bruce’s movement since he kicked through a brick directly after using it. Such a device does seem plausible, but it would only help if Bruce had a problem with his muscles. If his muscles had somehow worn out, then it makes sense that a device could increase the strength of his natural movement, but Bruce’s problems were not with his muscles but with the cartilage in his knee. Also, just because Bruce’s muscles might be hard enough with the device to break a concrete brick, that does not mean his foot is tough enough to break a concrete brick. Just because your foot is traveling super fast does not mean it is super enduring. If that were the case, then somebody who drove a motorcycle at 100mph, crashed, and went flying off the bike into a brick wall would leave a big hole in wall. However, that is not the case. Instead, his body would just go splat against the brick wall because the human body is not as tough as concrete. Whenever two object meet at high speed, the one that is more enduring will fair far better. Bruce’s foot would have crumpled against the concrete block. Anyway, the main point is that Bruce never addresses the cartilage issue. If he had said, “I invented Bat Cartilage and injected it in my knee,” then I would be a tiny bit cynical, but at least it would have made sense. Instead, Bruce puts on a brace which does nothing for the cartilage which would still cause Bruce huge amounts of pain and eventually destroy his knee altogether.
I think you're misjudging how angry Talia was at Ra's it's not like she hated him with every fiber of her being and sore a blood oath of vengeance against Ra's, she was upset yes, she was mad, of course, but i think most of all she was heartbroken of leaving the man that saved her, yet she didn't completely hate her father for it and in the end, he was still her father and she loved him. It's like if a dad tells a regular girl "you can't date that boy'' yeah, she's gonna be pissed, but she's not gonna be ready to kill dad because of it.
Fair points, but I still think making her angry at Ra’s at all just served to muddy the plot. It added nothing and obscured her loyalties.
I think you're right there, If I recall he had given her stock enough to be a share holder in W.I so Dagget wouldn't take control, so yeah she was pretty much in charge, but who knows, maybe it was just to further gain his trust so he wouldn't suspect her or it could have been to make his misery at her betrayal, the only woman he got close to besides Rachel betraying him, even more personal.
That makes sense except that there was no indication she was ever going to reveal her betrayal. Also, that’s a really gross way to get vengeance, and Bruce had no reason to suspect her, so there was no need to gain more trust. In fact, during the sex scene, you can see her League of Shadows tattoo which Bruce apparently doesn’t recognize, so it just adds more holes to the plot. The sex scene makes no sense.
Again, if guards were there, people would soon realize, ''oh what's the point of even trying to escape if someone up there will just push me back down?" Bane didn't THINK Bruce had any hope left, he had broken Batman physically, mentally and emotionally, a grave miscalculation on Bane's part. He knew that Bruce would heal physically, but he wouldn't have the will to successfully climb and escape, that is why Bane was so surprised to find out he did escape.
There are so many problems with this. First of all, I was not saying that the guards make themselves known. I was saying they wait for somebody to peak over, and then they take care of them. Hope would be there until someone actually managed to make it. Second, there are already guards there some of the time because somebody has to be lowering food into the pit. Third, the whole pit idea forgoes the issue that someone else could try to get the people out of the pit. The pit cannot be a secret. There is a major city right next to it. Not a single person in the pit has a friend who would come and throw a rope down so they can escape? It is ridiculous not to have a guard in place.
This last one is just full of assumptions on your part, you didn't see Bane take away the leg device, so why would you just assume he would do it? Batman was already crippled enough by having his spine dislodge. Again you say the brace MUST run on electricity, why must it? did they ever say it did? That's just another assumption,to me, unless they actually state that the brace needs electricity, I will believe that it doesn't.
Bane wants Bruce to suffer. It would be uncharacteristic to give him something that would aid him or comfort him (though as I already explained, the leg brace would do neither). I suppose you could make the case that Bane gave it to him so he would have the chance to escape. Also, according to one summary of the movie I read, Bruce was doing situps with his pants off at one point, and no leg brace. I would have to watch it again to be sure, but I think there was such a scene. Finally, what do you think the brace was powered by? Again, it made a whirring sound as if it was powering Bruce’s movements. That has to be coming from somewhere? Was it powered by a gas or steam engine? Batteries? Solar power?
Rather than having set up a better Gotham which inspires people, all the lies seem to have just created more trouble.
"A series of lies from the previous movies blew up in the character's faces?
YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT LYING IS BAD?"
"Hey cop, I know you've had no formal training or ever been in the League of Shadows, but here's the key to all my sh*t. Go crazy. I'm going to move to France with this broad I've only talked to for about 5 minutes."THIS!!
@texasdeathmatch:
And who has stolen from me and led me into a death trap...
Yeah, if I pointed out all those sort of flaws in the movie, this article would be way, waaaay longer.
@Queso6p4
Aside from the plane hijack scene and the first fight between Batman and Bane I didn't feel astounded either but those moments are cemented in my mind.
I did like the plane scene…though I am pretty sure it is physically impossible, but at least it was original. A lot of people seem to love the Batman and Bane fight, but I didn’t find it that impressive. I thought it was a solid fight scene, but I can’t remember a single particular move other than the Breaking of the Bat pose. Usually, I can at least remember a few particular moments from a good fight scene.
Well, yeah, those two, of course, and that random boy who's brother was found dead, but as a city no one really missed him.
Uh, where did we see a lot of the city’s reactions? This is another minor quibble I have with the movie. I was really impressed by the way that The Dark Knight gave you a sense of the city by showing small interactions of various civilians throughout the course of the movie (I can give specific examples if needed). Though the civilians should have played an even larger role in this movie, there were very few moments that focused on them. Half of the brief interactions we do see with civilians did involve a need for Batman though.
Ok. I see what you mean there. I'm not sure if that'll happen to me but I guess I'll have to watch them all back to back and see.
I’m not sure if it will happen to me either, but even thinking about watching it now…it just doesn’t seem that fun knowing how things turn out.
Sorry, that "R" was for Returns. Should've clarified that. I was just saying that in The Dark Knight Returns even though he retired he was still helping as best he could rather than the Rises' version of Batman who becomes a hermit in his mansion. Not too unreasonable given what happened with Rachel but still disappointing. : /
Yeah, I’m with you.
Agreed. Not sure why the brothers didn't catch/address this.
The brothers? I knew Nolan worked on the film. Does his brother as well?
Yeah, I wouldn't have minded either, had she been done well, like you said.
Yeah.
Fair enough, but I saw it more as complete dedication to a cause. You do whatever you have to do to enable success, and she did. Her bit about "the hidden blade that digs the deepest" or whatever she said comes to mind.
Sure, but again, it seems an unlikely thing to do just to give Bruce a little more pain or gain a little more trust, and Talia showed no intention of revealing her identity to Bruce.
Definitely. Given how smart and calculating Bane was made out to be, this is a fair expectation.
I thought so. Not to mention that if there were no guards, then other people could show up and rescue their friends from the pit. The pit was right next to a city. People have to know about it.
Yeah, I have no idea how they could've handled that without a further suspension of belief. Experts in the pit? Why are they even there to begin with? Isn't one doctor enough? Why would they have access to medical equipment/technology that could help Batman recuperate? I just don't know how they'd have dealt with this without making the movie feel longer, even more rushed, and more ridiculous. They'd probably have had to rewrite a good portion of the screenplay to accommodate that, I guess. Maybe they could've found a way to get his broken body out of the pit and then have taken him to see some experts? *shrugs* The whole part about Bruce's miraculous healing was always just weird to me. Even as a snot-nosed kid reading it in middle school it just seemed a bit-off. Yeah, I get what it was trying to say and do with Wayne, but even now, after re-reading it over a decade later it still comes off as strange.
Regarding the original Knightfall plotline, it is a bit of a copout to say, “Healing woman healed him,” but it makes some sense in the comic book world because we know there is a larger DC universe with metahumans. Still a bit convenient, but not as unforgivable as it is to have a healing punch in Nolan’s movie where the supernatural is almost completely absent. Also, regarding the comic plotline, it would have been cool to see Batman putting himself together, having experimental procedure done, and slowly gaining his strength back, but even if there was a miracle new procedure they tried on him, his recover would have to take half a year or so…which would translate into about three years of comic book time, and I can’t blame DC for not wanting their biggest money raiser out of commission for that long. Still, I wish the comic medium could accommodate that kind of story.
@BiteMe-Fanboy:
I loved the Dark Knight. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises were worth seeing once. Maybe I'll see them again some time.
@The_Thunderer:
Yeah. They did have some chemistry, so it is not completely out of the question that they would leave town together, but...yeah, it is certainly a questionable call for Batman and the writers.
@Rumble Man:
I'm usually not a fan of the critics opinions, but they are right on not liking this one. Loved the article. I'm going to post it to everybody here in a little bit.
Haven't seen it yet, but bro says it's his fav movie he's ever seen. I'm not a Nolan fan by an stretch (I hated Inception, Dark Knight was good but not as amazing as everyone says it is) but I'm still pumped as hell about DKR and will definitley see it.
@PsychoKnights:
@Jorgevy: @Swagger462: @AweSam: @Twentyfive: @Batnandez: @The Stegman: @Lvenger: @Deranged Midget:@TheBigRedCheese: @AverageKoala: @Mega_spidey01: @minigunman123: @ALFaLantern: @vicske77: @Guardiandevil83: @menaceforever: @Glitch_Spawn: @x_29: @Queso6p4: @BiteMe-Fanboy: @Manwhohaseverything: @RainEffect: @ratman19: @Rumble Man: @texasdeathmatch:@The_Thunderer: @BlueLantern1995: @ValendianKnight: @WaveMotionCannon: @SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26:
I defy anyone to read this and claim that The Dark Knight Rises has a well-written plot. Credit to Rumble Man for sending me the link.
@BlueLantern1995:
Most people seem to think it was pretty great. If you go in with moderate expectations, you will hopefully not be disappointed.
@Joesoef95:
True enough. Any year where a Nolan Batman movie can come out and it is the worst superhero movie of the year...is a good year.
To comics! (clinks glass and then sets it down and orders a Dr. Pepper because I don't drink)
@They Killed Cap!:
No. I really loved Insomnia, The Dark Knight, and Inception. Memento and Batman Begins were both pretty good, but man, The Dark Knight Rises just isn't even on the same level as any of those other films. Perhaps, it is even with Batman Begins in my book. At first I thought it was a little better, but the more I look at the plot holes...
@Mega_spidey01:
I know you were probably just pointing out more plot holes, but I think I can actually answer some of your questions.
who was that girl with catwoman's?
She was probably Holly Robinson, a character who first appeared in the Batman: Year One story arc. Holly was a young prostitute that Selina rescued from the streets. Holly actually became Catwoman for awhile when Selina had a baby. Why her character wasn’t explained in the movie is a mystery.
why would batman trust john blake enough with the batcave he barely knows him?
Why he would think Robin could handle the responsibility of being a crime fighter is a mystery, but since the guy knew that Bruce Wayne was Batman for years and kept it a secret, Bruce did have a sufficient reason to at least trust Robin’s secrecy and good intentions.
batman & talia had no real chemistry i think that's why their sex scene felt forced.
I agree. More importantly, the scene felt forced because it came out of nowhere and made no sense once it was revealed that Talia hated Bruce.
bane and batman's fight scenes could have a better fight scenes
Yes.
any catwoman was my favorite part of the movie.
She definitely did the character justice. Kudos to Hathaway. She is a versatile actress.
hoping for batman beyond to be the next reboot batman movie.
It might be interesting, but I would not hold my breath. DC wants something that will appeal to the maximum amount of people and bring in more fans for the comics. A regular Batman movie would do both those things a lot better than a Babman Beyond movie.
@ValendianKnight:
My fellow Knight! Greetings Brother!
I was quite pleased with The Dark Knight. I thought it did a better job a bringing Batman to the big screen than I dared to hope, but the Dark Knight Rises just didn't work for me. The script was clearly bad, but it is more difficult to say what exactly was wrong with the action and pacing. All I can say is it did not impress me.
@SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26:
I hope you enjoy it, but it was definitely a let down to me. If you go in with moderate expectations, I don't think you will be disappointed.
@Rumble Man:
That pictures...is just bizarre.
So you are a big Bane fan? I like him pretty well too. It certainly was an anti-climactic death for both Bane and Talia. I really feel like there must have been some behind the scenes chaos that we don't know about for the movie to be this bad.
@PsychoKnights: Uh huh, nolan spreads him out like a b!tch at his final moments even though it was him and talia that moved the plot along
@Rumble Man said:
@PsychoKnights: Uh huh, nolan spreads him out like a b!tch at his final moments even though it was him and talia that moved the plot along
It's always disappointing to me when they kill the villains in comic book movies. It is not a part of the medium, and I know that directors feel that it gives a better sense of closure to the film when they kill the bad guy, but if keeping the villain alive is a stereotype of comics, killing the villain at the end of a film is a stereotype in movies. It's a cop out, and it should stop. Especially with a hero who is profoundly concerned about using non-lethal force.
Bane's death sucked.
TDKR was by no means mediocre
Was an awsome movie and pushed batman to his limits. but he was still relatable. was the best superhero film ever made.
@NvidiaRocks said:
TDKR was by no means mediocre
Was an awsome movie and pushed batman to his limits. but he was still relatable. was the best superhero film ever made.
You don't care to address any of my criticisms of the film?
@Lvenger said:
@PsychoKnights: Already read it. I loled many times.
(grins) Yeah, I already thought the movie's script had issues. Now, I think the script was trash.
@k4tzm4n said:
That said, I don't believe it was just "mediocre." I think it was a good movie, but certainly packed with flaws/things that bugged me and was IMHO the weakest entry in the trilogy.
Agreed on both counts. The acting was superb and the shots and such were pretty good. It was really good thematically, and the action scenes were solid just underwhelming. Anyway, all of that adds up to make it significantly better than average, but it was a mediocre film considering all the potential it had.
Should our avatars fight to the death or something?
Loved the movie. Deal with it.
I thought it was a good movie. I would have given it 3 out of 4 stars. The main problem with TDKR is it just felt overplotted. I've never seen a movie where at almost 3 hours long it felt like there was still a lot of stuff left out.
I gladly would have liked to see them split this flick into two 2-hour parts if it meant that we would have gotten a more cohesive story. What we have now is a good movie, that could have been great had clunky plot points and pacing issues been ironed out.
All that being said--I think the ending was great a provided a satisfying conclusion to what will ultimately go down as the best superhero trilogy available.
No no, I read the whole thing, And I even agreed with the entirety of the post, save the Talia sleeping with him. i, like yourself, was disappointed. TDK was much better, but I still liked TDKR. Such things didn't affect my liking for the movie. Although, i do agree with the lack of detective work strongly.
@DDangelico said:
I thought it was a good movie. I would have given it 3 out of 4 stars. The main problem with TDKR is it just felt overplotted. I've never seen a movie where at almost 3 hours long it felt like there was still a lot of stuff left out.
I gladly would have liked to see them split this flick into two 2-hour parts if it meant that we would have gotten a more cohesive story. What we have now is a good movie, that could have been great had clunky plot points and pacing issues been ironed out.
All that being said--I think the ending was great a provided a satisfying conclusion to what will ultimately go down as the best superhero trilogy available.
Perhaps you are right, but I find the Dark Knight Rises to be tragically flawed. I can forgive a few missteps, but this goes beyond that. This was sloppy.
I would not have minded a two-part finale if it was good, but...I disagree with you on the problem being time. Spiderman 3, where it had three villains and a half-dozen main plot lines, needed more time. What was there was not bad (in my admittedly unpopular opinion), but it was rushed at the end. I don't find that The Dark Knight Rises was rushed; I found it garbled. The plot had so many flaws, the action was mediocre, the resolutions were too convenient. What I'm getting at is that they had the time to do better than what they did. I'm not sure more time would have equaled a better movie.
Also, who uses a four star scale? (laughs good-naturedly)
@nickthedevil said:
No no, I read the whole thing, And I even agreed with the entirety of the post, save the Talia sleeping with him. i, like yourself, was disappointed. TDK was much better, but I still liked TDKR. Such things didn't affect my liking for the movie. Although, i do agree with the lack of detective work strongly.
Ah, well I can respect that. Even though I have a lot of criticism of TDKR, I still thought it was a pretty good film; it was just a mediocre Nolan film. The themes in the movie were excellently realized, the acting was great, and the special effects were all good, but for me, the glaring plot holes really drop it down a notch, and the detective work, quitting, and mediocre action sequences drop it down even more.
@PsychoKnights said:
@DDangelico said:
I thought it was a good movie. I would have given it 3 out of 4 stars. The main problem with TDKR is it just felt overplotted. I've never seen a movie where at almost 3 hours long it felt like there was still a lot of stuff left out.
I gladly would have liked to see them split this flick into two 2-hour parts if it meant that we would have gotten a more cohesive story. What we have now is a good movie, that could have been great had clunky plot points and pacing issues been ironed out.
All that being said--I think the ending was great a provided a satisfying conclusion to what will ultimately go down as the best superhero trilogy available.
Perhaps you are right, but I find the Dark Knight Rises to be tragically flawed. I can forgive a few missteps, but this goes beyond that. This was sloppy.
I would not have minded a two-part finale if it was good, but...I disagree with you on the problem being time. Spiderman 3, where it had three villains and a half-dozen main plot lines, needed more time. What was there was not bad (in my admittedly unpopular opinion), but it was rushed at the end. I don't find that The Dark Knight Rises was rushed; I found it garbled. The plot had so many flaws, the action was mediocre, the resolutions were too convenient. What I'm getting at is that they had the time to do better than what they did. I'm not sure more time would have equaled a better movie.
Also, who uses a four star scale? (laughs good-naturedly)
Well I didn't say that the problem was time really, but the fact that it was overplotted--which lead to it being, as you say, "garbled" which I agree with. It seems strange to me that such a detail oriented director such as Nolan would allow such gaping plot holes, which leads me to thing that either a lot of stuff was left on the floor, or something of the sort.
In my opinion, the good still outweighed the bad (I guess where we differ is I thought the action scenes were excellent, specifically the sewer fight) but TDKR is still the weakest film of the dark knight trilogy.
@PsychoKnights: But you're absolutely right in that SPIDER-MAN 3 is overplotted. I mean if you cut the entire Venom thread (including the dumb symbiote stuff), and give those scenes to Sandman to further develop his character I think it would have been better than how it ended up.
@PsychoKnights: Its a 'disney' death scene
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment