Nolan's Batman

TheBest said:
If anything Begins is underrated
Click to expand...

I mean over here. In general it's about as highly rated as it should IMO which is that it was a good but not great film. The bad guy was nothing special or memorable. The whole "gas" leak wasn't a particularly memorable threat to Gotham City and it's people. Katy Holmes was a pretty shitty choice as Bruce's love interest due to not being very good at acting.

I do thing it was a good movie but for me it will always be the one that got the ball rolling. The Dark Night was the one that sent this trilogy threw the roof for both critics and masses.
 
Another plot question

How did Wayne come to the assumption that (as he thought at the time) Bane was Al-Ghul's child? Because, from what I recall... it's Neeson who first tells him as much in his cameo appearance, but surely Neeson is just a figmant of Wayne's immagination at that point... so how did a figment of his immagination teach him brand new information?!
 
I don't think there's a backlash against Nolan or this film at all. The reviews don't suggest so nor the gushing praise from almost everyone else I know who's seen it.

If anything the fact that it is Nolan is probably creating an 'emperors new clothes' kind of vibe. Of course its smarter than the average comic book film (that's a given) but it's definitely one of his weakest.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Another plot question

How did Wayne come to the assumption that (as he thought at the time) Bane was Al-Ghul's child? Because, from what I recall... it's Neeson who first tells him as much in his cameo appearance, but surely Neeson is just a figmant of Wayne's immagination at that point... so how did a figment of his immagination teach him brand new information?!
Click to expand...

He didn't, he was told the stories about how Bane escaped the pit by climbing and then separately the mercenary kid story and Bane's one time membership of the LoS and he put 2 and 2 together in a hallucination in which Ra told him 5.

I admit, before the Nesson scene I'd thought the same thing, of course I'm a moron, because the flashbacks showed the kid was fine, but there are repeated mentions about how his face got fecked up. And I knew Marion was Talia but I just figured they were siblings.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Another plot question

How did Wayne come to the assumption that (as he thought at the time) Bane was Al-Ghul's child? Because, from what I recall... it's Neeson who first tells him as much in his cameo appearance, but surely Neeson is just a figmant of Wayne's immagination at that point... so how did a figment of his immagination teach him brand new information?!
Click to expand...

I think he just made his own assumptions based on the stories he was told in the prison.

It was a bit strange how it was executed. I can only assume that he was hallucinating because he was a bit out of it at the time.
 
Lastwolf said:
He didn't, he was told the stories about how Bane escaped the pit by climbing and then separately the mercenary kid story and Bane's one time membership of the LoS and he put 2 and 2 together in a hallucination in which Ra told him 5.

I admit, before the Nesson scene I'd thought the same thing, of course I'm a moron, because the flashbacks showed the kid was fine, but there are repeated mentions about how his face got fecked up. And I knew Marion was Talia but I just figured they were siblings.
Click to expand...

Woodzy said:
I think he just made his own assumptions based on the stories he was told in the prison.

It was a bit strange how it was executed. I can only assume that he was hallucinating because he was a bit out of it at the time.
Click to expand...

Aye, it was a bit weird... and he seemingly jumps from Bane is part of the League of Shadows to Bane is Ra's al Ghul child fairly easily (unless of course he was given more information from what we saw)... and then to have this information presented to him accurately via his own hallucination (a hallucination which, I might add, is intentionally vague, as it never mentions Bane as being his child, but just the child in the pit was his child, as to keep in-line with the later twist... hence why everything Neeson said was entirely accurate) was a little bit strange!

Unless of course Neeson isn't a figment of his immagination, but is actually a ghost... which would be pretty cool! In a bizarre kind of way...
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Another plot question

How did Wayne come to the assumption that (as he thought at the time) Bane was Al-Ghul's child? Because, from what I recall... it's Neeson who first tells him as much in his cameo appearance, but surely Neeson is just a figmant of Wayne's immagination at that point... so how did a figment of his immagination teach him brand new information?!
Click to expand...

:lol: Yep. He basically concocts a conspiracy theory and then buys it wholesale. I mean, there are clues and shit, but it basically depends on the premise that there is only one mercenary in the entire world.

Begins is underrated in that the first half is the strongest part of the whole trilogy. There's no plot holes, it's shot & acted brilliantly, it makes perfect sense and is the only part of Nolan's trilogy that is actually realistic and "could've happened in the real world"...which was a trope that then hung around it's neck for the rest of the series.

However it's slightly overrated because the second half drags it down a fair bit, and is probably the weakest part of the whole trilogy. Katie Holmes, bad action sequences, odd editing, a plan reliant on a water vaporiser that somehow doesn't affect people made up of 70% water. Katie Holmes. A train that needs to be stopped from reaching a building, so they stop it buy crashing it into the building. Katie Holmes. Etc.

As for Kevin Smith. I don't really like any of his films, apart from maybe Dogma, and I'm not his target audience at all, but I find him a really captivating public speaker for some reason.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I mean over here. In general it's about as highly rated as it should IMO which is that it was a good but not great film. The bad guy was nothing special or memorable. The whole "gas" leak wasn't a particularly memorable threat to Gotham City and it's people. Katy Holmes was a pretty shitty choice as Bruce's love interest due to not being very good at acting.
Click to expand...

You know I watched BB the other week and I thought to myself that Katie Holmes actually wasn't that bad in it. She is after all a pretty shitty actress and they could of cast someone much better, but I was also surprised to find out the role was actually written specifically for her! She didn't do to bad with it and then when I watched TDK I realised how much I actually preferred her to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the role. Please re-watch Maggie's first scenes in TDK with Dent, it's over the top, loud and totally unlike the character we know from BB. I know this was meant to be a few years after and a more mature Rachel, but as soon as I started to compare them I hated Maggies portrayal even more - and that hadn't happened the first couple of times I watched it. I would of been happy for it to have been Katie Holmes face in the picture in TDKR, not Maggie's :lol:

Annihilate Now! said:
Another plot question

How did Wayne come to the assumption that (as he thought at the time) Bane was Al-Ghul's child? Because, from what I recall... it's Neeson who first tells him as much in his cameo appearance, but surely Neeson is just a figmant of Wayne's immagination at that point... so how did a figment of his immagination teach him brand new information?!
Click to expand...

Well the Doctor in the cell next to him is talking about the Mercenary (Ra's) and the story of his wife & child, but nothing is ever mentioned to him about Ra's or the League of Shadows or anything like that. The only way I can see Wayne deciphering it is because Bane claimed he was the rightful heir of the LoS, so this linked with the story is Wayne putting 2&2 together. But I can't even be sure that Bane said them exact words when he claimed he was the new leader.
 
gaz1185 said:
You know I watched BB the other week and I thought to myself that Katie Holmes actually wasn't that bad in it. She is after all a pretty shitty actress and they could of cast someone much better, but I was also surprised to find out the role was actually written specifically for her! She didn't do to bad with it and then when I watched TDK I realised how much I actually preferred her to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the role. Please re-watch Maggie's first scenes in TDK with Dent, it's over the top, loud and totally unlike the character we know from BB. I know this was meant to be a few years after and a more mature Rachel, but as soon as I started to compare them I hated Maggies portrayal even more - and that hadn't happened the first couple of times I watched it. I would of been happy for it to have been Katie Holmes face in the picture in TDKR, not Maggie's :lol:
Click to expand...

I disagree. Holmes just had a pretty face and little personality. Gyllenhaal had a bit of character about her. Not that either of them were integral to either of the two movies.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Unless of course Neeson isn't a figment of his immagination, but is actually a ghost... which would be pretty cool! In a bizarre kind of way...
Click to expand...

That's not as stupid of an idea as it sounds. After all Alfred did call the jail a "pit", it could of been linking to the Lazarus Pit's that Ra's uses in the comics. The Lazarus Pit's "serve the purpose of prolonging life", so maybe in Nolanverse of Batman, life being prolonged is in a spiritual form.

And Ra's does say in BB:
But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?
Click to expand...
 
reelworld said:
I love the movie, but this review is just too fecking funny

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/board/nest/202143975?p=1

ps: can't copy paste it here, too long
Click to expand...

I don't understand people watching a movie like that and analysing every single 'plot-hole'. It just seems like wannabe filmmakers trying to prove how well they can dissect a story, as if they actually have a clue...and I can't imagine it makes for an enjoyable experience if you're getting so bogged down in the details that you're missing the bigger picture. Just seems like people think criticising every little thing shows some kind of deeper appreciation.

It was a good movie, not much worse than the Dark Knight at all. Am I the only one that just finds Joseph Gordon-Levitt really annoying for no apparent reason? Tom Hardy's great.
 
I quite like JGL... thought he was good in Brick, 500Days Of Summer and 50/50, which are all films I quite enjoy.

But aye, Tom Hardy is pretty great... though weird that it was his performance in RocknRolla which made Nolan want to cast him as Bane, and not Bronson (which Nolan hadn't even seen apparently).
 
Yeah JGL has done really well for himself, come a long way from his TV days. Seems to pick great scripts as well.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
:lol:

Yes! Surprised this hasn't been mentioned more.

As for rating the three, I'd say:

Batman Begins 8
The Dark Night 9.5
The Dark Night Rises 9

I do think Batman Begins is a little bit overrated. It neither had the epic-ness of TDKR nor the iconic performances and overall well roundedness of TDK.
Click to expand...

Batman Begins is my favourite out of the three.
 
Brwned said:
I don't understand people watching a movie like that and analysing every single 'plot-hole'. It just seems like wannabe filmmakers trying to prove how well they can dissect a story, as if they actually have a clue...and I can't imagine it makes for an enjoyable experience if you're getting so bogged down in the details that you're missing the bigger picture. Just seems like people think criticising every little thing shows some kind of deeper appreciation.

It was a good movie, not much worse than the Dark Knight at all. Am I the only one that just finds Joseph Gordon-Levitt really annoying for no apparent reason? Tom Hardy's great.
Click to expand...

I doubt he went with the intention of doing that.

Probably just sat there enjoying it mostly, going with the flow until like me he hit a point and thought 'hold on. This is just not very good is it?'

The odd thing is he probably had to go back and watch it again to transcribe the whole review. Kaching! for the filmmakers but kind of self defeating if you really thought the movie was that shit.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
I doubt he went with the intention of doing that.

Probably just sat there enjoying it mostly, going with the flow until like me he hit a point and thought 'hold on. This is just not very good is it?'

The odd thing is he probably had to go back and watch it again to transcribe the whole review. Kaching! for the filmmakers but kind of self defeating if you really thought the movie was that shit.
Click to expand...

Yea.

Thought The Dark Knight Rises was quite ordinary.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
I doubt he went with the intention of doing that.

Probably just sat there enjoying it mostly, going with the flow until like me he hit a point and thought 'hold on. This is just not very good is it?'

The odd thing is he probably had to go back and watch it again to transcribe the whole review. Kaching! for the filmmakers but kind of self defeating if you really thought the movie was that shit.
Click to expand...

Nah he's a smart ass. He makes some fair points but also picks holes in other things that most people could use their imagination to come up with a perfectly rational explanation for.
 
I've just been listening to the DKR soundtrack while playing some game, it's epic, it almost rocky theme good for wanting to get up and punch several people in the face.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I mean over here. In general it's about as highly rated as it should IMO which is that it was a good but not great film. The bad guy was nothing special or memorable. The whole "gas" leak wasn't a particularly memorable threat to Gotham City and it's people. Katy Holmes was a pretty shitty choice as Bruce's love interest due to not being very good at acting.

I do thing it was a good movie but for me it will always be the one that got the ball rolling. The Dark Night was the one that sent this trilogy threw the roof for both critics and masses.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the final film yet but personally Batman Begins for me was easily better than the Dark Knight. It had great back story and laid the foundations for Nolan's interpretation of who Batman is and we get a back story on the main villain Ra's Al Ghul as well. The end is brilliant as well when he hands him over the joker card, sets up the next film. While I did enjoy the Dark Knight it is just mindless action from start to finish whereas I felt BB was just a more rounded and complete film.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
I doubt he went with the intention of doing that.

Probably just sat there enjoying it mostly, going with the flow until like me he hit a point and thought 'hold on. This is just not very good is it?'.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm with Brwned's on this. I've done piss take reviews of films I hate, but they're 3 paragraphs at the most, and most of it is me rambling bollocks on tangents and what not. I did one of the Godfather III once that was maybe 1/4 the size of that, but I've seen that film 5 or 6 times in a decade or so. That's a 4,000 word step by step walk through for a film that's been out for 4 days. There's no way he's seen that film any more than twice, if even that, because if he hated it to the extent that he wrote a fecking dissertation on it, then he wouldn't have gone to see it again. Unless it was TO write a dissertation on it.

This is where the "backlash" comes from. Not critics. This person must have either watched this film with a minute taker, or gone in determined to pick it apart. I've seen it twice and it's taken me 8 or so posts to remember even half of the silly bits he has. A lot of which actually aren't. Which is an achievement considering there are so many silly bits you don't need to make any more up.

As for Joseph Gordon Levitt. I thought he was quite good. Considering he got a part that had no shades of grey, was a bit Mary Sue and would've been slaughtered if done wrong (in hindsight) I thought he acted it very likably.
 
JazzG said:
I haven't seen the final film yet but personally Batman Begins for me was easily better than the Dark Knight. It had great back story and laid the foundations for Nolan's interpretation of who Batman is and we get a back story on the main villain Ra's Al Ghul as well. The end is brilliant as well when he hands him over the joker card, sets up the next film. While I did enjoy the Dark Knight it is just mindless action from start to finish whereas I felt BB was just a more rounded and complete film.
Click to expand...

That was the great thing about Joker. His plans were mindless in the 'right' way. It was mindless in that he wasn't your typical bad buy who is taking revenge on the world for something that happened to him 10 years ago and has a specific goal in mind. This guy is just going about flipping things on their heads and messing about with order. Everything he does almost seems like a game of one-upmanship hes playing with Batman and Gotham. That made it special rather than pointless for me.

Also, personally, I can just keep watching Heath Ledger's performance in a complete state of being wow'ed. It was truly phenomenal.

As for Begins, like I said, for me, while it was indeed a quality film, was simply too mild to be truly great. It lacked the strong characters that TDK had as well as memorable scenes.
 
For once Zen is right, Begins is better than TDK, I think. I am going to watch them back to back one day, just to decide like...for sure.
 
It is true the backstory in Begins does set the tone for the whole trilogy and is among the best bits of the whole thing. The second half is not as good but neither is it bad.

I am not sure why anyone would write that IMDB review other than just for a laugh. It is, after all, a Batman film, so a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is mandatory, and always was. You would have thought someone so literal minded as to write the above, if the tone is not meant to be tongue in cheek, would have figured that out by this stage. Yes Nolan tries to ground his films in reality a bit more than some comic adaptations do, but there is a limit to what you can achieve while maintaining the fantastical, superhero element.

I thought the film was good. Last night, when I was watching it, I put it on parity with Begins. Now, having thought about it a bit more, Id say maybe Begins edges it. But the trilogy is very strong, especially when you compare them to Batman Forever and Batman Returns, both of which were unspeakably shit IMO. It always had a lot to live up to. But without the whole Brotherhood of Shadows element from Begins, or Heath Ledger from TDK, it didnt have a standout feature of its own really.
 
Brwned said:
It was a good movie, not much worse than the Dark Knight at all. Am I the only one that just finds Joseph Gordon-Levitt really annoying for no apparent reason? Tom Hardy's great.
Click to expand...

I thought he's really poor as that raw, brash, naive rookie cop. Didn't buy any of that act. Then again, I can't think of any young actors out there who can do a good performance as Blake.
 
He's almost a Mary Sue character. He's more doo goody than Batman is in this. So there's not a lot meaty to work with. Even Bale, who usually just gets to brood and look thoroughly depressed, gets some funny lines in this one (I think it's the best Bruce Wayne in the trilogy) and Oldman gets to shout a bit and act ill (classic award stuff that, ill and shouty) ..All Levitt can do is be likeable. I think he was personally.
 
Spoony Kobayashi said:
For once Zen is right, Begins is better than TDK, I think. I am going to watch them back to back one day, just to decide like...for sure.
Click to expand...

I prefer begins as a story, especially the whole training thing, but I found TDK more entertaining. The only thing that irked me about begins was the "luck" element of Holmes and Wayne meeting a young Joffrey Baratheon and the Tramp being there for Wayne's departure and Batman's emergence. I just thought it was a bit too corny.
 
As long as any reboot can do Mr. Freeze properly, I wouldn't really care.
 
I can't help but feel that Tom Hardy's performance will be subject to undue criticism out of comparison's to Heath Ledger's Joker.

The Joker is almost as popular a character as Batman and whilst Heath Ledger's performance was very good, I think Tom Hardy should definitely be praised for the ability to convey such varied menace and varied emotion merely through his eyes and emphasis of phrase. Takes a very good actor to display a wide variety of emotions whilst wearing a mask.
 
duffer said:
Any possible reboot must surely go in a less realistic, more super human direction to tie in with the new Superman and the under development Flash movie and head towards a Justice League flick.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think WB are dying to get a JLA film off the ground, especially now they have seen how good the Avengers did at the box office. The only thing I don't get is with the Nolan's producing the new Superman film surely it will be a more 'realistic' and less comic type approach to Superman. Chris Nolan also ruled out having any involvement with a JLA movie recently, so surely it will be quite the challenge for WB to fit this 'new' Superman into the JLA future project... Or maybe they'll just reboot that again too :lol:

Oh but saying that, Mark Millar did say this a few weeks back:

A pal of mine is good friends with the new Justice League screenwriter and said his take on the team is incredible. Very real-world and not at all what you might expect. WB has a chequered history with their superhero characters. They're great with their boy wizards, but less consistent with their DC stable. But my chum said that this could be a thing of beauty and has been in the works for a little while now, not just an avengers knock-off. Best of luck to them. The tidbits I heard sound quite dark and mature, which isn't what I expected. But word on Gangster Squad is great too so I feel this is in really good hands.
Click to expand...

I think with Batman they need to have a totally different approach than Nolan had on it, if some tries to come in and recreate a similar style from what Nolan made I reckon it would fall flat on it's arse. Looking at something like the Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City game franchise could be a good basis for it.
 
Get aronofsky on board to direct a film version of the graphic novel Arkham Asylum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.