The Dark Knight Rises

[Brando]

As you said his previous three films made well over two billion.  You put that with TDKR was going to be pretty much a sure thing at the box office, I believe Nolan made the movie he wanted to make with none or insignificant influence form the studio. Him and James Cameron are the two directors right now that I can think of can make these kind of huge budget blockbusters with little to no influence from the studios. Bane's voice controversy is insignificant.  The change didn't have any impact on the final product. It was just a character with too much dialogue being understood better. I was annoyed with all his dialogue so not being able to understand it would have made it worse so I thought i was a good change. I think he did compromise with the voice. I'm sure the studio would have liked the voice to be changed completely. It's still very close to the original only more intelligible. I mean there were still lines I missed. it wasn't changed drastically.



I just got the impression that Nolan was sentimental and I could be totally wrong. I don't think he was disinterested or did the film for a cash grab. Reading this doesn't come off as disinterested in Batmanhttp://collider.com/christopher-nolan-batman-letter/183108/  There was probably no studio interference, he wasn't sentimental or disinterested but rather really wanted to do a third batman and create the best film he could and he failed.  He just made a bad film. He's made eight films in like fourteen years. That's a fast pace for the quality of his films. Anyone making that many films is due to make a bad one.

[Stefen]

I watched it again this weekend and it's actually a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously and just view it as a campy comedy.

There were so many unintentionally hilarious moments in this movie but some of my favorites were...(spoilers of course.)

Banes voice in the prologue. Especially when he rips out of his handcuffs then yells, "NOOOOOOO SURVIVORS ARGHHH!!!" Sure, it wasn't very easy to pick up on every word he said in the original prologue but at least it wasn't so over the top it was bad.

When Batman is using his classic punch you in the face and interrogate routine on Bane. "WHERZ DA trigguh!!!!! *punch to the face* WHERE IZ ITTT!!! *punch* WHEREZ DA TRIGGUH!!!!!!! *2 punches* "YOU WOULDN'T GIVE IT TO AN ORDINARY CITIZEN!!!" *bunch of punches to the face* "WHERE IZ IT!!!!" *Batman gets tired. Only throws one punch to Bane's face* "TRIGGUH!!!!" *Batman's out of breath.* "where   is ....it"

Every scene with Talia after she's revealed. She gives like 5 monologues in the span on 10 minutes. She looks at Bane and says, "his only crime is that he loved me too much." then a tear starts coming down Bane's face. haha. Fuck outta here. And then her death scene may be the most hilarious moment of the last 10 years.

[72teeth]

SPOI

her slumpping death reminded me that i have to watch the original french Taxi

[Reel]

it's actually a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously

Yeah, this was the only Nolan I didn't fall asleep to while seeing it in the theater ( Begins, Dark Knight, Inception )

I loved it, man. Just loved it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm not entirely familiar with The Dark Knight and had a really awful experience watching it in a white trash dollar theater, haven't seen it since. So just getting re-introduced to Nolan's gotham was such a treat to me. I have to say it's my favorite of the 3, for now..

Also, I didn't pay for it. I bought a ticket to The Campaign and then watched Total Recall, then this. So, if anything, my thoughts on 'Campaign' are probably the most biased. It really does change your perception of a film when your not shelling out cash and expecting it to 'deliver.'

Filmspotting put up their The Dark Knight Rises  SPOILED episode

[Sleepless]

Spoilers, I guess...

I've been avoiding this thread since the release and I've got to say I'm really disappointed by the general reaction to this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Did it have its faults? Of course, but it was more-or-less what I've come to expect from a Nolan Batman film: popcorn entertainment with characters and social-political philosophizing thrown in. I had fun. I was entertained. As someone else already pointed out, the problems that have been pointed out with this film were already present in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, so complaining about them here is kind of irrelevant. After all, when was the last time (really) that the third film in a trilogy equaled or bettered it's predecessors? I'd argue that Toy Story 3 is the exception rather than the rule. Certainly Return of the Jedi, Godfather Part III, Jurassic Park 3, Spiderman 3, and X-Men: Last Stand are all classic examples of substantially diminishing returns. But people calling this the worst film of the year are just as ridiculous as those claiming it's the best film of the year.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was. Sure, it wasn't the tour-de-force that The Dark Knight (the film which will be most fondly remembered of this trilogy) was, but for my money it was more enjoyable than Batman Begins. It definitely felt like there was more studio interference in this film, or at least that the film was driven more by money-making rather than artistic aspirations, particularly with all the nods to the previous films (Scarecrow as the judge, etc.) but surely that's somewhat inevitable.

Overall, the good:

• Anne Hathaway - I hadn't anticipated Catwoman to be portrayed in this way, but she totally nailed it
• The action set pieces - I know plenty of people enjoy criticizing Nolan's style, but based on the competition he's still one of the best blockbuster directors of action working today
• The editing - it just really worked for me. I liked the way the sound dropped out during the action set pieces (as in previous films)
• JGL - it's almost impossible to dislike the guy, but considering we expected him to be a relatively minor character he actually really held the film together as a central figure
• The supporting cast - flashing out the world with character actors such as Aiden Gillen and Tom Conti really added some much-needed depth to the epic sprawl

The bad:

• The plot holes - I may have missed most in my only viewing (based on others' reviews) but the one which really stood out to me was how JGL's character figured out that Bruce Wayne was Batman
• Marion Cotillard - I don't know whether to argue that she was wasted in a thankless role, or that the revelation with her character was treated as an afterthought. Probably both.
• The third act development of the relationship between Bruce and Selina
• The ham-handed parallel of A Tale of Two Cities - it felt like Nolan was trying to get at some sort of social/political commentary but rather than putting things out there to let the audience reach their own conclusion, it just came across like he didn't really know where he wanted to go with it or what he wanted to say
• Batman being absent for a huge portion of the film - I get that it was necessary to take some time for Bruce to recover from his injuries and that his absence allowed the film to focus more on the bigger world in which he lives, but it did result in the film being somewhat uneven - actually, from the point that he fires Alfred

Bane wasn't a great villain, but given that he was filling the shoes of Heath Ledger's Joker he had a tough act to follow. I do think that Nolan took a wrong step by focusing so much on Bane's backstory when one of the most remarked aspects of TDK was that the Joker was never given a definitive backstory. Rather, they should have focused on Bane's political philosophy and agenda to avoid him becoming the average villain of the week that he actually was.

Oh, and what's with Michael Cane making me well up every time he was on screen?

[polkablues]

Oh, and what's with Michael Cane making me well up every time he was on screen?

Presumably something to do with not blinking.

[Alexandro]

this film just doesn't work. I rewatched dark knight a couple of years after it's release and it was just as great. yes, it is silly. but this is not only silly, is plain lazy.

[polkablues]

• The supporting cast - flashing out the world with character actors such as Aiden Gillen and Tom Conti really added some much-needed depth to the epic sprawl

Nolan actually has an uneven approach to casting small roles in these movies.  He gets great actors for main roles, but then sticks randomly terrible actors in all the nooks and crannies.  Burn Gorman, Ben Mendelsohn, Matthew Modine, Aiden Gillen (our worst living actor and no one can convince me otherwise).  And then he'll throw in John Hurt, one of the greatest film actors who has ever lived, with a two-line role.  I'm actually not sure Christoper Nolan knows the difference between good and bad acting.

[matt35mm]

Oh yeah, I've only seen Aiden Gillen in this movie, but just based on that performance, I'm with you Polka. He was incredibly off-putting.

Thomas Lennon was in this though. He's almost as good at John Hurt.

[polkablues]

I'll always remember Aiden Gillen as the man who gave the worst performance I have ever seen by an adult human in a movie.

Thomas Lennon is great, but how jarring was his appearance in this movie?  Nolan's created this hyper-serious superhero world and then suddenly you have Lt. Dangle on screen for 15 seconds making cartilage jokes.

[Reel]

I'm so with you about Aiden Gillen, he almost singlehandedly ruined The Wire for me. What is it about him, his dumb teeth? Or maybe it's that he looks like an Edward Norton that wasn't left in the oven long enough? I don't know..

[Sleepless]

I'm actually not sure Christoper Nolan knows the difference between good and bad acting.

Based on this interview with Gary Oldman, he just lets the actors turn up on set and do whatever:

The first day we got to a set - a night shoot - it was me getting out of a cop car on the dock, looking up at the round-up of villains, not knowing who the hell had rounded them up. We did the first rehearsal and he said, "Oh, OK, so you're playing him like that." "Yeah." And he went, "Huh. OK. All right. Take?" And I went, "Yeah." And we did a take and he went, "Very nice. OK. Do you want another one?" And I said, "Well, I've come all this way." He went, "Alright, do another one." We did take two and he went, "Terrific. OK, moving on..."

[©brad]

Holy hell this was a goofy mess. But for me it was also the most fun of the trilogy, mostly for the campy aspects and Catwoman. It was more playful and didn't take itself as seriously as DK. I definitely agree with the following:

I watched it again this weekend and it's actually a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously and just view it as a campy comedy.

Picolas nails the criticism on the script. That third act man, what in the what. You guys already said all of this better than I will but I want to get this out - why do they cram in so much into these movies? Why add another villain at the end? Why does Batman spend the majority of the film training to beat Bain, who I felt was a genuinely scary and worthy villain, only for Catwoman to shoot him so easily? Why was Marion Cotillard even in this? How did they ever lock picture with a death scene as unconvincing and ridiculous as hers?

Phew. I feel better.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

How did they ever lock picture with a death scene as unconvincing and ridiculous as hers?

And you know you've seen worse than the one above

[Stefen]

How did they ever lock picture with a death scene as unconvincing and ridiculous as hers?

And you know you've seen worse than the one above

I have. In the Dark Knight Rises.