The Dark Knight Rises: Afterthoughts
 

I swear I already made a thread about this, but fuck it.

What are your thoughts/feelings on TDKR, now that you've seen it and the whole thing is over?

I have to say, I will need to see it again, as I believe I missed some things (easy to do with such rapid-fire dialogue and story profession). I believe there was some symbolism I failed to notice, and that repeated viewings will be necessary in order to fully appreciate the film.

Noisefield and I caught it on opening night, in a theatre so packed that we couldn't even sit together. We are both huge fans, and have been waiting for this since the moment the Dark Knight ended. I left the theatre wholly satisfied, but with a feeling akin to that of a child after all the presents have been opened on Christmas morning. But the movie was incredible, and it truly is a near flawless trilogy, and a complete story. Batman has never and will never be done better, and I feel that a part of my life that began when I saw Burton's Batman in 1989 at age 9, has reached its conclusion.

*Potential Spoilers Ahead*

Bane was perfect. Better by far than any comic book adaptation. He was always something of a crap character; a silly response to the hyperviolent and overly muscled IMAGE characters of the early '90s. Now, the character has been given substance and meaning, and I am so fucking glad the Penguin and Riddler were dropped on favor of him. I had my doubts, but Tom Hardy (especially with his utterly babylike face obscured by a menacing breathing apparatus) was absolutely fucking chilling. Knowing they could not top the Joker, they wisely did not even try. They opted instead for something new, and the result was perfect. One does not even feel the need to compare the two. They are different threats entirely. Well done, Nolan. Well done.

Catwoman was my biggest concern, but the fact thatbthe words "Catwoman" were never uttered once (only eluded to with the "cat-burglar" news clippings) made the whole thing go off without a hitch, keeping well within the boundaries of realism set by the filmmakers.

No-man's Land based storyline was a great surprise, for someone (me) who avoided spoilers and story details like the plague. I was wondering how they could possibly make a story bigger in scope than the Long Halloween-based TDK.. but combining NML and Knightfall worked perfectly.

Thank you Mr. Nolan for excluding Robin, but still giving Batman a fitting sidekick character whose story aligned with scenes from Begins. I guess it wouldn't have killed you to simply let Levitt's character be named "Jason" or '"Dick," (see theory) while otherwise letting everything play out as it did, but fuck it. At least giving the Robin-esque John Blake a new identity prevents WB from trying to pull a Robin movie later on (though a Noghtwing one may have worked just fine).

All in all, I would have changed almost nothing. Noisefield and I both literally shed tears, damn us to hell. This is possibly the finest trilogy, in any genre, that mainstream Hollywood has ever produced. That is saying a LOT. Good luck Iron Man, you cocky CGI fuck. You are going to need it ; and so is every attempt at comic-book film adaptation from now on. I hope nobody tries to "do" Batman again for at least 50 years. It's been done to perfection, and humiliation and failure await anyone who dares.
...
Here's my theory, though: Christopher Nolan has set himself up perfectly for a "Dark Knight Returns" adaptation ten years from now. With Superman (Man of Steel) on the way, and an ideal Robin scenario in place, the plot could be executed almost perfectly, with very little Hollywood story-manipulation. He's also set it up so that such an undertaking would be a massive surprise, and probably a freaking ridiculous money-maker. However, in order to maintain the realism of the franchise, and the perfect feel of the trilogy, the plot would actually necessitate the absence of Superman completely. Is it possible? Yes. Bale would be the proper age, and the Green Arrow could easily be for into the story. Is it probable? Not at all. Pipe dream.

Best movie of 2012. If it doesn't get an Oscar nod I will be shocked and personally offended. The biggest problem: not enough scream time for Gary Goldman, who could have been given an Oscar worthy part, with just a little more actual *acting* and maybe 15 more minutes of length for the film overall. I didn't see enough of the best Commissioner Gordon the world has ever seen or will ever see. Apart from that, and an ending that I need to see again to know exactly how I feel about it, the film also was a little light on Alfred, who almost seemed like an afterthought when he showed up near the end.

But damn. Damn. Damn. Damn. I couldn't have asked for more.

I liked most of it.

I think it was interesting to see how they used classic historical images, like the peoples court french revolution style, people lining up for empty food stores (i remember seeing those images in the 80's news broadcasts from soviet union), also the army of unarmed policemen was classic riot imagery, save that all in all two cops got killed.

The play on communism came off to me as some new form of mccarthyism. There seemed to be a subtext of communism fear, which sort of surprised me. I thought that was old rhetorics, and yet you see it in images all over the movie or in quotes like "it's everybodys house now".

Still a good dudeflick though.

I think the ending was pretty straight forward with Bruce Wayne faking batmans death and formed a family, (was that with catwoman by the way?) Robin will most likely take over the role as either new batman or well... robin. Sequels are now secured.

Was it just me who cringed in the seat from Alfreds overcommitment in Bruce Waynes err... family plans?

I enjoyed the fuck out of it. Bane's voice was hilarious!

I'm at work...so I'll get back to reading this later.

This movie was a large incoherent mess.

As comic book heroes go, I prefer Dennis the Menace.

Me and the hubby went to watch this last week and we both really enjoyed it. For the first time in ages I have more time for myself because my parents are helping with the costs involved in providing a regular baby-sitter.

Because the plot was a total shamble?

I really have a lot of problems with this movie.

For one thing, I couldn't understand Bane nearly the whole movie. I've consulted with other people and they agreed with me, so it wasn't just my cinema's sound system.

Why was his name ROBIN? His name is Dick Grayson, you can't just make it ROBIN so idiotic people will understand who he is. I mean, you could have done it so many other ways than THAT. It's like if Bruce Wayne went into that woman's office and she said, "you should go by your full name... BATMAN". Dumb dumb dumb. Oh and Roland Daggett is suddenly John Daggett? You're doing a fan service by even including that character so why not just throw a bone to the fans and keep with ROLAND?

There would be no way for Batman to escape that nuclear explosion. Even if you said "oh he put the plane on autopilot", it doesn't work because you saw shots of him heading towards the sea. And we're meant to believe that he survived at the end? What was even up with the ending? Alfred literally sees Bruce and Selina sitting at a restaurant... It would have been so much better if you just saw Alfred give a quick nod then we would have gotten the idea.

So much terrible dialogue filled with pseudo-philosophical garbage. And what was up with Joseph Gordon Levitt's character? "I knew you were Batman because you're an orphan just like me"? Fucking STUPID.

Very cute political allusions too. Maybe Bane representing the underclass could have worked if he wasn't going to blow everyone up anyway. There was no point in it at all in terms of the plot and only served to provide shallow depth.

"You've given these people everything" "Not everything, not yet". Seriously what is the point in that if Batman was going to live at the end of it? It feels like they've spent the whole trilogy setting up the martydom for Batman only to pull out at the last minute with "Oh no, we can't have a sad movie, he needs to live with a happy ending". Fuck no.

So plot holes aside, the directing and editing was shoddy. I don't understand how Nolan needs to have such quickfire editing. Scenes that were supposed to be epic fell flat because the dude has no idea how to do camera angles. So many characters too that a lot of them just felt underdeveloped... Talia added nothing. Also cute how there was no blood in the movie to secure a lower rating... really makes sense when Talia is sitting in the truck dying with no blood coming out of her at all. I had no idea she was dying until she did, I thought she was just shocked/had a bad stitch.

There was so much more wrong with this movie but I'm drawing some blanks right now because it's been a number of days since I've seen it. You can say I'm nitpicking all you want but all of these added up make one incoherent mess of a movie. I'm surprised it's getting so much praise from people and I kind of wonder if we all watched the same movie. Sure, it was high budget and polished but I doubt most people I speak to would be fooled by that. I really wanted to like this movie but it just pissed me off.

Concering the ending, I had the same thought. It was not a flashback to another scene; rather, I believe, it was Alfred heading out fir his annual vacation once again. But was the vision of Bruce a hallucination? A fantasy? Probably not, because of you remember, they did include something at the end about Bruce having the plane altered under Lucius's name, allowing it to eject, or something (didn't quote catch that part) nut I believe Bruce survived, though it would not at all be unlike Nolan to include an ending of questionable "reality"

What exactly are you referring to here? Early on, when Alfred was acting like a Yiddish mother, and pressuring Bruce to get hitched? Or later, when Alfred was crying at the grave site? Because Alfred's reaction in the last scene seemed understated if anything; quote subtle. ?

I respectfully disagree with just about everything g here, but I am heading (late) to work and can't comment.

But I really think the "Robin" thing was more an attempt at cute humor than anything else. A chance for fans to giggle a bit at the end. He's obviously not Dick or Tim or Jason, but as I said, I see no reason for not just giving him one of those names and editing the Robin character a bit. Like I said, just call him Dick and make room for a JGL Nightwing movie later on, for fuck's sake!

This.

I enjoyed the movie, but it doesn't require any sort of Deep Analysis-- otherwise you end up bitterly disappointed like Derek. It's a fucking mass spectacle, based on a comic book, have fun with it!

Yah....I don't find bane hard to understand at all....my friend told me to listen closely but the there was only one part in the beginning where I found him somewhat mumbling.

But Nolan presented the movie as something more than just a fun superhero movie.

It's not 'fun' at all, it's extremely drawn out with a very serious tone. I don't think critical analysis is moot because it's a superhero movie.

If it's supposed to be fun, it's too dark.

If it's supposed to be serious, it's too silly.

I think the reason they didn't give Levitt's character one of the classic Robin names like Tim or Dick is because then people would have figured it out months before the movie came out from IMDB. Obviously they were keeping Levitt's importance to the plot a secret so by calling him Todd or Dick would have given that away.

i loved to hate bane... you couldn't HATE the joker because he was such a cool and interesting character. but bane's confused politics made him a perfect target for hatred. that said, a lot of his misguided politics were clearly contrived to lengthen the plot, with timebomb mostly serving to give bruce time to escape bane's prison and showcase gotham going to shit. also the restriction to melee fighting was awkward. why did none of the freed cops have guns? why wasn't bane shot in his very first scene? why didn't batman have any gadgetry to assist him in his first fight with bane that he lost? also rediculous: the romance between bruce and the daughter of reza ghoul. he'd been flirtting with the much cooler and hotter catwoman in the immediately previous scene! also his survival, for it WAS a survival, at the very end took serious scientific liberties but whatever. robin was built up as a secondary hero but all he really did was drive a bus of kids to a bridge and then yell at a soldier. finally, batman's dialogue was awful.
bane: "so, you've come back to die with yr city"
batman: "no. i came back to stop you" *le punch*
that's not cliche superhero dialouge, that's just BAD

Also a timebomb? Could you get anymore cliché?

A time bomb, created just to TORTURE PEOPLE'S PSYCHES! I actually thought that part was pretty damn well played. It's got roots somewhere in hypothetical philosophy that i am too drunk to remmber right at the moment, but the "cliche" idea never once crossed my mind, as a viewer.

Hate Bane?! He was almost as charming as the Joker!!!!!!! That voice... I can't blieve ppl were worried it would be stupid or irritating. It was ominous as all hell. Darth Vader times a billion.

I',m seriously a quited loopy.

I hated him because I hated his character. His acting and image were great, but he was totally an evil asshole. Creating this revolution only to blow everyone up, claiming to be speaking on behalf of the people while silencing everyone who disagreed with him... I hate him for all of the same reasons that I hate the French Revolution: a connection that was well made in the movie and well recognized on this thread.

Because you had to give up your vast collection of mansions and castles?

I agree that there were cliches, but if you can't look beyond them you're probably bound to be disappointed by a batman movie.

Anyone who expects avant garde film making from batman really has the wrong expectations. Having said that there were actually quiet a lot of new angles for an action movie, as cheesy as they might have come across.

It seems to me that if you're complaining about clichés on one hand, and then complain some more about cheesy attempts at adding depth on the other hand, you probably had your mind set on finding errors to begin with. Way to make yourself disappointed.

you're right, of course. nolan is a dark motherfucker, and "memento" is his defining work. with him it's all about atrocity and revenge.

however, don't come to batman looking for deep philosophy or the meaning of life. it's just not there! the fact that it takes itself seriously doesn't mean it is really serious.


fine, i'll play, but on my own terms.

things i found ridiculous:

- the police, for fucks sakes, don't know better than to lead a straight charge right into the mouths of fortified machine guns? i mean, how the fuck old are they, and don't they have any sense of tactics or strategy? for fucks sakes. where the fuck is the SWAT team.

- and then batman shows up in his supervesselwarmacheen, blows up the tanks, and he can't take 5 more seconds to blow up the barricades where the cops are charging into? fucking 1 percenter in his chariot cares little for the hoi polloi!

- timing the exact moment 5 months hence when an unstable nuclear reaction will reach critical mass and create an explosion? i laugh, good sir. it should have been more like a russian roulette.

- what the fuck is a "league of shadows"? srsly.

having said all that, i couldn't care much about this ridiculousness because i was too busy looking out for cat lady's fabulous legs.

additionally:

- bane: sometimes all i could hear him say was "thop thop thop thop thop" . this didn't bother me because it was hilarious.

now on the subject of "nolan doesn't know about camera angles" i'll reply "what the fuck are you talking about???" kindly provide a concrete example of a fuckup and we can discuss, otherwise it's just silliness. screen-cap maybe?

and i thought the editing was great, the problem wasn't the editing, it was that they were trying to cram too much story + backstory in the 2nd half of the movie. so i can't even remember how the fuck is it that they killed all the prisoners and the prisoners are still there. and why was the doctor left in the hole after the dad came to rescue? wasn't he supposed to be a friend? anyway, too rushed to really take it all in, but that's not "editing", that's writing. if anything i think the editing did a great job of presenting all that excess material.

He would have said so, but he was wrong for the same reasons that Ra's Al Ghul was wrong in the first movie: Batman was already saving Gotham. In fact by the time Bane and the daughter showed up, Gotham was doing pretty swell. So all they were really doing was avenging Ra's Al Ghul and fulfilling his legacy or whatever.



No, because it was an absolutely terrible revolution that killed a stupid amount of people and accomplished very little social change short of total chaos


And just because it's a Batman movie is no excuse for bad writing and plot ridiculousness... Nolan knows how to make plot-tight, well-written movies. Memento was a plot-tight, well-written movie. Dark Knight was a plot-tight, well-written movie. We had every reason to have high expectations

Hence the word revolution as opposed to reformation, for instance. My point is that all those things going on were deliberate. As for social change goes, i'm not a historian or particularly interested in politics but as far as i understand the french revolution was in a lot of ways the foundation for the modern government, constitution and political philosophy such as democracy. It seems that your take on it is a critique against those things, but i digress now.
I think it is actually. Because to me there seem to be unwritten hollywood law (or maybe it's actually deliberate) that production budget can either go to blowing up expensive stuff and create advanced CGI OR be spent on script, dialogue and story. For some reason you can't seem to get both very often.

Dark knight? Really? But not this movie? I would say that they rate about equal in cheesiness.

Fair enough, i just think the problem is the expectations and not the movie. It is what it is. I wouldn't expect ass jokes in a Bergman movie, nor depth and character elaboration in batman movies. I guess our expectations aren't the same.

Well I've just got back from seeing it. It was ok.

My main problem was the prison scenes. It just dragged the whole film to a grinding halt killing any momentum built. However I will say the Bane was just brilliant.

Thank you, I thought it was just the sound in the cinema I went to. There were large chunks of his dialogue that were almost unintelligible to me. The fact his mouth is covered probably doesn't help.


I get a warm glow just typing the words Gwyneth Paltrow in Iron Man. Anne's just not in the same league.

I was going to post another long rant about this movie but this article sums it up way more than I ever could:
http://www.sequart.org/magazine/1390...t-rises-fails/

True, but I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that something can be philosophically interesting without necessarily being philosophically coherent itself. It's a 'rich' film, in that sense, raising lots of interesting questions rather than necessarily trying to address any of them. I can certainly see Marxist critics getting tonnes of mileage out of Bane, say by looking at him in comparison with V, from V for Vendetta.

gwyneth has a very pretty face that rests on some spectacular cheekbones, and with those little freckles it's just lick-worthy, and her character in iron man is truly endearing, BUT: she has a horrible posture and a nearly anorexic body, and lacks anne's glorious bubble butt-- though anne has a bit of a weird face, the weirdness was appropriately played down on this movie.

oh, i'd hate to be an actress and have everyone examine put my looks on trial, but that's what happens when you get in front of a camera. anyway, i just want to say: legs & ass! legs & ass!


i started to read and then got to the part where he talks about the missiles killing civilians, and i remembered i laughed at this when i was in the movie.

soon after however i realized i really don't give enough of a shit about this movie to read a whole fucking catalog about it. and i stopped.

yeah i know, everybody knows that, my point is that 1) it's a preposterous name, 2) their fucking mission made no sense


well, in that case (ha ha) avengers wins that battle with one simple line:

"that's my secret, captain: i'm always angry"

that blows the socks off anything the batman sez.

i get what you're saying though, it's just that this is not ulysses/ memento/ a charlie kaufmann movie.

I thought the film was fantastic and feel it serves as a great finale to this great trilogy. I liked the slight reference to Killer Croc. I liked seeing Batman get his ass absolutely handed to him, leading him to depend on the help of a city that once so strongly depended on him even if it didn't always realize how much so. I felt it was intense. Seeing him get punched in the face and his cowl crushed beneath Bane's fist...just shortly before his back is snapped over Banes Knee. I liked the fact that Robin's role was ultimately minimal, and that we don't know for sure whether or not the Caped Crusader lives or died (personally, I take both stances depending on who I'm talking to. Most of the time I just choose to believe he dies, however).

Only qualm:

Many feel as if the film was too long. I feel, if anything, it wasn't long enough. Certain aspects felt a bit rushed, but I understand why. I like to believe there will be a deluxe edition of this film that is longer.

As far as flaws...

IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE! Tearing it apart and pointing out every little inadequacy just demonstrates, to me, some folks need to get a life. This can be done with virtually every movie ever made...ESPECIALLY the good ones. Watched Blade Runner lately? haha

how so? i don't know if you watched batman: the animated series but there was an episode with some weird dude who had kids working for him in the sewers, definitly thought of that when i saw how they were using the sewers in the movie.

There was a joke made about crocodiles living in the sewers. Obviously wasn't intended to specifically mean Killer Croc, but was an allure no doubt.

You're so fucking retarded. Like seriously, read what you just wrote again.

Hey I guess I can't listen to a record and say "I don't like the vocalist" because IT'S JUST MUSIC and clearly I need to get a life for feeling a certain way!

This movie is more than 'little' inadequacies which is why I didn't ENJOY it. It's a huge mess in most areas and the 'little' inadequacies really prevent it from being great.

Then again, "it's just a movie, why criticize it" is the mindset of every dull drone with bland taste. Clearly we shouldn't challenge anything ever and accept complacency with everything! Seriously, you're a moron.

Tearing apart art helps hinder people from making mediocre works. If you really think people who analyse music, movies, books etc. need a life then I don't know what to tell you, I guess your simple-minded redneck roots are shining through.

Also, this is a fucking discussion board. What the hell do you expect?

I don't want a large retort back or anything. You're wrong, so just admit that you are wrong.

i was bored by this movie and thought it moved too slow thank you

Can you give me 10 reasons why I should go to watch it and 10 reasons why I shouldn't? I'm only asking because I have a hefty amount of movies to watch in the next few weeks and this one seems like the sort that can wait for much longer, even though I am partial to Batman as a superhero.