The Dark Knight Rises (spoiler zone)
Posted 18 July 2012 - 11:18 AM
SWEAR TO ME
Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:14 PM
Posted 18 July 2012 - 10:11 PM
Edited by Johnny Henning, 18 July 2012 - 10:23 PM.
Posted 18 July 2012 - 11:51 PM
My first review's up at: http://www.impactonl...-knight-rises
Short version: Nolan does what he does very well and there's much to applaud within the film - but it's somewhat compromised and flawed by a running time that is far too long (noticeably sagging in the middle) and having too big a supporting cast to service well.
Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:01 AM
Posted 19 July 2012 - 08:18 AM
I think if you loved The Dark Knight you'll adore this. The scope was quite epic, performances great and unlike John I didn't mind the way the characters shared screen time. It's really about a war on the city and I think you need that to get the insurgency feel.
Did I love it? No. I enjoyed it and can't find a real fault in the craft but I didn't love The Dark Knight or Batman Begins after he donned the cape because as John mentions it's very difficult to mesh the incredible seriousness of the film with the tropes of a superhero. To add to the Batman voice Hardy's Bane goes into Evil Claw mode on occasion. The end has to throw in a few cliched action movie scenes as though they are a contractual obligation that don't match the style and tone of the rest of it. It feels 'off' all the time and I have a feeling that if Nolan got given $200m to do that film without those elements, just the city under siege, I may be raving about it now.
Posted 19 July 2012 - 08:28 AM
Posted 19 July 2012 - 08:34 AM
Posted 19 July 2012 - 08:52 AM
That is all, I'm not too well this morning, the party went on til about 4...
Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:30 AM
Youri, I think the weight of expectation may crush The Dark Knight Rises (just like Prometheus was deemed a failure by some due to it's ties to the far superior Alien) . It's a good film (with some pretty major plot holes and flaws) but the perception that this is going to equal The Dark Knight isn't going to do it any favours.
Bale, Caine (especially) and Hathaway are all good, Tom Hardy is hindered by the mask in his performance but does get one very effective scene towards the end where he overcomes that (it's just that Bane himself never seems a really viable threat, it's just that the plot dictates he is). Every one else is okay.
Plot-wise it's not so great. Logic goes out the window on more than one occasion and some of the stuff Nolan tries to pull off just doesn't ring true. An awful lot of scenes in the movie just seem to sit next to each other, rather than flowing from one into the other. For a long movie it sometimes felt like some of the "connective tissue" of the film was missing.
We see so little of Gotham's ordinary citizens that we barely feel for their plight, and therefore don't invest in their rescue. And after 5 months of rule by a "warlord" who has released 1000's of the cities worst criminals Gotham looks...no different than it did before hand...except now it's snowing.
Are Bane's henchmen all League assassins (in which case they're a bit crap) or are they just mercenaries (in which case why do they follow him so devotedly/religiously?). What do they get out of all this? They don't come across as religious fanatics, but they also don't seem to be only about the money/loot. Even after taking over the city and pillaging it they dress like tramps who shop at army surplus.
A nuclear bomb? Really? I'm so over nuclear bombs as the ultimate threat. Just doesn't feel very "Batman" to me.
I may have to watch Batman Begins again but I'm not quite sure why Rha's Al Ghul (and all his followers) have such a hate on for Gotham. Especially since it's now cleaned up and crime free. Okay the fat cats live there, but they are pretty much everywhere. Why not hit London or Paris or Tokyo? If it's to break Bruce Wayne/Batman's spirit that's a pretty convoluted way to go about it?!?! The guy is pretty much a broken shut in when the movie begins, why draw him out of retirement just to break him again?
Bane's men would have massacred the police at the climax of the film. Automatic rifles and Tumblers against batons and pistols? Fighting (very clean and well groomed) guys hand-to-hand who have lived underground for 5 months (even if they have had food and water, and why was that provided again?) shouldn't be a problem for them either.
And some of the "action" in this part really didn't work for me. I'm not expecting gallons of gore and ultra-violence but this was the most bloodless, clean street battle to the death I've ever seen. In fact I thought Nolan's direction of the action in The Dark Knight was all round better than in this movie. This one just seemed a lot cleaner and safer, less risky, dirty and "real" than the previous movie.
This probably all sounds very negative but I don't hate the movie, and weirdly I feel like it's a good sequel to Batman Begins, it's just not a great follow up to the masterpiece of The Dark Knight. Tonally, thematically and story-wise it's way more "comic book-y" than that film and I guess that made me disconnect on more than one occasion. Couldn't suspend disbelief on so many different instances.
For a movie that has heavy elements of The Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall and Batman: The Cult embedded in it's DNA, and follows on from the absolute best super-hero movie ever made, I just feel it never reaches it's full potential.
Edited by Blank Ed Boy, 19 July 2012 - 10:34 AM.
Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:57 AM
I think that links into the issue of Gotham's citizens after the occupation. I'm not sure it was meant to be that different. There are questions around whether Gotham really had it good, whether it was built on a lie and Bane made no demands of the people. It may just be personal taste though because I often find questions being posed more interesting than getting answers. One thing I didn't like and I'll still put it in spoilers as it's right at the end
Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:31 AM
Nolan's just that little bit-off throughout the film for me. There's some weird lesser choices amongst the stuff that works well.
Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:37 AM
Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:04 PM
Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:04 PM
I see Wikipedia has Marion Cotillard listed as Talia Al Ghul, I didn't know so the twist was a surprise.
Posted 19 July 2012 - 10:40 PM
Did anyone else feel that Nolan used the OST to try and ramp things up/drive things along too much toward the end? Especially from the start of the 5 month occupation it felt like the score was trying to create tension and momentum that the actual scenes couldn't deliver on. It became a bit OTT in places.
When the Tumblers are going after the van with the bomb and leaving the battling cops behind the score was totally overpowering, so much so that the cops on the left who are "shooting" at the Tumblers as they leave look like they are kids miming a gunfight in the playground. There were no sound effects of gunshots and muzzle flare from the guns and it just looked a bit cheesy.
I don't know, maybe I'm being hyper-critical but there were a lot of little moments like this that stopped the immersion for me.
Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:29 AM
Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:50 AM
I read in another review that said that the first act of Batman Begins is the strongest section of that film, the second act of The Dark Knight is the strongest section of that film, and the third act of Rises is the strongest section of this. I would definitely agree. I would venture to say that the final 45 minutes of Rises was the best, most emotional, most exciting section of the entire trilogy.
Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:07 PM
I really liked the character of Blake and his last scenes were great. He reminded me a lot of Terry McGuinness and I actually half expected him to put on the suit before the end.
Disappointed in myself for not guessing the Talia twist, even though I was distrustful of Tate from the off.
A lot of dialogue got lost under the score and background noise, I felt. Ironically, given all the fuss from the previews, not so much for Bane, whose voice I thought was really cool, if a little disembodied and who I could understand for the most part.
I had more DKR in it than I was expecting and No Man's Land (I see why DC's reprinting that now). The 8 year gap threw me a lot and I don't think it makes a lot of sense in-story, especially when you consider Alfred deciding to leave. Fine to let Bruce stew for 8 years with a dodgy leg (is that actually explained?) doing nothing, but as soon as he starts doing something with his life again he bails? Didn't ring true. And his final scene, not talking to Bruce? Also didn't ring true. I know he said in his dream/fantasy he was content to just nod and leave, but that was when Bruce had just disappeared. After faking his own death and after Alfred was so repentant at the funeral, you're telling me they're not going to talk? They're practically father and son. I didn't buy that.
Hathaway was great as Catwoman, though I think the goggles look would have worked better. The flip down thing she had was good in the way it looked a bit like cat ears when up though.
There was a few scenes where the time of day seemed to change instantly, which irked me. When Bane rides out of the stock exchange it's the middle of the day (they're still trading), yet by the time they're on the highway, while the machine's still going, so it's not that much later, it's practically the middle of the night.
Fox consolidating all the Bat-gear into one warehouse seems so obviously stupid, it seemed out of character for him to do it.
I liked Crane's reappearance. That was fun.
The Dent Act seems somewhat hollow and convenient. So Batman murders Dent and a law is passed that suddenly means the police are able to root out mobs and gangs and corruptions? How does that work? Surely Batman's the one to be cleaning up the streets.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users