The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

It's sometimes referred to as a "vacation." Going to Scottland, boss!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

It's sometimes referred to as a "vacation." Going to Scottland, boss!

Or Holiday in your neck of the woods.

Do you have family or friends there? Or just exploring?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Or Holiday in your neck of the woods.

Do you have family or friends there? Or just exploring?

That's right, in British terms, "I'm going on Holiday."

Just exploring, but my folks will be on the trip as well. It's a nice, liesurely bus trip. I don't recall what all the destinations are, but they'll mainly be castles and stately homes. I believe the hotel will be by a loch, so that will be nice too.

[Diesel]

The Dark Knight Rises

2012 | PG-13 | 164 Minutes

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Action | Adventure | Crime



The trilogy. Something that has never been done successfully in comic book movies and has rarely been achieved in any genre in fact. Spider-Man tried and failed. Luke Skywalker tried and came closer. Frodo succeeded.

Batman's attempt falls somewhere between Skywalker and Frodo.

When the ball first got rolling on this film, I saw/read many things about it that sounded very questionable to me and made me have big doubts about the quality of movie we would get (Hathaway as Catwoman chief among them). As we got closer and started seeing footage and hearing more about the film, some of my doubts were eased and I became more hopefully and excited. So when I sat down in my theater seat last night I was expecting to have Nolan deliver me something between Batman Begins (4.75/5) and The Dark Knight (5/5) in terms of quality. In the end, however, what I got fell short of both of those.


The Dark Knight Rises starts off with a brief scene at Harvey Dent's funeral after the events of The Dark Knight and then jumps right into it with its 8 year time gap. Gotham is a different city thanks to Batman's sacrifice to maintain Dent's pure image in the eyes of the public. Bruce is a broken man, both physically and psychologically. When "The Masked Man" comes to Gotham with a plan, when fully revealed, that makes Joker seem to play on the cautious side, everything changes quickly. Does Bruce still have it in him to get back in the game and make a difference or has Batman's time passed him by, giving way to new characters who must defend Gotham?

The general concept of the film works, but many of the details along the way did not work for me. I didn't like the 8 year jump, it felt quite excessive. I felt it would have worked more if it was set something like 4 or 5 years after the end of The Dark Knight. But when you consider a particular piece of technology in this film, I suppose the 8 year gap was necessary to make it more believable. The movie also has many smaller time jumps throughout its run time that are not handled well either when you consider the situations that are going on. The 8 year gap, though, also makes it easier to swallow that Bruce now has a flying tank instead of the simple road-bound tank he used to own. Speaking of The Bat, I wasn't really digging it at some points, seemed too over the top with its incredible speed and maneuverability; sure there is always an amount of suspension of disbelief with Wayne's vehicles in these movies (roof jumping tank, crazy maneuverable cycle), but this one just felt like too much for me at times. Bane's weapon also made me roll my eyes. I really wish Nolan hadn't strayed into the

[Show spoiler]"Oh no! They have a nuke!"

territory. Very disappointed with that.
There are several twist regarding characters and their histories throughout this film, but the one I was most displeased with was the revelation that

[Show spoiler]Miranda Tate was actually Talia.

Prior to the film, I originally wanted that to be the case, but when actually sitting and watching it, I would have loved it if

[Show spoiler]the false idea that we are presented with of Bane being the son of R'as was the truth and Miranda Tate remained simply Miranda Tate

.

Then there's the ending. After all is said and done, gripes and nitpicks have passed, we have the concluding minutes of the trilogy. It's almost perfect with one major exception:

[Show spoiler]Bruce Wayne is revealed to still be alive. When it happened, I thought, "Wow... WB actually let him do it." But when he is shown sitting in that cafe in Paris, I almost facepalmed. Such a poignant and fitting ending to his journey...turned into a happy ending that doesn't work nearly as well. Yes, people are already making the argument that since it was the same setting shown when Alfred said what he DREAMED OF for Bruce that it could be a dream/fantasy...but this isn't Inception. Nolan, or should I say WB?, whatever the case may be, the death of Bruce Wayne should have been the ending to his story, not sitting and drinking tea in Paris completely unidentified by the world as the MOST FAMOUS FACE IN GOTHAM WHO WAS JUST MURDERED DURING A TERRORIST ASSAULT ON THE LARGEST U.S. CITY!

There's also the fact that this film is most definitely the roughest around the edges of the trilogy. Dialog transitions are incredibly choppy and out of nowhere multiple times, simply facilitating the plot along head on instead of feeling natural and flowing. Some of the editing is wonky. I know some around this thread had problems with the first two, but outside of the action scenes (mostly in Begins, but still not completely corrected in Knight) I didn't have a problem with them. This time though, things are like the dialog, cut to push that plot ahead and not showing more naturally. For example, when Batman goes to visit Gordon, do we need to see him come through the window? No not really, but the scene shouldn't cut to what seems like mid-conversation between the two. The runtime, surprisingly, was also an issue for me. I was excited when I heard they had let Nolan produce a final cut over two and a half hours, but in watching it, it was too bloated for me in many parts (though it never actually felt like it dragged). Had it been more concise and on point story wise like the first two films, I would have very much enjoyed the high runtime, but seeing as it was inflated by storylines and developments that I didn't find necessary or interesting, I wish it had been cut down a bit.


Then there's the performances. I personally felt that the returning main cast was at their weakest of the series here across the board...with the possible exception of Michael Caine even though his character is handled quite poorly this time around. Not to say that anyone did bad among them, just not as strong as they were in the previous films. Bale's performance in Begins is still the best he's delivered in the series.

Hardy, though, is fantastic. He is by far the best game in town. He will literally strike fear into you when watching this movie; his performance is frightening and captivating and made all the more impressive considering all we see of him is simply his eyes. The voice is great, but the sound editing on it still needed some work. You can understand probably 85-90% of what he says in the film on the first try if the theater is quite and you are paying attention like me...but you'll be hard pressed to catch it all with only one viewing. The resolution to his character's story was one of my biggest gripes of the film. It is just so anticlimactic and so far beneath what he deserved.

Following not too far behind Hardy for best in show are Gordon-Levitt and Hathaway. I was very pleasantly surprised that she did a great job and that the character was actually well written. Being my biggest concern for the film, it was great that among other letdowns I had, I could look at her and her part as unexpected high points. Gordon-Levitt turns in his usual strong performance in this film where he has a surprisingly large amount of screen time. I'm still not sure how I feel as a whole about the resolution to his character, but one aspect of it (you'll know it when you see the film) was done too heavy handedly and made me cringe a little.

Some supporting characters are terrible, namely the guy on the plane with Bane early on and one of the board members for Wayne Enterprises. They aren't quite as awful as the two guys discussing the water lines blowing up in Begins (those two are cringe inducing) though.


In the end, despite its many flaws, I did still definitely enjoy it overall. With my deep love for the first two films, I'm likely being much more critical of the film than many will be. But it is what it is. Many people will highly enjoy this movie, some might even feel it is the best of the bunch if they are just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

I'll be seeing it once more in the theater at least to either reaffirm many of the feelings I've expressed in my review, or see if I feel differently the second time around now that I know what I am getting.

Rating - 4.25/5

[Foggy]

Too much information for me Really going into this one as blind as possible, but from what I got from the review, dialogue isn't the sharpest, acting at it's weakest from the other two, goes a bit too silly in places. But all in all a fun and still highly compelling film with a few questionable do what's and what nots

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Too much information for me Really going into this one as blind as possible, but from what I got from the review, dialogue isn't the sharpest, acting at it's weakest from the other two, goes a bit too silly in places. But all in all a fun and still highly compelling film with a few questionable do what's and what nots

Basically.

If you adjust your expectations accordingly based on those points, I think you'll definitely enjoy it

[Al_The_Strange]

Thanks for the review, Diesel! In spite of it, I'll probably be going in with slightly lowered expectations.

Considering my love for "Return of the Jedi," "Return of the King," and..."Matrix Revolutions"...it might still blow me away...

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thanks for the review, Diesel! In spite of it, I'll probably be going in with slightly lowered expectations.

Considering my love for "Return of the Jedi," "Return of the King," and..."Matrix Revolutions"...it might still blow me away...

I actually thought about your love for Jedi and Revolutions when writing up the part about trilogies

[Foggy]

I screamed, threw my iPad across the room and ran out when you got to the opening scene of the film

As long as Nolan keeps the Ewoks out of it, I think I'll be fine

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I screamed, threw my iPad across the room and ran out when you got to the opening scene of the film

As long as Nolan keeps the Ewoks out of it, I think I'll be fine

Well then...um...

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Well then...um...

Ewoks!!! Woohoo!

Yub-nub!!!!!

[Diesel]

The thing I'm going to hate most about this movie...is how busy we are going to be at work because of it

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The thing I'm going to hate most about this movie...is how busy we are going to be at work because of it

Batman isn't that big over here (I think The Dark Knight was beaten by Mama Mia when it came out, but yet again, Mama Mia played in cinema from June to October it was so popular) but the IMAX I'm going to is sold out all weekend and through some of the days next week

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The Dark Knight Rises

[Show spoiler]2012 | PG-13 | 164 Minutes

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Action | Adventure | Crime



The trilogy. Something that has never been done successfully in comic book movies and has rarely been achieved in any genre in fact. Spider-Man tried and failed. Luke Skywalker tried and came closer. Frodo succeeded.

Batman's attempt falls somewhere between Skywalker and Frodo.

When the ball first got rolling on this film, I saw/read many things about it that sounded very questionable to me and made me have big doubts about the quality of movie we would get (Hathaway as Catwoman chief among them). As we got closer and started seeing footage and hearing more about the film, some of my doubts were eased and I became more hopefully and excited. So when I sat down in my theater seat last night I was expecting to have Nolan deliver me something between Batman Begins (4.75/5) and The Dark Knight (5/5) in terms of quality. In the end, however, what I got fell short of both of those.


The Dark Knight Rises starts off with a brief scene at Harvey Dent's funeral after the events of The Dark Knight and then jumps right into it with its 8 year time gap. Gotham is a different city thanks to Batman's sacrifice to maintain Dent's pure image in the eyes of the public. Bruce is a broken man, both physically and psychologically. When "The Masked Man" comes to Gotham with a plan, when fully revealed, that makes Joker seem to play on the cautious side, everything changes quickly. Does Bruce still have it in him to get back in the game and make a difference or has Batman's time passed him by, giving way to new characters who must defend Gotham?

The general concept of the film works, but many of the details along the way did not work for me. I didn't like the 8 year jump, it felt quite excessive. I felt it would have worked more if it was set something like 4 or 5 years after the end of The Dark Knight. But when you consider a particular piece of technology in this film, I suppose the 8 year gap was necessary to make it more believable. The movie also has many smaller time jumps throughout its run time that are not handled well either when you consider the situations that are going on. The 8 year gap, though, also makes it easier to swallow that Bruce now has a flying tank instead of the simple road-bound tank he used to own. Speaking of The Bat, I wasn't really digging it at some points, seemed too over the top with its incredible speed and maneuverability; sure there is always an amount of suspension of disbelief with Wayne's vehicles in these movies (roof jumping tank, crazy maneuverable cycle), but this one just felt like too much for me at times. Bane's weapon also made me roll my eyes. I really wish Nolan hadn't strayed into the

[Show spoiler]"Oh no! They have a nuke!"

territory. Very disappointed with that.
There are several twist regarding characters and their histories throughout this film, but the one I was most displeased with was the revelation that

[Show spoiler]Miranda Tate was actually Talia.

Prior to the film, I originally wanted that to be the case, but when actually sitting and watching it, I would have loved it if

[Show spoiler]the false idea that we are presented with of Bane being the son of R'as was the truth and Miranda Tate remained simply Miranda Tate

.

Then there's the ending. After all is said and done, gripes and nitpicks have passed, we have the concluding minutes of the trilogy. It's almost perfect with one major exception:

[Show spoiler]Bruce Wayne is revealed to still be alive. When it happened, I thought, "Wow... WB actually let him do it." But when he is shown sitting in that cafe in Paris, I almost facepalmed. Such a poignant and fitting ending to his journey...turned into a happy ending that doesn't work nearly as well. Yes, people are already making the argument that since it was the same setting shown when Alfred said what he DREAMED OF for Bruce that it could be a dream/fantasy...but this isn't Inception. Nolan, or should I say WB?, whatever the case may be, the death of Bruce Wayne should have been the ending to his story, not sitting and drinking tea in Paris completely unidentified by the world as the MOST FAMOUS FACE IN GOTHAM WHO WAS JUST MURDERED DURING A TERRORIST ASSAULT ON THE LARGEST U.S. CITY!

There's also the fact that this film is most definitely the roughest around the edges of the trilogy. Dialog transitions are incredibly choppy and out of nowhere multiple times, simply facilitating the plot along head on instead of feeling natural and flowing. Some of the editing is wonky. I know some around this thread had problems with the first two, but outside of the action scenes (mostly in Begins, but still not completely corrected in Knight) I didn't have a problem with them. This time though, things are like the dialog, cut to push that plot ahead and not showing more naturally. For example, when Batman goes to visit Gordon, do we need to see him come through the window? No not really, but the scene shouldn't cut to what seems like mid-conversation between the two. The runtime, surprisingly, was also an issue for me. I was excited when I heard they had let Nolan produce a final cut over two and a half hours, but in watching it, it was too bloated for me in many parts (though it never actually felt like it dragged). Had it been more concise and on point story wise like the first two films, I would have very much enjoyed the high runtime, but seeing as it was inflated by storylines and developments that I didn't find necessary or interesting, I wish it had been cut down a bit.


Then there's the performances. I personally felt that the returning main cast was at their weakest of the series here across the board...with the possible exception of Michael Caine even though his character is handled quite poorly this time around. Not to say that anyone did bad among them, just not as strong as they were in the previous films. Bale's performance in Begins is still the best he's delivered in the series.

Hardy, though, is fantastic. He is by far the best game in town. He will literally strike fear into you when watching this movie; his performance is frightening and captivating and made all the more impressive considering all we see of him is simply his eyes. The voice is great, but the sound editing on it still needed some work. You can understand probably 85-90% of what he says in the film on the first try if the theater is quite and you are paying attention like me...but you'll be hard pressed to catch it all with only one viewing. The resolution to his character's story was one of my biggest gripes of the film. It is just so anticlimactic and so far beneath what he deserved.

Following not too far behind Hardy for best in show are Gordon-Levitt and Hathaway. I was very pleasantly surprised that she did a great job and that the character was actually well written. Being my biggest concern for the film, it was great that among other letdowns I had, I could look at her and her part as unexpected high points. Gordon-Levitt turns in his usual strong performance in this film where he has a surprisingly large amount of screen time. I'm still not sure how I feel as a whole about the resolution to his character, but one aspect of it (you'll know it when you see the film) was done too heavy handedly and made me cringe a little.

Some supporting characters are terrible, namely the guy on the plane with Bane early on and one of the board members for Wayne Enterprises. They aren't quite as awful as the two guys discussing the water lines blowing up in Begins (those two are cringe inducing) though.


In the end, despite its many flaws, I did still definitely enjoy it overall. With my deep love for the first two films, I'm likely being much more critical of the film than many will be. But it is what it is. Many people will highly enjoy this movie, some might even feel it is the best of the bunch if they are just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

I'll be seeing it once more in the theater at least to either reaffirm many of the feelings I've expressed in my review, or see if I feel differently the second time around now that I know what I am getting.

Rating - 4.25/5

No comments about Zimmers score or Pfisters cinematography?

Why do I even bother reading your reviews?

[lDlisturb3d]

Im prepared for mostly everyone to say The Dark Knight was better simply because they've been saying it already and the movie isnt even out yet. Ill make my own judgement of the movie. Its a Chris Nolan movie so it wont fall short. I have faith.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

The Dark Knight Rises

[Show spoiler]2012 | PG-13 | 164 Minutes

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Action | Adventure | Crime



The trilogy. Something that has never been done successfully in comic book movies and has rarely been achieved in any genre in fact. Spider-Man tried and failed. Luke Skywalker tried and came closer. Frodo succeeded.

Batman's attempt falls somewhere between Skywalker and Frodo.

When the ball first got rolling on this film, I saw/read many things about it that sounded very questionable to me and made me have big doubts about the quality of movie we would get (Hathaway as Catwoman chief among them). As we got closer and started seeing footage and hearing more about the film, some of my doubts were eased and I became more hopefully and excited. So when I sat down in my theater seat last night I was expecting to have Nolan deliver me something between Batman Begins (4.75/5) and The Dark Knight (5/5) in terms of quality. In the end, however, what I got fell short of both of those.


The Dark Knight Rises starts off with a brief scene at Harvey Dent's funeral after the events of The Dark Knight and then jumps right into it with its 8 year time gap. Gotham is a different city thanks to Batman's sacrifice to maintain Dent's pure image in the eyes of the public. Bruce is a broken man, both physically and psychologically. When "The Masked Man" comes to Gotham with a plan, when fully revealed, that makes Joker seem to play on the cautious side, everything changes quickly. Does Bruce still have it in him to get back in the game and make a difference or has Batman's time passed him by, giving way to new characters who must defend Gotham?

The general concept of the film works, but many of the details along the way did not work for me. I didn't like the 8 year jump, it felt quite excessive. I felt it would have worked more if it was set something like 4 or 5 years after the end of The Dark Knight. But when you consider a particular piece of technology in this film, I suppose the 8 year gap was necessary to make it more believable. The movie also has many smaller time jumps throughout its run time that are not handled well either when you consider the situations that are going on. The 8 year gap, though, also makes it easier to swallow that Bruce now has a flying tank instead of the simple road-bound tank he used to own. Speaking of The Bat, I wasn't really digging it at some points, seemed too over the top with its incredible speed and maneuverability; sure there is always an amount of suspension of disbelief with Wayne's vehicles in these movies (roof jumping tank, crazy maneuverable cycle), but this one just felt like too much for me at times. Bane's weapon also made me roll my eyes. I really wish Nolan hadn't strayed into the

[Show spoiler]"Oh no! They have a nuke!"

territory. Very disappointed with that.
There are several twist regarding characters and their histories throughout this film, but the one I was most displeased with was the revelation that

[Show spoiler]Miranda Tate was actually Talia.

Prior to the film, I originally wanted that to be the case, but when actually sitting and watching it, I would have loved it if

[Show spoiler]the false idea that we are presented with of Bane being the son of R'as was the truth and Miranda Tate remained simply Miranda Tate

.

Then there's the ending. After all is said and done, gripes and nitpicks have passed, we have the concluding minutes of the trilogy. It's almost perfect with one major exception:

[Show spoiler]Bruce Wayne is revealed to still be alive. When it happened, I thought, "Wow... WB actually let him do it." But when he is shown sitting in that cafe in Paris, I almost facepalmed. Such a poignant and fitting ending to his journey...turned into a happy ending that doesn't work nearly as well. Yes, people are already making the argument that since it was the same setting shown when Alfred said what he DREAMED OF for Bruce that it could be a dream/fantasy...but this isn't Inception. Nolan, or should I say WB?, whatever the case may be, the death of Bruce Wayne should have been the ending to his story, not sitting and drinking tea in Paris completely unidentified by the world as the MOST FAMOUS FACE IN GOTHAM WHO WAS JUST MURDERED DURING A TERRORIST ASSAULT ON THE LARGEST U.S. CITY!

There's also the fact that this film is most definitely the roughest around the edges of the trilogy. Dialog transitions are incredibly choppy and out of nowhere multiple times, simply facilitating the plot along head on instead of feeling natural and flowing. Some of the editing is wonky. I know some around this thread had problems with the first two, but outside of the action scenes (mostly in Begins, but still not completely corrected in Knight) I didn't have a problem with them. This time though, things are like the dialog, cut to push that plot ahead and not showing more naturally. For example, when Batman goes to visit Gordon, do we need to see him come through the window? No not really, but the scene shouldn't cut to what seems like mid-conversation between the two. The runtime, surprisingly, was also an issue for me. I was excited when I heard they had let Nolan produce a final cut over two and a half hours, but in watching it, it was too bloated for me in many parts (though it never actually felt like it dragged). Had it been more concise and on point story wise like the first two films, I would have very much enjoyed the high runtime, but seeing as it was inflated by storylines and developments that I didn't find necessary or interesting, I wish it had been cut down a bit.


Then there's the performances. I personally felt that the returning main cast was at their weakest of the series here across the board...with the possible exception of Michael Caine even though his character is handled quite poorly this time around. Not to say that anyone did bad among them, just not as strong as they were in the previous films. Bale's performance in Begins is still the best he's delivered in the series.

Hardy, though, is fantastic. He is by far the best game in town. He will literally strike fear into you when watching this movie; his performance is frightening and captivating and made all the more impressive considering all we see of him is simply his eyes. The voice is great, but the sound editing on it still needed some work. You can understand probably 85-90% of what he says in the film on the first try if the theater is quite and you are paying attention like me...but you'll be hard pressed to catch it all with only one viewing. The resolution to his character's story was one of my biggest gripes of the film. It is just so anticlimactic and so far beneath what he deserved.

Following not too far behind Hardy for best in show are Gordon-Levitt and Hathaway. I was very pleasantly surprised that she did a great job and that the character was actually well written. Being my biggest concern for the film, it was great that among other letdowns I had, I could look at her and her part as unexpected high points. Gordon-Levitt turns in his usual strong performance in this film where he has a surprisingly large amount of screen time. I'm still not sure how I feel as a whole about the resolution to his character, but one aspect of it (you'll know it when you see the film) was done too heavy handedly and made me cringe a little.

Some supporting characters are terrible, namely the guy on the plane with Bane early on and one of the board members for Wayne Enterprises. They aren't quite as awful as the two guys discussing the water lines blowing up in Begins (those two are cringe inducing) though.


In the end, despite its many flaws, I did still definitely enjoy it overall. With my deep love for the first two films, I'm likely being much more critical of the film than many will be. But it is what it is. Many people will highly enjoy this movie, some might even feel it is the best of the bunch if they are just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

I'll be seeing it once more in the theater at least to either reaffirm many of the feelings I've expressed in my review, or see if I feel differently the second time around now that I know what I am getting.

Rating - 4.25/5

TERRIFIC review Diesel!

of course i haven't seen the film, but you did a great job of painting a very vivid picture of the film (pros and cons) without being too detailed or spoilery (unlike Ebert). although i'm not sure of this really is you because this review was so well written and serious and adult

what did you think about the third act / last 30 or so minutes?
i've read numerous reviews saying, "yeah, starts slow, but the last 30 minutes ARE EPIIIIIIIC!" so i'm curious as to your thoughts on it (aside from the actual ending which you cover in the review).

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thanks for the review, Diesel! In spite of it, I'll probably be going in with slightly lowered expectations.

Considering my love for "Return of the Jedi," "Return of the King," and..."Matrix Revolutions"...it might still blow me away...

Add me to the list of people who love Return of the Jedi. I hadn't seen any of them for a long time until I got the Complete Saga on Blu-ray, but that confirmed it.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

No comments about Zimmers score or Pfisters cinematography?

Why do I even bother reading your reviews?

I KNEW I forgot something when looking it over before hitting submit

But since it isn't as fresh in my head anymore, I don't want to comment on the cinematography until seeing it again (possibly Saturday after we close).

As for the score...if you liked the score from the first two films, you'll like this one. It's more of the same...though, I don't know if it was the volume of the theater (I doubt it, as everything else sounded perfect) but on several occasions the score is just so "beat you over the head with it". But then again, that is really the sound mixers fault, not Zimmer.

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

TERRIFIC review Diesel!

Thanks

of course i haven't seen the film, but you did a great job of painting a very vivid picture of the film (pros and cons) without being too detailed or spoilery (unlike Ebert). although i'm not sure of this really is you because this review was so well written and serious and adult

I know right? Not a SINGLE smiley face
I take my Batman movies seriously

what did you think about the third act / last 30 or so minutes?
i've read numerous reviews saying, "yeah, starts slow, but the last 30 minutes ARE EPIIIIIIIC!" so i'm curious as to your thoughts on it (aside from the actual ending which you cover in the review).

It was very good.
It's not the best 3rd act (Two Towers says hello), but it is overall (despite my issues with the different parts of the film) a strong conclusion to the movie.

But the things I mentioned in my review definitely take away from it being a "perfect" final act like a lot of people are raving.

[jvince]

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Feels like a film that was forced to be made because it had to be made. The characters almost feel like strangers -- there are no standouts nor is there one you can totally root for. The framework and ideas are great, but the final product is ridiculous and convoluted as hell. First half is marred by pacing issues, which is quite atypical for a Christopher Nolan film. For the most part, it is the weakest entry in the series (and perhaps the director's weakest effort). But the ending is fitting and satisfying (and admittedly tear-inducing) enough that you end up forgiving some of its many misfires early on. One could only wish the previous two hours or so were just as great as the conclusion.

[Evra]

The Dark Knight Rises

My spoiler free review: http://watchordontwatch.blogspot.com/

How do you improve on perfection? Well that has been the task afforded to one of the most gifted third-generation directors in Hollywood at the moment in Christopher Nolan who has had the insurmountable task of following up on his 2008 critical and commercial juggernaut; The Dark Knight. The question on everyone’s lips would be “Is The Dark Knight Rises better than The Dark Knight?” In my opinion, it is not. That is not a slight against the film. The fact that it is able to stand proudly alongside its lofty predecessors, both of which have been widely regarded as the best two comic-book adaptations, is a testament to the quality of The Dark Knight Rises.

Set eight years after the events in The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises sees a reclusive Bruce Wayne spending much of his time reeling in pain following Rachel Dawes’ death now that the streets of Gotham has been cleaned. It would be cruel of me to tell you any more of what happens in The Dark Knight Rises as this is truly one of the rare films that you will not just watch, it is a one-of-a-kind movie experience that has been lost since the time of Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park or James Cameron’s Titanic and Avatar. In this day and age, with dissemination of information as rapid as ever, Christopher Nolan still manages to have the production of The Dark Knight Rises clouded in secrecy by filming sequences under the faux title of Magnus Rex and having few of his actors reading the ending in the script. For that, movie audiences have been rewarded as we enter screenings not knowing of the many Easter-eggs, twists and turns of the intricate plot in this instalment of The Dark Knight trilogy.

Without wanting to reveal much, to call The Dark Knight Rises’ plot intricate would be an understatement. There are times in the movie I am left wondering “Why is this happening?” or “How does this character know certain things?” or “Why are these characters doing this?” or “How will certain actions help in achieving certain goals?” I am not sure if these questions will clear up upon repeat viewings but I never had such problems when watching Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The film just feels like it could have been either half-an-hour longer by exploring certain characters and plot points in greater detail or an hour shorter by removing certain characters and plot points and in this race case, I was hoping that the film would be longer.


The Dark Knight Rises introduces many new characters with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard joining the cast. Joseph Gordon-Levitt acts as a young rookie cop named John Blake but it feels like there is nothing much to his character. The fact that we feel any sort of care for the character has much to do with Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s charisma rather than the script. Then, there is Anne Hathaway sexing up the screen as Selina Kyle and any nay-sayers who have had concerns with regards to the casting of Hathaway as Catwoman can lay your fears to rest as Anne Hathaway is fantastic. With the combination playful sexiness in her mannerism and voice and irresistible tenderness and charm, Anne Hathaway steals the screen every time she is on screen with many of the best one-liners in the film.

Surpassing The Joker as the villain would always be a tough task, however it has been made almost impossible following Heath Ledger’s magnificent performance as Gotham’s Clown Prince of Crime which earned the late actor a posthumous Oscar win. A very brave Tom Hardy has stepped up to the plate portraying the masked villain Bane. Much has been talked about Bane’s voice in the film since the release of the IMAX prologue that preceded Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Some viewers complained that they had problems making out what Bane was trying to say. Viewers will have no such complains about Bane’s voice the film as you will be able to hear the ferocious intensity and malice in his voice. However, I must admit that his voice feels extremely jarring in comparison with the voice of other cast members. It is almost as if his mouth piece serves as a megaphone or that his character’s voice is dubbed ala a cheap Japanese anime dub. Acting wise, there is really very little you can do when three quarters of your face is covered and all you can do with your performance is reflected through your eyes. As far as Marion Cotillard portrayal of Miranda Tate goes, I must admit I did not feel any conviction in her character.

Series regulars Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman have limited time on-screen but considering that The Dark Knight Rises is meant to provide closure to Bruce Wayne’s story, much of the focus of the film lie with the dynamic between Christian Bale and Michael Caine. In my opinion, both Bale and Caine deliver their best performances in their respective roles although in The Dark Knight Rises, Alfred seems to have suffered severe men-opause trading his wit found in the earlier two instalments for a sad, mopey and self-pitying incarnation of Alfred.

Again, without wanting to spoil much of the action set-pieces of the film, I will say that the film is exhilarating. The action sequences, around 100 minutes of it shot on IMAX looks magnificent on-screen and when you add context to the action sequences, there is a rare emotional attachment to what is happening on screen. Christopher Nolan is one of the few directors who manages to use action sequences as a means to enhance the story and not just have them there as a source of spectacle the way many of today’s action films have done. Throughout the many action sequences, I find myself actually cheering for Batman and Selina Kyle, wanting to will them on. There is a sequence in which an entire football field is destroyed (not a spoiler as footage has been shown in trailers) and I find myself actually caring for the people of Gotham. Again, Nolan has manage to not just create Gotham City, he has managed to populate it with people that we have come to care for over the span of three films. In many ways, like Batman, we believe that there is good in Gotham, that Gotham can, and more importantly, should be saved.

Much of the film attempts to break our spirits and it very nearly does. Some may feel that the ending feels disjointed from the rest of the film. However, taking into account how much emotional investment we have had in watching Bruce Wayne grow into the role as Gotham’s Dark Knight, the ending may not have been the ending we deserved but the ending we needed. Yes, I am not denying that The Dark Knight Rises has its flaws and does not reach the heights of The Dark Knight but then again, many films would fall short when compared with it. The very fact that it is able to tell a story that comes full circle and tie-up loose ends in previous instalments while providing a fitting closure in The Dark Knight trilogy is worth applauding. Good things have to come to an end and it will be long before movie-goers will be able to experience cinematic spectacles such as Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy. If I were asked to rank the trilogy in accordance to my preference, I would rank them: 1) The Dark Knight, 2) The Dark Knight Rises, 3) Batman Begins but in the grander scheme of things, all three films receive a 5/5 stars from me.