Just watched it.It was a good movie but I expected better, I wasn't "wowed" at all.I don't understand how this got so much hype.The previous one with Two-Face and the Joker was a much better movie IMHO
Nolan's Batman
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
Would have been so easy to beat him if Bruce didn't have this 'no kill' policy. Sort of like Indy did in Raiders.
Same. It was ok.
Not enough Batman though. A few punches and an occasional gadget is about it. Didn't care for how it set up the characters either, it was all too rushed in a film that was too long. Somehow
Oh and I don't think they conveyed how the time passed at all well either, but that's a small gripe.
You nailed it Redlambs, there wasn't enough of "Batman" in that movie
TDK has the least Batman. Or is certainly the least about Batman of the 3.
And it was by far the best. I just got back from seeing this again and, funnily enough, what I took most from it is how all the best elements in this, and indeed across the trilogy, are lacking in Batman, and could easily exist in a film without him.
I reckon Nolan should make a big budget film about terrorism. The most memorable parts of the trilogy were all those dealing with Gotham under attack, and the least memorable were usually when Batman defeated terrorism by punching it.
I reckon Nolan should make a big budget film about terrorism. The most memorable parts of the trilogy were all those dealing with Gotham under attack, and the least memorable were usually when Batman defeated terrorism by punching it.
Yeah but you know Bat's with his bloody policy, even in the face of death he won't attempt to fully kill you! Good job Catwoman didn't give a shit!
So you a few of you are complaining there wasn't enough 'Batman' in the film, he is Bruce Wayne after all so it has every right to have good story development about BW, not just a film about a guy in a suit and mask having fisty cuffs for 3hrs... If you wanted that just watch WWE!
There was more than enough batman in it for me. I'd rather watch Bruce Wayne stuck in a pit than Batman swooshing about Hong Kong.
I was just searching around to see other people's take on the influence of A Tale of Two Cities, which I found so intriguing, in spite of the film's failures, that I'm considering writing a piece on it. Now there's been an awful lot of idiotic attempts at pushing this film through a certain political lens, not least a particularly daft one in this thread a couple of pages ago, but here we have the grand champion of complete point-missing and literary ignorance:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybo...ght-rises-is-an-instant-conservative-classic/
Seriously, I think this guy might be the dumbest person I've ever seen writing about politics, literature or film. Particular highlights include claiming Barack Obama is the political heir of the French revolution, that the the Aurora shooter was probably an 'attempted revolutionary hero of the poor', and that a film whose entire central crisis is made possible by the rapaciousness and stupidity of a vulture capitalist "shows no ideological sympathy for the Occupy Movement". As far his take on Dickens' finest novel, well, to be frank he's so far off-base that I suspect he hasn't actually read the book.
Considering this, and the Bush is Batman nonsense that happened last time, it seems the most lasting legacy of Nolan's Batman films is likely to be outing huge numbers of political commentators as mouth-breathing idiots when it comes to literary theory.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybo...ght-rises-is-an-instant-conservative-classic/
Seriously, I think this guy might be the dumbest person I've ever seen writing about politics, literature or film. Particular highlights include claiming Barack Obama is the political heir of the French revolution, that the the Aurora shooter was probably an 'attempted revolutionary hero of the poor', and that a film whose entire central crisis is made possible by the rapaciousness and stupidity of a vulture capitalist "shows no ideological sympathy for the Occupy Movement". As far his take on Dickens' finest novel, well, to be frank he's so far off-base that I suspect he hasn't actually read the book.
Considering this, and the Bush is Batman nonsense that happened last time, it seems the most lasting legacy of Nolan's Batman films is likely to be outing huge numbers of political commentators as mouth-breathing idiots when it comes to literary theory.
Yeah but you know Bat's with his bloody policy, even in the face of death he won't attempt to fully kill you! Good job Catwoman didn't give a shit!
So you a few of you are complaining there wasn't enough 'Batman' in the film, he is Bruce Wayne after all so it has every right to have good story development about BW, not just a film about a guy in a suit and mask having fisty cuffs for 3hrs... If you wanted that just watch WWE!
Character development is one thing, but I don't think it was handled particularily well, though that is of course partially down to a vast number of characters to develop at once. Only speaking for myself, my point about there not being enough Batman is more about the time he is on screen he's mostly charging in punching shit, not doing a whole lot else. Also one thing that struck me is he is supposed to have gained something from his pit experience, but his second fight with Bane is pretty much exactly the same as the first (complete with lots of yelling in anger), only that time he gets lucky and does his mask some damage.
I just would have liked a bit more swooping in and batman-y stuff when he was actually in the suit
Bane's voice cracked me up every time though
Bane's voice cracked me up every time though
Yeah, at times it was bordering on hilarious
They were also the most vacuous and dumb headed moments. These Batman films display Nolan's mastery of the technical side of cinema but on a sociological, political and philosophical level they are tripe. He can set a mood beautifully but don't confuse atmospherics with insight or seriousness.
I'm not taking your opinions about sociology, politics or philosophy all that seriously after that nonsense you peddled a couple of pages back about revolution and fascism. A child singing the national anthem, must be fascist propaganda!
Nolan has his limitations, undoubtedly, indeed the half-hearted approach to the nature of revolution in TDKR was really disappointing, especially in light of the but come on, how literal-minded do you have to be to think Nolan's Batman films were overtly fascist?
Nolan has his limitations, undoubtedly, indeed the half-hearted approach to the nature of revolution in TDKR was really disappointing, especially in light of the but come on, how literal-minded do you have to be to think Nolan's Batman films were overtly fascist?
If ever there was a thread that sums up the modern day tendancy to disconstruct something to a level where any sense of fun that could have been gained is lost by pointless and ultimately irrelevant arguements this is it.
A new low for not just the internet but the planet.
A new low for not just the internet but the planet.
*sigh*
Why is it there's always people offended by others wanting to look at art, which is what Nolan certainly does his damnedest to make, and considering its political and philosophical implications? It's not even like there's any reaching involved. as is sometimes the case. All the Nolan films have been overtly, textually about class warfare, security, power, vigilantism and so on, and TDKR, as much as it lacks to guile to give the subject a truly compelling treatment and at times uses it as too blunt a plot device, centrally features a revolution.
Protip: you can still enjoy things whilst looking at them a deeper level, hell, I'd say you can enjoy them even more. I just watched a Batman film twice purely because the second viewing gave me a chance to focus on the film as political allegory, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Christopher Nolan isn't Michael Bay you know, he has some significant limitations, but he is a proper film maker, not someone who merely wants his films to shock and awe you for 120 minutes and make him and some suits rich, even if he does those things as well.
Why is it there's always people offended by others wanting to look at art, which is what Nolan certainly does his damnedest to make, and considering its political and philosophical implications? It's not even like there's any reaching involved. as is sometimes the case. All the Nolan films have been overtly, textually about class warfare, security, power, vigilantism and so on, and TDKR, as much as it lacks to guile to give the subject a truly compelling treatment and at times uses it as too blunt a plot device, centrally features a revolution.
Protip: you can still enjoy things whilst looking at them a deeper level, hell, I'd say you can enjoy them even more. I just watched a Batman film twice purely because the second viewing gave me a chance to focus on the film as political allegory, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Christopher Nolan isn't Michael Bay you know, he has some significant limitations, but he is a proper film maker, not someone who merely wants his films to shock and awe you for 120 minutes and make him and some suits rich, even if he does those things as well.
I don't get this part.If a thread can "ruin" someone's experience of a movie then the problem doesn't lie with the thread but with the viewer.
Another forum shouldn't alter one's final opinion on a movie
Meh, it looked to me more like a man trying to cram as much into one film to tie it all up.
It was a good film, but ultimately I was left very underwhelmed. The pacing and the jumping around from character to character was understandable, but off. But then again I wasn't looking for anything other than a good film, the depth and any philosophical meaning meant extremely little to me on first viewing (especially when the 'revolution' aspect was rushed, and Bruce Wayne seemed to come through his ordeal learning very little as I mentioned above). I tend to enjoy these things more the second/third time around when I'm looking for something though.
On first viewing, I was entertained, but not as much as I hoped and I really did find myself waiting for the ending, rather than wanting more. Also, the last few scenes were entirely unnecessary, but that's just my taste.
It was a good film, but ultimately I was left very underwhelmed. The pacing and the jumping around from character to character was understandable, but off. But then again I wasn't looking for anything other than a good film, the depth and any philosophical meaning meant extremely little to me on first viewing (especially when the 'revolution' aspect was rushed, and Bruce Wayne seemed to come through his ordeal learning very little as I mentioned above). I tend to enjoy these things more the second/third time around when I'm looking for something though.
On first viewing, I was entertained, but not as much as I hoped and I really did find myself waiting for the ending, rather than wanting more. Also, the last few scenes were entirely unnecessary, but that's just my taste.
That's fine, no need to perform a dance about it.
The last scenes were pretty hokey. They reminded me of the final confrontation in the otherwise brilliant The Prestige. Where the script bludgeons you with explanations of plot contrivances, despite the fact everyone has already worked it all out.
As for wanting more Batman, I agree. It's not the punching and kicking I wanted but a properly drawn character. The same with Bane. It's almost as if they gave up writing for Bruce/Batman after Begin's. Bane was perfect on a superficial level for me, I loved the voice personally. It's just his motivations and actions were so odd. His wanton stupidity killed any authority he had as a character for me.
The score is frigging terrific though, when that chanting kicks in half way through the film, it's rather thrilling.
Yeah it was as if the Batman was a completely separate character to Wayne, after all he went through he still basically lost all brain cells as soon as the suit went one. Maybe the mask was too tight
In all seriousness though, I think both Bane and Batman ended up more outside the story than the driving force. I understand why, but I don't agree with it. For example, the dealings with the league of shadows was mentioned much, but at the end of the day they both just pretty much stood there trading simple punches whilst the other characters provided the actual story of the revolution and the fight for freedom, and quite frankly I wasn't sold on either their appeal or relevance. Yeah sure we knew what was going to happen with the young detective, and the cat woman, but I certainly didn't care and (apart from a really nice catsuit) I didn't really want to see them.
I'd have preferred the whole thing to be much more intensively about Bane/Batman and let the story emanate from them, rather them being almost peripheral at times.
Agree about the score, epic at times.
In all seriousness though, I think both Bane and Batman ended up more outside the story than the driving force. I understand why, but I don't agree with it. For example, the dealings with the league of shadows was mentioned much, but at the end of the day they both just pretty much stood there trading simple punches whilst the other characters provided the actual story of the revolution and the fight for freedom, and quite frankly I wasn't sold on either their appeal or relevance. Yeah sure we knew what was going to happen with the young detective, and the cat woman, but I certainly didn't care and (apart from a really nice catsuit) I didn't really want to see them.
I'd have preferred the whole thing to be much more intensively about Bane/Batman and let the story emanate from them, rather them being almost peripheral at times.
Agree about the score, epic at times.
I'm not suggesting it ruined my enjoyment I'm suggesting that based on the need to constantly over analyze the movie those who do can't have taken much enjoyment from what it essentially an action movie.
I enjoyed it but that because I believe in turning up an employing a little suspension of disbelief where possible. I just can't see how analyzing every little plot point in a film based on a comic book can provide any real profound conclusions.
I went expecting slight plot holes but a movie made with alot of heart and effort. I wasn't disapointed.
Watched it this morning, loved it. Bane was outstanding I thought.
You nit pickers will suck the joy out of anything given the platform to gripe.
You nit pickers will suck the joy out of anything given the platform to gripe.
Watched it last night, thought it was good, I prefered TDK because I preferred The Joker always having a twist and a contingency in place. I thought Bane was excellent, and I'm not too bothered about his death. I think that being blown up, or shot by something should have been the only way he did die, since all other ways he was unstoppable.
I also think the film would have been better with just showing Alfred smiling, my missus though is a wuss and preferred the way it ended because she was teary that Bruce had died and she preferred knowing he hadn't, but she's a wuss.
What I do hate though, is cheesy lines. They piss me right off, I don't laugh I just cringe.
Like in TDK for example 'Chinese, if you want to kill a public servant I recommend you buy American' *vomit*
In TDKR 'About that whole no guns thing... Turns out I'm not as committed to it as you are. '
I also think the film would have been better with just showing Alfred smiling, my missus though is a wuss and preferred the way it ended because she was teary that Bruce had died and she preferred knowing he hadn't, but she's a wuss.
What I do hate though, is cheesy lines. They piss me right off, I don't laugh I just cringe.
Like in TDK for example 'Chinese, if you want to kill a public servant I recommend you buy American' *vomit*
In TDKR 'About that whole no guns thing... Turns out I'm not as committed to it as you are. '
Surely the "No, I came back to stop you" line is far, far worse. I actually laughed at it.
"*The entire escort chase in The Dark Knight*"
I dont remember a ford escort chase in TDK.
cheesy lines are dumb as they are are an entire part of movies sadly.I also thought the Bane character was great (one of the best in the entire Nolan trilogy).Still the previous movie with Harvey Dent/Two Face and The Joker was something else.
Not so much with that one for me, since you could believe someone would actually say it, it was after all the reason he was there. It's a bit corny sounding, but you'd actually say it.
After saving someones life from a big hulking monster, you'd surely want to check a.) he was dead and b.) Bruce was alright, rather than saying 'yeaaaaaaaaah, about this no guns thing....'
But Americans would also most certainly stuff like "buy american".....I mean just because people might say it, doesn't make it any less cringey for me.
I never really understand corny lines anyway, unless it's the standout stuff from a really bad film, like Mr Freeze quotes, but not from Nolan, I don't get why he keep using these quick lame punchline attempts.
I never really understand corny lines anyway, unless it's the standout stuff from a really bad film, like Mr Freeze quotes, but not from Nolan, I don't get why he keep using these quick lame punchline attempts.
Hey Zen.... Chill out.
I'm afraid that my condition as left me cold to your requests
Again hate to sound like I'm stopping people finding faults but aren't occasional cheesy lines a big part of most good action movies?
"ice to see you batman".
It's a grown man running around in a batsuit, I'd say the odd cheesy line is compulsary.
You'd have thought so until you stumbled across some opinions in this thread.
How cheesy was the kiss between Batman and Catwoman near the end?! No, no need to hurry up, we have time. There's definitely no bomb around. Cringed at that bit.
Watched it at the 2nd attempt this morning.
Overall a solid movie (not as good as The Dark Knight). Like the Bane character and the turn towards the end took me by surprise with him being the savior to Tate.
Overall a solid movie (not as good as The Dark Knight). Like the Bane character and the turn towards the end took me by surprise with him being the savior to Tate.
For anyone that has watched it twice - did you think it was better the second time around?
What killed the dinosaurs?