Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Dark Night Rises Thread
- Thread starter rhett7660
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol and its the background music + fx sounds (and his hard to understand muffled voice)
Besides that though, I really liked how Bane was portrayed.
I didn't like how they showed the woman (I can't spell her name off the top of my head) who supposedly defied the impossible as weak and frail. Makes no sense.
I didn't like how they showed the woman (I can't spell her name off the top of my head) who supposedly defied the impossible as weak and frail. Makes no sense.
Just got back from seeing it!
IMHO easily the best Batman film. Though Joker was the best character in the series, everyone's performance in this one was great. I can't think of any character I didn't like... well maybe Scarecrow in his weird role.
IMHO easily the best Batman film. Though Joker was the best character in the series, everyone's performance in this one was great. I can't think of any character I didn't like... well maybe Scarecrow in his weird role.
It's really not. There were maybe 2 words out of the whole movie that I didn't catch.
I think if you really sit and concentrate on every spoken word, you can understand 95% of the words Bane says, and understand what he's saying perfectly because missing 1/20 words doesn't take away the context in which it's spoken.
I missed a fair number of words he says throughout the movie, but I understood every sentence he spoke. I don't know if I didn't understand Bane because someone in the audience was opening a packet of lollies/candy, or sipping their drink a bit too loudly or perhaps walked down the aisle to go to the bathroom, OR if I just missed some parts because my attention waned for a split second. All I know is that I missed many words, but I was fine.
I missed a fair number of words he says throughout the movie, but I understood every sentence he spoke. I don't know if I didn't understand Bane because someone in the audience was opening a packet of lollies/candy, or sipping their drink a bit too loudly or perhaps walked down the aisle to go to the bathroom, OR if I just missed some parts because my attention waned for a split second. All I know is that I missed many words, but I was fine.
All in all, it was just another Batman movie.
We get to see Batman use his fancy gadgets and rely on his resources and strength and stuff and fight a big badguy.
I was really not very impressed. It pales in comparison to The Dark Knight, where Batman had an actual challenge fighting against the Joker, who he really couldn't beat. This movie is all about physical confrontation. There's no emotional or mental depth, the only acting that really stood out was Michael Cain (who unfortunately is gone from half this movie), and the plot was full not only full of holes but also for the most part entirely predictable and yet the whole thing dragged on and on and ON!
I guess that for yet another Batman movie alongside films like Batman Forever and that Batman movie where Jack Nicholson played the Joker, Rises was a pretty good film. But being the sequel to a masterpiece like The Dark Knight, the whole thing played out more like a children's cartoon than an engaging piece of cinematography.
We get to see Batman use his fancy gadgets and rely on his resources and strength and stuff and fight a big badguy.
I was really not very impressed. It pales in comparison to The Dark Knight, where Batman had an actual challenge fighting against the Joker, who he really couldn't beat. This movie is all about physical confrontation. There's no emotional or mental depth, the only acting that really stood out was Michael Cain (who unfortunately is gone from half this movie), and the plot was full not only full of holes but also for the most part entirely predictable and yet the whole thing dragged on and on and ON!
I guess that for yet another Batman movie alongside films like Batman Forever and that Batman movie where Jack Nicholson played the Joker, Rises was a pretty good film. But being the sequel to a masterpiece like The Dark Knight, the whole thing played out more like a children's cartoon than an engaging piece of cinematography.
You sure it wasn't a suicide mission in the first movie? Raj did state that he was going to share the fate of Gotham which was destruction.....
Then why did they just trap the cops under ground? Why didn't they just kill all the cops? And how the hell did all the cops not get out of the sewers while they were trapped down there for MONTHS?
If they really wanted Batman to suffer, why didn't they just tie him up and force him to watch footage of his city being torn appart? Why did they have to throw him in a prison city HOPING he'd spend all his time just watching a single TV behind some bars instead of using the help from the other friendly prisoners to escape and get back to the city?
And HOW do the prison people sustain themselves? Do they have farms? Irrigation? Is someone constantly giving them supplies?
And WHY did Batman have to have sex with Catwoman? WHAT did that accomplish? They had just met, and they go at it like rabbits. Not that I've read any, but that part of the movie played out more like a piece of erotic Batman fanfiction than anything else. And then the very next day when they're wearing their costumes, he talks to her in the sore throat voice... LIKE HE THINKS SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHO HE IS!? Are you kidding me!?
Don't get me wrong. This movie was ok for a Batman flick, but the plotholes in it are just too many to count.
WHAT!?
Well... that kind of blows my mind right there... nonetheless, I gotta ask, why'd he sleep with her then? I dunno... to me that whole sex scene seemed so arbitrary. Maybe I just couldn't hear what people were saying in the theatre.
In the first movie, if it was a suicide mission, I would not have spent time burning down Wayne Manor. I would have been on the Monorail while Bruce was partying.
The last one. Should have just executed the bomb after executing the physicist. Why the 5 month countdown?
Got the advantage at that point. No need for an external trigger device to get blocked. No Batman, he was with a broken back somewhere else.
Just start the countdown clock at 150 days at the stadium and then blow it up 5 minutes later.
SPOILER
He was obviously sleeping with Miranda Tate. The sex scene sets something emotional and it serves for later on where she stabs him and reveals her true identity and we get to see Batman weak and shocked begging her not to blow up Gotham. The movie is not only about physically breaking the Batman but also emotionally.
WHAT!?
Well... that kind of blows my mind right there... nonetheless, I gotta ask, why'd he sleep with her then? I dunno... to me that whole sex scene seemed so arbitrary. Maybe I just couldn't hear what people were saying in the theatre.
He was obviously sleeping with Miranda Tate. The sex scene sets something emotional and it serves for later on where she stabs him and reveals her true identity and we get to see Batman weak and shocked begging her not to blow up Gotham. The movie is not only about physically breaking the Batman but also emotionally.
I just got back from seeing it. I really liked it. It was pretty ****** huge. Just so much happening. Anne Hathaway looked incredible It seemed like Christian Bale had lost so much weight, but at other times he looked muscular. Weird. The only words I missed out of Bane were a couple right after the incident during the football game.
It was an incredible movie. It wasn't "tight", but I'm certainly not complaining.
It seemed like Christian Bale had lost so much weight, but at other times he looked muscular. Weird. The only words I missed out of Bane were a couple right after the incident during the football game.It was an incredible movie. It wasn't "tight", but I'm certainly not complaining.
In both movies it was about Gotham tearing itself apart and him watching. Just in different ways.
Anyone notice the music near the end was wrong. It didn't match the action. The Bane theme music was good as well as the older Batman themes.
Definitely was a fitting end to Nolan's trilogy. But it wasn't without it's flaws. It was still an amazing movie but really felt like Nolan was cramming a lot into one film to leave Batman on a good note and leave some hope for Gotham. The plot had a lot happening and I can understand why some critics thought it was tough to follow or it wasn't straight forward. Overall, great movie but the Dark Knight was definitely better. Anyways, Nolan set the bar higher and trying to top this batman trilogy will be impossible imo.
REally was hoping Nolan was going to direct Man of Steel, well at least he's a producer and hopefully will give Snyder some tips.
REally was hoping Nolan was going to direct Man of Steel, well at least he's a producer and hopefully will give Snyder some tips.
Absolutely cracking film. An awesome end to an awesome trilogy.
Sourcing some IMAX tickets in Manchester at the minute
Sourcing some IMAX tickets in Manchester at the minute
Dull
And what the hell is the comedy voices? Yes, we know bales batman has a perminant sore throat, but banes voice! WTF??
Seriously. It got so absurd during The Dark Knight I had to stifle laughing when watching it. It was even worse this time around then throw in Bane, who you can understand probably 95% of it fairly easily, but it's just a bother.
--
I don't like the ending. Setting up Robin was cheesy and unnecessary - I think it was a bit to be expected leading up to then. Or if you include that, then one thing Noland should have really changed was at the end Alfred in Florence only looks up and smiles - no showing Bruce and Catwoman. That would at least leave the debate of "is he really dead or not?" This way you just get the "d'awww, happy ending" which kind of seems out of place.
I don't think it was intended as a suicide mission, it's probably just that when Batman came back and was threatening their plans they had to stay and see it through.
And the five months probably wasn't all about breaking Batman's spirit or whatever. The League of Shadows went back generations and was about destroying societal corruption. Likely that timeframe was intended for accomplishing their goals, and Batman was a side issue to them.
In the movie, 8 years prior, all the major crime had been cleaned up, which is probably what most people thought of as the societal corruption. Organised crime holding sway over the establishment. But even with organised crime gone, the establishment was still corrupted, by all the white collar, legal forms of corruption and theft that the system is build on and for. Hence the stock exchange attack and, and French Revolution / Russian Revolution style attacks on the rich. It's like a militant Occupy Gotham movement, except that they know that you can't simply remove some rich people, or change the people in positions of power. Those other revolutions just swapped who the tyrants were, and the names of the ideologies, promising some new freedom, while still repressing the people, as the levers of control remained in place. The five months is the time to demonstrate the farce of revolution, with the true plan being the destruction of the system of corruption, which is the society itself.
Batman and Commissioner Gordon are the faces of reform, the moderate alternative to revolution and destruction. Reform serves the function of making society more healthy, so it can avoid destruction, and so is a completely necessary part of any system. Internal review, whistle blowers, standing up for what's right, being unpopular for the greater good, saying and doing what makes people uncomfortable, are all necessary components of reform. The assertion from the League is: if the system is inherently corrupt, then reform will not fix the corruption, but will instead improve and perpetuate it. Destruction is the only solution. If good intentions by good men have been usurped into perpetuating evil, then are the good free from culpability? Do they not deserve judgement as well? This shows the necessity of wisdom and discernment, to know if good intentions lead to positive results.
And the five months probably wasn't all about breaking Batman's spirit or whatever. The League of Shadows went back generations and was about destroying societal corruption. Likely that timeframe was intended for accomplishing their goals, and Batman was a side issue to them.
In the movie, 8 years prior, all the major crime had been cleaned up, which is probably what most people thought of as the societal corruption. Organised crime holding sway over the establishment. But even with organised crime gone, the establishment was still corrupted, by all the white collar, legal forms of corruption and theft that the system is build on and for. Hence the stock exchange attack and, and French Revolution / Russian Revolution style attacks on the rich. It's like a militant Occupy Gotham movement, except that they know that you can't simply remove some rich people, or change the people in positions of power. Those other revolutions just swapped who the tyrants were, and the names of the ideologies, promising some new freedom, while still repressing the people, as the levers of control remained in place. The five months is the time to demonstrate the farce of revolution, with the true plan being the destruction of the system of corruption, which is the society itself.
Batman and Commissioner Gordon are the faces of reform, the moderate alternative to revolution and destruction. Reform serves the function of making society more healthy, so it can avoid destruction, and so is a completely necessary part of any system. Internal review, whistle blowers, standing up for what's right, being unpopular for the greater good, saying and doing what makes people uncomfortable, are all necessary components of reform. The assertion from the League is: if the system is inherently corrupt, then reform will not fix the corruption, but will instead improve and perpetuate it. Destruction is the only solution. If good intentions by good men have been usurped into perpetuating evil, then are the good free from culpability? Do they not deserve judgement as well? This shows the necessity of wisdom and discernment, to know if good intentions lead to positive results.