Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
And to be extra nice I'll even post my ranting as a comment so there's no hover over nastiness.
and one about the shootings, which is its own sad topic entirely.
On Friday there were about half a dozen different football threads knocking around, and no one's even playing at the moment. Who even likes football anyway?
I'm not even posting anymore anyway. Theo, nuke this place from orbit. It's the only way to make sure.
I don't even especially want to discuss any twists, such as they might be, just some general issues and thoughts, but it's all up for debate.
Things I liked:
Anne Hathaway was very good, in fact the whole "Catwoman" idea was done very well.
Joseph Gordon Levitt was also very watchable.
Michael Caine did sterling work too, even though I can no longer watch him without hearing Steve Coogan's impression of him.
The action was as well handled as ever, nicely shot, very atmospheric.
Things I didn't like (deep breath)
Was the composer being paid by the note? Seriously, way too much intrusive music. The only audio thing I liked was the national anthem, and that was a bit of a cliche.
What a waste of Tom Hardy. Why was he even in it? Anyone could have stood there and punched Bale. There's only so much you can do with your eyes. He didn't do much. The voice was audible, if daft, but watching him was so boring because he was incapable of expression.
There were some bizarre continuity errors. One minute it's a busy stock exchange floor, a guy is getting lunch, Bane attacks, they have ten minutes to get the money, TEN MINUTES LATER IT'S DARK OUTSIDE. It happens again at the end, it's dark, there's 45 minutes to diffuse the bomb, bang, daylight. Buy a watch, Chris.
Stealing the money from the stock exchange at all. Yeah, that's a thing.
Where the fuck is that prison meant to be? The one where Bane delivers Bruce personally. And Bruce travels back from, with no money or possessions, in a few hours. Then he gets into Gotham, a closely guarded and monitored island, by himself, with no bat gadgets. And happens to find Anne Hathaway. In a city full of millions of people. Then he goes and gets tooled up. Even though Bane has ransacked the armoury?
Why would a bomb that is naturally and indefinitely corroding have a timer? I thought the whole point is that they didn't know when it would blow. AND surely more dangerous than the clock is the fact you're shaking it round like Bez with a maraca.
John Blake's real name. There were audible groans in the cinema.
Why it couldn't have ended with Alfred smiling, I'll never know. It's not as if Nolan isn't a fan of ambiguity.
It's loses a lot of what made TDK special, and gains too much of what made BB silly. It's entertaining and atmospheric, but quite badly flawed. Oh well.
But then I'd rather watch Begins anyhow even though TDK is the better conceived and executed film.
I too found the prison, score and random finding of Catwoman weird. Likewise if you've got about an hour to save Goham, probably best not to spend half of that time painting a bat symbol on a bridge with petrol. But obviously it's a superhero film, but those bits were at odds with Banes clever plan, the harsh escalation of it and the clever reversal of the law with the cops trapped underground.
Felt Catwoman and Blake COULD have been disasters but were superb. Gordon maybe isn't get enough screen time. Batman too maybe, but needs a rewatch I guess. Bane was a mixed bag too. Lacked the mentalness of the Joker and took a while to show his true colours. Loved his voice t times but I did struggle to understand parts and it also seemed like it had been recorded separately to the rest of the dialogue. Can't place why, just felt a bit divorced.
I found it a bit odd too that one minute he's this tactical mastermind and genius criminal, the next a mere loyal lap dog who's just all brawn. The latter seems true to the comics but I liked his cleverer persona more. Maybe you're supposed to think he was just following orders?
Still, all in all a good finale to an excellent trilogy.
Wish Batman had said 'Some days you just can't get rid a bomb...' though at the end.
Bloody predictive text...
it's the tactical genius that's more in keeping with the comic than the henchman persona. Bane was designed as the ultimate foe, the one character capable of breaking Batman mentally and physically by being stronger and smarter than Bruce is.
Well then, that cute puppy dog bit at the end was a bit odd.
really didn't like the ending, what with nolans dark take on batman, the talk of there being no way he would return to it, and the heavily forshadowing of batman dying within the film itself the surprise happy ending really missed the mark, batman making the ultimate sacrifice, especially after finding a renewed will to live, would have been more satisfying. Despite what I said in the other thread, the pre robin character was pretty good.
somethings just didnt seem to work, the league of shadows and that prison, stuff like that would fit in the world of the first film but after the more real world feel to the last one not so much. That prison was a pretty weak device, all the prisoners seemed pretty friendly for hell on earth, and it looked like they could have fashioned something to get them out, also cant remember exactly but did a vision/ghost of liam neason explain stuff to him? if so that seems out of place.
Didnt have a problem with bane's voice except for how it was so upfront in the mix, probably a response to the complaints about the trailer but they went too far the other way it kind of messed up the sense of space. Didnt like the reveal that bane isnt the real mastermind but just a henchmen, quite good as a surprise I suppose but it just seemed like that was the only reason it was there for the sake of having a twist, having miranda(?) being the bad guy didnt add much except for a twist, banes character didnt make much sense as it turned out he was once quite a selfless person that helped a child but he ended up a mass murderer, could of done with a bit more on how he changed.
but it was entertaining enough
I was reasonably willing to accept the prison stuff and the comic book mythology behind the villains origin, that's fine, suspend disbelief it's a superhero movie get on with it.
My main beef was in the 'real world' characters, or specifically, Blake. He was everywhere explaining everything all the time to everyone and he just knew who Batman was and everything. The character he became as the shit went down I could accept fine, he's one of the heroes no problem, but the character he was in the first half seemed to stretch the credibility of the real world aspect of the film for me.
It is still ambiguous though...
You can look at that scene as being Alfred's dream which he mentions earlier in the film. He sees Bruce and they don't talk...they don't need to.
He is having the same dream again to help him cope with the loss.
+ if he did set the bat to autopilot, when did he eject, would he have been far enough away from the blast?
+ the fact that bruce saw ra's al ghul in the prison when he was in pain...it's not a massive stretch to think that alfred, in pain, grieving saw bruce.
I like that it can be read either way though.
It created a massive literal smokescreen.
They didn't steal any money from the stock exchange, that's not what that scene was, Bane weas running trades under Bruce's ID to ruin Wayne enterprises so that his paymasters could take control giving him access to the reactor so that he could have it turned into the bomb.
Was all a bit muddy, but yeah, I take back my criticism of it there.
Yeah it must have been tough to follow when they explained it and then showed the consequences
I didn't get it to be honest, seemed to be done to place that guy in power of Wayne enterprises but then he killed him and got access to all the stuff by brute force anyway, just seemed there as a way of linking catwomen to bane but not making much sense although i guess if he knew he was batman bankrupting him was worthwhile
And I guess working with that guy allowed him to put explosives everywhere through his builders.
They never went into why the people working with bane were so loyal was that a league of shadows thing? Kind of reminded me of tithe teenage mutant ninja turtles film
So I assumed that he had hired Bane to get him into power at Wayne Enterprises, by force Bruce out of the company, and that Bane and Talia had been playing him the whole time. Betrayed him and had their people fix the explosives without his knowledge.
Like in Robocop with Clarence; the greedy business type done over by more cunning and dangerous criminals.
The last 3rd of the film is set in snowy Gotham, and you can't see anyone's breath in the supposedly cold air.
Also, the scene where the thousands of police are marching down the narrow road to meet the mercenaries, and and mercenaries are shooting for a good half minute before cops start falling.
Like it was the over-arching voice of God, and not a person in the same room as the other characters.
Pretty sure he climbed out with 11 days left but then he got to Gotham with less than a day to spare, so 10 days isn't too bad.
Not really enough of an event for me to fork out £8, but would quite like to see it.
The usual sites haven't got links to it yet. I suspect Warner Bros have given them a few quid to not upload links for a while to not effect ticket sales.
Would it have killed them to have Lucius Fox do a fart joke every now and again to lighten the EXTREME PONDEROUSNESS.
Aside from the SOLEMNITY I think it was better than the previous two. I liked both of them but didn't leave thinking they were anything amazing, and haven't bothered to rewatch either of them. This one had its faults but I left feeling more impressed. Maybe because of the WEIGHTINESS.
Bane's voice (and accent) is actually the star of the show. Sorry Christian
Was a bit heavy to get all the way through without any lolz to break it up.
Bane's voice is fine.
there were a few points where I was trying not to laugh at some of the dialogue that was clearly there to hurry things along without too much effort
- Where is Clean Slate?
- Clean Slate? The programme that erases a person's identity, police records, making them essentially disappear and thus gives them a fresh start? That Clean Slate?
but i just went with it as they obviously had a lot of story to tell.
I think if anything it made me really sad that he couldn't end the franchise with the big joker film the way he probably wanted to. It had some good moments though.
but sculpted into some enormous solid steel and metal megalith. It's perfectly serviceable, but god does it groan under its own weight.
Hathaway and Bale very good, Tom Hardy only understandable about two thirds of the time.
Cillian Murphy was supposedly in it, but I'm damned if I know where.
probably the weakest part of the film
Batman Begins than The Dark Knight, there were a couple of things like that - like the prison mentioned above that seemed a bit at odds with the solid grey world of TDK and most of TDKR
Scarecrow/Crane was pretty underdeveloped the whole trilogy
but when you start complaining that the guy who gets a two-minute cameo in one film and ONE LINE in another isn't showing enough character development, I think the criticism might have gone too far.
I'm saying he should have been in it more, he was a good character.
When he was at the football game and said 'WHAT A NICE VOICE!' Or something.
It was good, strong performances, liked the fact Gordon-Levitt was in it, doing his grown up voice, awww.
Anne Hathaway <3
ANY BATMAN FANS OVER 16 NEED TO GROW UP
the graphic novels deal with adult issues, what's the matter, don't you appreciate the visual arts as well?
if there had been pressure on Nolan to tie things up unambiguously and in nice, pleasant little packages because that's generally what audiences want. Not all fussed by a bit of artistic freedom when it comes to shit like Wayne getting back to Gotham or people's breath not showing up in the cold, but I did feel that the ending betrayed where the trilogy had appeared to be heading. If each of those closing 'scenes' that the film flitted through had been 10 seconds shorter, it would have been a far better film imo.
so this might be totally wide of the mark but I think Nolan is one of the only directors who has got free reign over what he does, and I can't see the studio (is it Warner Brothers?) putting him any under pressure to compromise after what he's achieved for them. I think if the ending is unambiguous, then it's Nolan's way of concluding his trilogy.
Again, as I haven't seen it, this might be completely wrong
Just a bit at odds with how he's finished previous films.
im pretty sure one thing the studio will have wanted is that ending. People are stupid and need these things explained thoroughly to them. Much like i assume he wasnt allowed to kill any of the main characters including Batman. The franchise has to carry on and even with a reboot people are less inclined to go along with it when they already think theyve seen the definitive story where he dies.
Also Nolan will still get scriptnotes from producers even though he can write the story that he wants and nearly all those notes will probably be "you need to explain this thing to the audience better" hence loads of unnecessary exposition.
The whole thing was too long.
Marion Cotillard is one of the most fantastic looking women I've ever seen on film.
Too many quivering lip moments with BIG. ORCHESTRAL. MUSIC.
The whole thing was too long.
Genuinely gutted when she turned out to be a baddie.
awful, awful acting.
Minor issues included Bruce Wayne sleeping with that woman (forget her name) when prior to that they had displayed no attraction to each other whatsoever, and it felt like Nolan was having his cake and eating it with the ending.
But yeah, found it enjoyable.
I loved Bane's voice. And I thought they really nailed his character. People seem to not like the *puppy dog* but when they were recounting the story Hardy's face as he looked up and the tear streaming down Bane's face I thought were heart wrenching.
Also his back story is that his father was a revolutionary so the whole way of bringing down Gotham probably was his idea.
I liked it when Hathaway disappeared while Batman was turned around and Batman's like *So that's what that feels like*
Sure it had a Biggles quality to it, but that was kinda the point.
WHAT A LOVELY VOICE!!!
Was absolutely wonderful
-you could've taken Catwoman out entirely without affecting the plot. that would've given Miranda more screentime, maybe the twist would've then been better set up (I know it's all in the comics and more, yada yada yada)
-both too long and too rushed. took bloody ages to get to the big explosions, and then the siege was rushed. like the script was pasted together from various drafts.
-Robin, I like that name
-they didn't trust the audience being able to figure any big themes out without someone delivering a teary-eyed monologue about it. as per usual with this series.
-would miranda really shag the man who killed her father? she only wanted the bomb, but I thought she had it in the bag by then.
-The Dent Act - what was that?
-and the moment Alfred told his tale about the cafe in Florence, or wherever it was, it was obvious how the film would end.
so, Wayne Enterprises built a nuclear device that is so experimental and dangerous it could potentially destroy a whole city, and they needed to have an emergency flooding system on standby. So, of course, they built it directly below a city of 12 million people, so that they could use the water from the river for the flooding system.
It would be inconceivable to build it in a lab in the middle of the desert somewhere and have a huge water tank next to it.
It was relatively ambiguous wasn't it? Might have just been Alfred imagining it.
but Bale is sitting there with Hathaway, so I'd say it can't be Alfred's imagination because apart from the quick scene where's pretending to be staff at the manor, he never met her and wouldn't have included her in his fantasy.
would have involved Catwoman in her suit and heels.
Did you watch a different film. Hathaway isn't there.
It is clearly meant to be an ambiguous ending, open to the viewer putting their own spin on it (spin on it, like inception, geddit?)
It's far from perfect but really enjoyable.
DiS: business as usual.
Nolan is DESPERATE to direct a Bond film, eh?
and really wishes he had directed Heat.
Bane has turned Gotham into an isolated city-state which he is ruling through fear. Why does he allow the bulk of Gotham's police department to survive underground?
This is especially perplexing when we learn that 'cops are being hunted down like dogs' in the city proper. Why would he allow food/supplies to reach them and why wouldn't he just flood the tunnels or kill them in some other way? In other regards his security apparatus were all over things, like when they almost instantly discovered that small advance party of special forces types. It doesn't ring true.
And was targeting the above ground leadership
The thing is, they're films about a guy who wears a mask, doing the superhuman against over-the-top baddies in a make believe city. You wouldn't bother questioning half of these things in Begins or the average superhero flick, but TDK was so tight that people are now scrutinising this film with the same lens, understandably.
I thought the reason Bane was hunting down those cops and killing them was partly because they were from the outside world. When it came to Gordon and his men, he merely captured them and left them at the mercy of the Judge. Which, if it's a mad man, is essentially executing them but hey...
The score. Fucking hell. The only time it wasn't constantly thundering away over the actor's voices was during the back-breaking fight scene.
Speaking of the back-breaking fight scene. Pretty sure you don't cure someone's broken back by hanging them from a rope 'until [they] can stand'. You also can't just pop a vertebrae back in like that.
The big battle at the end where it was cops vs. criminals. I felt kind of uneasy about it, as you were meant to be rooting on the police (the good guys) who were taking Gotham back from these horrible terrorist who were threatening and killing Gotham's privileged people. It felt like rich vs. poor and the rich always win (yeah, I went there).
Talia al Ghul's death scene. Classic sticking-the-tongue-out-letting-my-head-drop-to-one-side death scene stuff from Marion Cotillard that looked a bit daft.
But that's it. Enjoyed the rest of it. It was a little bit more fantastical than the previous too, I thought, which I think means more liberties can be taken with stuff, as it should in a bloody superhero film, you know?
Really liked Anne Hathaway! She was the winner for me, completely changing my view of her as an actress.
I thought Bane was good as well. 'What a lovely, lovely voice!' was the best line. And Tom Hardy put across the cool, calm, indestructible confidence well.
I like the references to No Man's Land. That was the first adult/serious Batman arc that I bought the comics of, way back in 1999 or something like that.
And actually, thought the ending was pretty good. It made me realise where the title came from (OOOH).
And less varied.
Maybe it's because Zimmer did it on his own this time around.
without access to modern conveniences, most men would've had some beard growth going on.
then having to climb out and do it all himself at the end. Enjoyed the simile / metaphor / analogy / juxtaposition / whatever of the light at the end of the tunnel he kept striving towards.
Watching the trailers before TDK, it struck me that the whole of Hollywood is still mining this harsh, violent streak in films.
Bond looked like it had ripped off Bourne. Bourne looked like it had ripped off Batman. Judge Dredd was trying to be TDK on a budget. Man of Steel even used the same bloody font as Batman did FFS.
I sort of hope The Avengers reminds people that they can have a bit of fun if they like.
Tonality wise, Nolan did exactly the right thing with the Batman arc, but I'd hope that the whole industry doesn't just rip this style off for the next 10 years.
in that the Hollywood commissioning process will be more likely to encourage that sort of film.
Spiderman and X-men while being Marvel have different studios behind them than the Avengers franchise and they're leaning closer to the grand narrative of the Marvel/Disney films.
After Batman there aren't many mainstream recognisable/saleable characters who you could give the Nolan treatment too.
DC's Green Lantern film was more like the Marvel films and Superman has always been a big stupid blue and red edgeless lump.
Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, none of them lend themselves all that well to being cool gritty and monolithic in the way Batman can be.
In mainstream terms you're left really left with Wolverine and Punisher and both of their solo outings have been a bit dodgy really.
someone needs to remake daredevil
after that first att- *reuuch* sorry. That fir- *reeeuuuccch*.
has a great origina story & would work imo
First, anyone saying this or TDK is the greatest superhero movie of all time is still spelling 'The Incredibles' wrong :D
Onto the film:
+ Bane was a surprise delight. I didn't know much about his character going in (a brief read of his Wikipedia page left me underwhelmed) but I think his transformation into a revolutionary figurehead was an inspired move. Although one could argue that the reason The Joker thrilled and terrified was because he had no real motivation other than his own chaotic nature, so giving Bane such an intriguing philosophical outlook/poignant history humanised him a great deal more than Nolan and co intended. Tom Hardy is a superb actor, however, and nobody could have done such a good job with so few decent lines and the most expressive weapon in any actor's arsenal hidden behind a mask.
+ Hathaway. Oh. My. God. Loved her. Loved how she was tough and badass without sacrificing her femininity. Especially liked her character's practicality (I mean, how else were they realistically going to deal with Bane in the end?) A very welcome addition.
+ The story. Rambling and uneven it may have been, but the final third was brilliant (albeit with some undertones I'll cover further down). I think you could argue the ending seemed tacked on and rang hollow, but I would say that after living, suffering, and nearly dying with Bruce/Batman in darkness and despair for the better part of ten years, both he and we deserved a fittingly positive conclusion.
+ The first fight between Batman and Bane. Truly dark, unsettling stuff. The fact that that goddamned soundtrack was turned throughtout it, meaning we only heard the flat packing sounds of Batman's ineffective punches, served to intensify the stark brutality of the scene.
+The Bat. Not as cool as the tumbler, but pretty cool.
+Carcetti's cameo. Wicked.
But but but:
- Anyone watching this for some deep socio-economic thinking is an idiot (I'm aware you lot aren't). The whole 'Occupy Gotham' vibe was handled badly from the start and was perceptibly jettisoned around the middle of the second act when the film took on a more fantastical element. The sheer amount of wrongness involved was staggering, but a couple of things which disturbed me:
1) Poor people rising up against the wealthy, oppressive elite is apparently an apocalyptic threat to all of society.
2) Multi-millionaire filmmakers and actors telling the masses watching their film that Armageddon is the only logical outcome to any attempt made by us to bring justice and fairness to the economic infrastructure.
3) Being encouraged to root for an incompetent, easily misdirected and corrupt police force as they charge the huddled masses and relentless beat and batter them to a collective pulp. Nolan, a man who wants us to believe in his genius and visionary status with the same fervour he apparently does, could surely have recognised that while the police represent order, they don't necessarily represent justice, and explored this concept further.
4) Drawing explicit parallels between a fictional, terrorist organisation and a real world, largely peaceful mass movement against the cruel whims of late capitalism is not a clever idea in a mass market blockbuster.
- The worryingly unprovoked monologues and info dumps. This is something which ruined Inception for me and often left me sighing with resignation during TDKR. Joe Gordon Levett had a dozen or whatever, Hathaway had a couple, Michael Caine had four or five, Jim Gordon three or four, Bale several, Bane every other scene. No good. Film is a visual medium, man. Show, don't tell.
Better than Batman Begins, not as good as The Dark Knight, TDKR is still superior film making on a technical and emotional level. It just about earns its 8/10 from me because the good points far outweigh the bad.
I'm a loser but i'm not that bad
I think Inception's explaininess was a lot more intrusive
thanks for TOTALLY FUCKING IT UP FOR ME.
Not least the idea that Gotham has managed to massively reduce crime whilst still having massive income inequality.
But more importantly, a lot of it was just really silly.
Was the nuclear bomb naturally decaying (as mentioned) or was it a ticking time bomb (as indicated by the count down)? Either way, it takes you out of the film when he's scraping it along the ground, swinging it around and shooting fire at the truck carrying it (!). Obviously lots (and lots) of other plot hole things, which don't usually matter in this sort of film, but a good few that ruined the suspension of disbelief.
Yes, that one, thanks for explaining it though
..was a moan about the clumsy Clean Slate exposition dialogue.
Also New York has massively reduced its crime levels but still has a gaping chasm between the rich and the poor
* Hathaway was great as catwoman.
* On the whole I liked Bane. When he first opened his mouth I thought he sounded ridiculous, but I quickly came round to it and I now think the voice was a stroke of genius. While I liked the character sometimes I feel his use was a bit repetitive. The first time he appeared holding the lapels of his jacket was a very striking image... the third and fourth time not so much. Plus there were a few too many scenes where he would be standing there with his goons when you least expect it... apart from you do expect it in the end.
* I actually liked the jail being in it. There was a line where Bane said *You think the darkness is your ally? I was born in it.* (or similar) and I really liked that it was tied in. I also liked the chanting. I thought the vertebrae thing was ridiculous though. And I also wondered how Wayne got to Gotham so quickly.
* I didn't actually like the Bat copter thing. I've always liked it when Batman gets wreaks havoc himself. Bit of stealth, lots of punching, bit of caped flying. Whatever. I'm not so keen on the big Bat machines dominating, and I felt like in the film it's the gadgets that get first place over Batman doing his thing up close. I guess that's to do with the character's age and the physical strength of Bane as an adversary though. Also the scene where the Bat helicopter is being chased by the missiles reminded me of Avengers Assemble, but just not as good.
* Groaned at the Robin bit.
of sound and fury signifying absolutely fuck-all
hey, at least the sound and fury were good though
hope this film gets treated as the daft, fun comic-book idiocy it is and not like some kind of profound window into our collective soul
best thing about it: Nolan's ability to convey panic and awe
worst thing about it: the egregious attempts to rationalise absolutely everything, from Bane's motivation to the existence of the nuclear device to that stupid fucking prison and Batman's stupid fucking escape (he didn't use a rope HE TURNED OFF HIS TARGET COMPUTER) to the pointless plot-twist to how Bane was able to take the whole place over etc etc etc etc etc
can't they just rerelease Akira, would fancy THAT shit on a big screen
and I spotted them the tickets, so the evening wasn't a total waste ;)
Glad you liked the film as well.
and there are screenings here and there quite often. but YES
After Catwoman disappears after he rescues her, he says "so that's what feels like" in his Batman voice. It's one thing articulating a thought when you're alone but why would use a silly voice?
It's only a little thing but both my son spotted it.
Liked it a lot but didn't love it, there was just something missing the whole time and unfortunately that was Heath Ledger. Substitute the Joker for Bane with the exact same plot (backstory aside obvs) and the film could stand alongside TDK, as it is it's not even close.
Looks like I'm in a minority here but I really had problems with Bane, impossible acting job given his mouth was covered the whole time and unfortunately the whole re-dubbing/audio adjustment of his dialogue was just taking me out of the film world all the time. I thought his actual voice was a bit daft rather than sinister as well.
Hathaway was surprisingly brilliant, JGL was great (I love him in everything though, Best Actor Oscar within 5 years I reckon) and Bale was absolutely fantastic for the first time in the trilogy, the resignation and humanity he bought to Bruce Wayne was long overdue, his Batman voice is still ludicrous though.
Like everyone else I had problems with the ending though, Robin? Fuck off. Oh the autopilot worked after all and he's not dead? Fuck off. Pretty sure there was studio pressure there to keep it open ended.
it's like Nolan has left it open for someone else to completely jump the shark for number 4.
It was telegraphed from the moment Michael Caine made his speech near the start. They probably could have found a more interesting way for him to fake his death but I had no problem with the emotional resolution being him finally trying to find some peace.
Similarly I thought the handover to JGL was absolutely fine in every respect except the naffness of Robin being his name.
Would've been a perfect ending to a fantastic trilogy. So near but so far. I just don't really think it was what Nolan wanted, it felt kind of like the ending of Source Code in that you can tell the exact point the director wanted it to end and then there's a bit tacked on at the end.
it's on youtube somewhere but you can find Duncan Jones and the writer explaining how they specifically wanted the ending the film has, and how those controversial last minutes actually make the film more fucked-up, in a good way they intended. I also think the story wouldn't work without those last minutes.
If that film had ended with the still of them kissing it would've been perfect. The final few minutes undid a lot of great work.
I honestly think this is one of those rare cases where heroic self-sacrifice would actually have been more of a cop-out than to try and find a happy ending. OK, the happy ending didn't quite work but the entire thematic point of the film seemed to me that, in some ways, giving up to a noble death is an easy option. If he'd actually then done it, ti would have utterly undershot that.
I've no reason to think it wasn't what he wanted and, whilst I'm not getting at you personally, I'm baffled as to why so many people on the internet seem to be convinced Nolan didn't have control on what the ending of the film was. All I can say is that, to me, the ending made perfect sense - even when he supposedly had died I never bought it for a second and I'd have been deeply unsatisfied if it had just ended there.
but I don't believe Caine really saw them at the cafe.
It wasn't a massive leap of coincidence, just him turning up where Alfred said he went on holiday anyway and hoped to see him. Certainly not the biggest credibility leap in the film.
on the day that alfred said he always went to the exact restaurant alfred said he always went
helped along by the fact that Bane had the voice of Dr. Sanchez from Darkplace.
That's ruined any subsequent rewatches then, cheers
OK so get this: a supervillain traps everyone inside gotham and holds large groups of ordinary people hostage with a bomb to demonstrate that people will become savages and turn upon each other! But turns out some people are inherently good and honorable after all! And batman has a sluggish fistfight with the bad guy.
I know, it's a wild guess but you never know.
Did any of you actually go to the cinema with the intention of being entertained, or did you all go along with your notepads intent on picking minor plot-holes and continuity errors so you could be smarmy towards the wider population?
Pretty much everyone is saying that they were entertained and found it enjoyable.
Discussing things you liked and things you didn't like is what talking about films is all about. It's not smarmy to criticise and it's absurd to suggest that any negatives are borne from some indie-snarking when everyone here has been to see one of the highest grossing films of all time.
it's not sneering to point out flaws that pull you out of the story of a supposedly serious and intellectual film (what? they build the nuclear device under the city? He got back across the world to a city under siege with no passport, money, friends or equipment? etc)
and without the use of a notepad. You should try- it's a useful skill that can be transferred to reading the paper, listening to music or even having a conversation.
but then I couldn't help noticing the boulder-sized plot/character/morality/aesthetic-experience-holes leering out of the gloom
If we all approached it in the same spirit that we approached, say, Fast Five...
It's obviously not intelligent cinema in a Kieslowski/Bergman/Lynch way is it but for all his obvious faults Nolan has given us some comparatively weighty summer blockbusters for the last few years.
I personally think it's really encouraging that something like Inception can rake in absolutely absurd box-office returns with an, again, comparatively high concept.
It makes me mad that he's come in for extra criticism from cinema purists when he's one of the few filmmakers actually trying to raise the intellectual standards of blockbuster/mainstream films when the rest of the genuine shite just gets accepted for what it is.
Not a very eloquent post.
...as long as you succeed in the endeavour, and Nolan is the pass master of solemn pretention and empty import. His films operate along childishly simple moral pivots, and at no stage address questions that are in any way abstract - everything is tediously, mind-numbingly concrete, and attuned exclusively to a contemporary Western view of good, evil, myth and reality.
Besides, Inception was high-concept? In its assertion that dreams consist of onrunning battles against MEN WITH GUNS and BAD EXPERIENCES FROM THE PAST it is both ludicrously reductive and genuinely insulting - it treats dreams like *things* to be moulded, played around with, entered - it transforms the abstract and the magical into the coldly pliable, the concrete structure about which the vaguest notion of a plot can be hung and left to dry - and it is therefore a symptom of our desire to quantify and rationalise - an impulse that is not only against the spirit of philosophy but a DANGER to our collective thought
I fundamentally disagree with you there.
As for Inception, like I said, it's contextual and comparative. Everything you've said there would be a lot more relavant were it not for the fact that it's a film which HAD to have mainstream appeal as well.
It's so easy to sit and snark because you're knowledgeable about wider cinema than the vast, vast majority of the film going public but it's absolutely pointless and somewhat self-defeating to hold a big, mega blockbuster to the exact same standards as more highbrow works.
Ultimately a film like Inception or any of this trilogy is going to get casual film fan, Joe Public's brain working more than 95% of the shit that gets churned out en masse every fucking summer. That should be applauded in my opinion however much of a failure a more cine-literate mind deems it.
because a popular failure will always usurp a little-known success in the popular consciousness
Some films haven't had to sacrifice intelligence for mainstream appeal. Hitchcock, maybe even Kubrick, a few others...
And I bet if the internet was around back then there'd be some condescending snarks bemoaning Vertigo for not being Wild Strawberries.
the initial drafts were rejected for being 'too Philip K Dick' and the end result was Total Recall.
Which has some nuggets of insane and wonderful ideas about identity and notions of memory and societies influence on the self coupled with enough awesome tropes of blockbuster movies of the time to actually get people watching.
That's probably the last 'big' movie I'll go to bat for - and the Death Of Freck bit in five minutes does more for the subconscious than Inception blah blah blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
I'm just re-reading that last paragraph as well, I try my hardest to not resort to insults on here but you really come across as an aloof dickhead sometimes.
A danger to our collective thought. Fuck me.
we're going to completely fuck over how we look at the subconscious, in its mysterious and powerful depth
There's little that pisses me off more than a literal approach to psychoanalysis, the idea that we can analyse our minds and our thoughts according to a moral template rather than a shifting and often oblique set of personal experiences
I mean, if you go 3 dream-levels down you can even implant an idea! Why? Because dreams are STRUCTURES that RESPOND TO THE LOGIC OF NUMBERS AND HUMAN WILL
fuck that positivist shit, I want mystery, I want the uncontrollable, the surreal, the lack of explanation
Maybe avoid a summer blockbuster then.
I don't know how or even if this has veered into some left brain/right brain conflict but surely you can recognise that mainstream cinematic appeal (Nolan) and highbrow, abstract philosophy do not cannot make good bed partners?
And that basically tells me everything I need to know.
But there's nothing at all wrong about enjoying something with hugely lofty ambitions, and abstract concepts etc, Synecdoche, New York is one of my favourite films of the last decade.
It's possible to enjoy films like that alongside big blockbuster releases but you've got to accept that they're very different animals and take them on their own merits and resorting to condescending pseudo-intellectual criticisms of the latter is an exercise in pure snobbery.
I love Die Hard and lots of weird stuff but The Tree Of Life is the very definition of a film that tries for the lofty and fails so badly that I couldn't quite believe it.
an accurate description of every post by that lad
Mulholland Drive is the single postmillennial American movie that portrays dreams in the most intelligent, imaginative and interesting way. If you haven't seen it, please do - it's seminal, will be regarded as an all-time classic if it isn't already
I don't think you understood Inception
What did I miss?
That was pretty much the central part of the film, a theme they spent a great deal of time of explaining apparently heavy handedly- you could not give someone an idea, nor control their responses. The Cobb character manipulated circumstances, but for an idea to take hold it had to have been conceived entirely and solely by the mark. And the manipulation, again as very clearly and explicitly stated repeatedly in the film, had to be emotional, cathartic. Not logical.
Seeing as you've arrived at the opinion that the (alleged) politics and morality of The Dark Knight Rises are reductive or dangerous, it's odd that you didn't pick up on this.
he did so as the result of careful planning - the type and level of emotional manipulation was carefully calibrated by the troupe of dream-invaders, so while the Damascene moment was purely emotional and independent of its bizarre and decidedly undreamlike fighting-armies-of-men-in-the-snow context, it was led to by a clearly-definable structure of expedience.
Unless they were just going to go deeper and deeper into more and more battlefields until at some arbitrary point he decided he'd be better off selling his company (and then managed to remember this in the conscious world - the relation between under and over is often highly tangential)
I'm not really sure why.
First off, the film was a fantasy rather than purporting to be fact-based science fiction. Secondly, nobody has any idea how dreams work - even Freud/Joseph Campbell etc. are working on guesswork rather than evidence.
So you seem to hate the film for being something it wasn't trying to be and obviously couldn't be.
but in our admittedly prototypical examinations of the dreamworld we've discovered it to be a place of tangent, abstraction, and only partially predictable recall. I'm saying that there is NO literal description for how the subconscious works, and to assign it one so concrete and clockwork is a gross imposition! There's nothing wrong with portraying dreams in film but I'd much prefer it, aesthetically, if those portraying did so in a way that attempted to convey the sheer and manifest weirdness and liminality of dreams (see above for my Mulholland Drive encomium, a film that wasn't exactly obscure upon its release).
Yes, it was a fantasy, but one that purported to reveal something of the mysteries of the subconscious but did so in a tediously narrow-minded way. In my opinion.
don't think it did, like
First off I don't think it purported to reveal anything of the kind. It created a world relevant to its own plot which, as with many films, you needed suspension of disbelief to accept but I don't think it was trying to present itself a wider truth of how dreams work and tell us about the human condition.
Second off I'd question your use of the word discovered in the first paragraph - speculated or proposed would work better. Quite simply, we've never yet found an effective way of exploring dreams and understanding their nature and I'd say question implies an element of 'fact' that simply isn't there.
not sure why I wrote question there.
that invaded dreams with malevolent intent
Nolan's...proposal that this is an aspect of the dreamworld was a claim for explanation, was it not?
I suppose this might be Nolan's truth - he's an architect by training, perhaps all of his dreams are ordered structures with repressed experiences returning like clockwork to ruin the fun
was that it seemed to be onto something good, then turned into Call Of Duty about an hour in.
Shit, we forgot the guns and explosions! Put them in! Put them in now!
I didn't think I'd have to explain that. Blimey.
then Nolan has truly had his cake and eaten it
high concept doesnt mean high brow, inception was definitely high concept
Was The Matrix high-concept then? Because that concept was much more interesting and well-executed than Inception's.
I suppose it was, really :/
High concept simply means you can pitch the concept of a film in a sentence and succinctly state what it's about.
shoulda been more of her... liked that it actually had a climax, which TDK massively failed to do. Batman ought to have died, tho it obvious he wasn't. quite liked Catwoman tho all I could think of was that the role was quite similar to Black Widow in Avengers but not as well played
as well as some plot points mentioned by others, it generally suffered from all the faults Nolan's films frequently do - portentousness, massive info dumps, too much score and deafening action, characters that just feel like a collection of plot points, being overly long hollow as hell with nothing beneath the surface, self-indulgence etc.
also that fucking prison was just dumb... ooh look the Dark Knight is LITERALLY rising from darkness
this is Batman tho, dodgy politics are par for the course
lets not forgot this series has drawn heavily from Frank Miller's Batman stories.
Frank Miller said that the Occupy movement was made up of criminals and rapists.
I don't think the comparison holds up at all, tbh
Whilst he's used a lot of Miller's stories, their Batman bares no comparison at all.
For Miller's Batman, the answer is order and it's always at the end of his fist.
For Nolan's Batman, he does things a bit like a Miller Batman, but then realises he's wrong. In TDK he'll do anything necessary to beat the joker, but becomes so preoccupied with doing so that he loses sight that the only way to beat ppl like the joker is to maintain your legitimacy. He realises too late and has to take the rap for Dent's crimes to maintain that.
In TDKR he thinks the only solution is to re don the suit and smash up Bane, but Alfred is right, Gotham needed Bruce Wayne more. He'd lost sight of what his parents had tried to teach him - his preoccupation with crime means he'd lost sight of the wealthy engaging with society. Problems in society go much deeper than just crime. He sacrifices Batman to solve the immediate danger but I think his last act - handing over his house to the orphanage - shows that he realised that he and the rest of the 1% fostered the conditions that allowed Bane to exploit.
Basically, Nolan's Batman goes out a beating, but then realises there's more to it than that and makes personal sacrifices to try and make society better.
Miller's Batman believes everything can be sorted with a good, solid beating
...and I'd also like to make it clear that I thought The Dark Knight was a good film that hung together coherently and brought a telling insight into the morality of civil protection.
However, there are still a few questions about the latest film that need answering. Handing over the house to become an orphanage is an altruistic gesture, but it's also true to say that most of the criminals (and Batman himself) were orphans, and the slightly distasteful subtext is that a child brought up outside of a nuclear family will turn out either a bad apple or a vigilante.
I know it wasn't the film's place to question the very existence of a Western democratic society (i.e. there was no doubting that its removal was A Bad Thing) but it could have been a little more sensitive to the inequalities wrought by the nature of the society, and the police's role to uphold these inequalities.
So yes, you have a good point, but I'd say that the creating of the orphanage is weakly symbolic at best, and a compromise with the rest of the film's politics at worst. There's much more to a harmonious society than the fair treatment of vulnerable children, although I do agree that this is the first and most basic step.
It was the only gesture he had left.
As for the nuclear family point I think you're reading a bit too much into that. Nolan has tried to make this series more grounded in reality, but he's still dealing with comic book characters who have dramatic backgrounds. Bane comes from a 2.4 children family and decided to overthrow society whilst having an argument with a rich kid in Econ100 at a red brick uni doesn't quite have the same dramatic gravitas as the son of South American revolutionary thrown in prison with his father and forced to fend for himself
I really disliked this thread.
in that it almost completely buckled under the weight of its own complexity. it feels like sometimes he needlessly overcomplicates things or paints himself into a corner, and you're left wondering about all these tiny little holes when maybe you should just be focusing on the bigger brush strokes.
in this respect, i think it will get weaker on repeated viewing when you aren't as awed by the spectacle.
...and marion cotillard was completely shit.
however....some beautiful monologues. alfred coming to tears and talking about the cafe was beautiful. really liked bane saying 'i was born in darkness, you adopted it' and that whole chat.
would've liked to have seen more chat from bane in that respect. all the talk before was about his intelligence and eloquence despite the power and brutality, so it would've been nice to see more of it.
in short. some great, brilliant moments, but pretty flawed the more you focus on it, just like the other two.
and i wish brian cranston was commissioner gordon.
(Although I think Oldman is great in the trilogy)
Only one winner.
I AM THE DANGER!
it's no bloody 'Heat'.
the born in darkness thing bothered me a bit because it fitted in with what we knew about the kid that escaped but it turns out he wasnt that kid, fine we can assume their must have been two kids born in darkness but I dont like it when you have to invent things for a film to make sense, and it kind of takes a way a little from the whole backstory rather than one person being born in this hellish prison, a powerful and unique origin, it turns out it must be fairly common place, to me it seemed that the whole story was based around bane and then at some point they decided it needed to be a little less striaght forward and have the twist, so they just adapted what they had developed for bane and gave it to her. Or I guess he could have meant is bane persona was born in darkness I suppose but then that would have been adopting darkness like batman.
i had considered this.
when you think about it, bane's just a guy who got sent to a prison*, took a liking for a little girl and then got a kicking for his troubles.
not as good that. just sounds like the makings of a Sun campaign.
*a prison that pretends to be scary, but has a telly, British thesps swanning about, a regular activity evening and a well-rehearsed choir group.
he'll stare you down and use big words and talk about grand themes and concepts that will make you forget all about DKR's many creases.
cracking me up, bro.
good film, stop being jebends all of you.
but was just shown this:
- Bane was wonderful, so was Seline Kyle.
- Blake was fabulous; it didn't need the "Robin" bit. Not at all.
- The whole twist with Talia was SHITE. Groaned. Hated it. Didn't need it. Now we have no idea where Bane came from, nor his motivations. That undid so much of the mysticism about Bane. Annoyed me a lot. and the sex scene... grr.
- Why'd Selina Kyle kiss Batman? Was she kissing Wayne instead?
My biggest bugbear was that the McGuffin of the bomb was crap. It felt really forced, kinda like the two boats in TDK. But, whilst watching it, it worked. I just don't think it will hold up to watching again.
And then don't get me started about the stupid intuition that Blake had that Wayne was Batman. That was shite.
From the above, you'd think I hated it, but quite the contrary. the sense of panic after the birdges collapse was amazing, much like the destruciton in War of the Worlds it was rather firghtneing and awe inspiring. really quite shocking. also, the quite sound track less fight with Bane and Bats was amazing. Alfred was 100% the boss and the movies are more about him wrestling with the responsibility of Bruce Wayne for his parents and the responsibility to Wayne and Batman.
:''( destroyed me
really liked it in the end, although for most of it I just thought it was 'pretty good' and was a bit bemused how Empire could give it 5 stars.
One thing that no one seems to have mentioned above...why did Bruce have to make the big leap to the platform when climbing out of the prison? It looked to me like he could have just carried on climbing straight up and saved himself some time.
aside from the 'your name is Robin thing' I really liked the way that Blake was being setup to become a sidekick and/or takeover from Wayne.
The only bit about the final scenes that I didn't like, was that Batman survived. It would have been a brave and rare move for a Hollywood film to kill off the star and main character. For a minute I thought they might actually do it at the end, after they wimped out of killing Batman earlier - the fight scene between Bane and Batman was great, and a little bit uncomfortable to watch the hero getting a kicking, but the impact of it was a little undermined by the fact that Batman/Wayne survived.
Did he survive.
Seems fairly obvious that there is ambiguity in how that scene can be interpreted. Alfred having his dream again to cope with his loss.
Shocked by how many people have taken a simple reading of the final scene.
Surely a run up would make it easy?
very good indeed, and I've never really enjoyed Christopher Nolan's films either. Only issue was that I couldn't hate Bane- he was the fucking coolest villain I've seen in a good few years.
absolutely having a laugh, anyone who claims that's a great film. almost walked out halfway through and wish i did.
It was a very good ROMP as it were.
Points of order:
- Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon is the best thing in the film and probably the best character in the trilogy. Just brilliant.
- Bane's voice veered from menacing to camp at quite a rate. I enjoyed it though.
- Tried to fit too many ideas into it, pretty much a Nolan trait. By the end it felt quite bloated. Bankersrevoltanarchyfaceyourfearrightandwrongdfeirgnrtgt oowwwww.
- I am now in love with Anne Hathaway so much that I fear that I might begin subconsciously dropping her name in every sentence.
- Gordon-Levitt was good, though would have thought some people might have recognised he was a cop.
Continuity errors have been pointed out before so won't go into it. But hey, Bane was ace, catwoman was ace, Batman was meh and Gordon was god so it's ok.
me too. *sighs*
becoming a bomb when the core is removed?
batman being gone for 8 years but 8 year old orphans drawing the bat symbol in chalk as if they knew abou tthe old batman but never bought the current belief that he was a monster? where'd they learn that from?
wonder if it means we'll get a nightwing movie next
& if they will introduce the other two robin's in time as part of that story line as well
the twists were telegraphed with the tattoo on cotillard's back & alfred's little talk about going to the cafe
but if the bomb had a 6 mile radius bruce you would have seen the ejection from the bat, shirley?
tdkr > bb > tfk
all I can think about is that the fucking Pittsburgh Steelers were in it.
but what annoyed me most about this film was that Blake figures out that Bruce Wayne is Batman almost instantly, but it takes Gordon to the end of THREE FILMS to realise.
And how noone got the least be suspicious that Batman and Bruce Wayne had disappeared for EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.
Unnecessary cheesy ending. Other than that, good fun.
he was just good at hiding it
Batman buggers off at the end of TDK when Harvey Dent is found dead and goes into hiding.
But Bruce Wayne was still about being Bruce Wayne for a good while after that, trying to develop a new technology that would deliver free energy to the city. When he realised it couldn't be done safely, he gets all depressed because he can't help people as Bruce Wayne and goes into hiding.
one thing that I don't see anyone touching on - the visual representation of Gotham, and how it got increasingly worse across the three films.
In the first one, it looked like how Gotham is usually described, a rough mixture of Chicago and New York, skyscrapers and narrow rivers and clustered streets, with a really distinct style of elevated trains.
In the second one, it just looked like Chicago, with really obvious Chicago landmarks in the shots, and a completely different kind of elevated trains.
In this one, it was just New York. No elevated trains, really wide boulevards, really old looking subway tunnels, really wide rivers with big, impressive bridges, and multiple shots involving probably the most famous skyscrapers in the world.
I appreciate there's a fair amount of time between the first and last film but (a) nothing changes that fast and (b) the physical geography of the city vastly changes. For someone who makes really detailed films I don't understand why Nolan has such poor grasp of visual continuity in this way.
and 'Saks Fifth Avenue' was so clearly displayed above the door I almost assumed it was a James Bond style paid placement.
I tried to reason that maybe Gotham has a Fifth Avenue, and maybe that street would have a branch of Saks... but really, you're right, it's just bollocks laziness.
The Stock Exchange was so clearly Wall St too.
Didn't give it a lot of thought in any of the trilogy
yeah Gotham is bascially New York but in Begins it had a real sense of being it's own place with the Narrows and the elevated train, it was just as much a character in it's own right.
Then with the rest of the films Nolan's forgotten all that and basically makes Heat with a guy in a costume. I think that removing it from Begin's Gotham to New York/Gotham makes some of the more fantastical comic book elements jar more more.
Still really like all the films but i think it's a shame he didn't stick with that style.
but so so so thin with such massive eyes
Did anyone notice how when looking up out of the prison the opening is huge, but when climbing out it seems to be the size of a well.
Agree with a lot of the above, but two main problems for me would have to be a) the score, which was obnoxious basically... and 2) the conservative politics that underpinned the whole thing, was an uncomfortable watch : ' you have 3000 men down there?' ' NO, we have 3000 POLICEMEN down there...'
but the line you've quoted isn't really anything to do with it. The special forces guy is saying the police won't be able to fight Bane because they haven't seen daylight in months. Blake says their training and discipline mean that that doesn't matter.
is that surely part of the point with Bane and specifically Talia was the idea that the desire for popular revolution gets corrupted and exploited by the rich as much as anything else does.
To me, the flaw with calling it inherently conservative is that traditional hierarchical organisations (the police, the leaders of the city, the national government, corporations) are portrayed as complicated and corrupted as anything else. If I was going to be the kind of pretentious person who reads and theorises about films I'd say the conclusion of the film is more that any organisation or any organised movement ultimately corrupts itself and that the solution presented towards the end is to drop out and pursue individual goals (hence Wayne sells up and moves on, Gordon-Levitt's character quits the police to do things his own way, Alfred quits to become his own person etc.) I don't even necessarily think there's a contradiction with Selena Kyle - she's not really ideologically motivated so much as doing what suits her individual need at any given time and there's no direct contradiction in her going off with Wayne at the end.
The problem I've got with the comparisons to the Occupy movement are more practical than anything. Wall Street was occupied in September and became a major news story deal in October. The Dark Knight Rises started filming in May and principal photography finished in November so it'd would have taken some pretty hasty re-writing and shooting for Occupy to be at a particularly big influence on the script. It might have influenced the edit but to say the entire film is about the Occupy Movement ignores the fact it'ss virtually impossible for that to be the case.
*I skipped to the end about halfway through
I assumed that Nolan had basically used the idea of Occupy and associated themes as a jumping-off point. Was it actually a massive coincidence?
So it's not so much of a coincidence as both being influenced by themes that were in the public domain already.
But the simple fact is the film was two thirds into filming before Occupy even began. Obviously its possible that Nolan saw the footage of people spilling into the streets and shot some extra scenes but there's no way it can have been a major influence on the shooting script or massively influenced the plot 'cos the chronology doesn't tally.
I'm actually surprised so many writers and commentators have missed that given the shooting dates are in the public domain.
The Joker was an infinitely more interesting character and plot device than Bane for a variety of reasons and the feeling that I keep returning to, and that taints a series of films I had otherwise very much enjoyed, is that the ending completely lacked conviction.
TDKR very specifically alluded to Gotham's need for a philanthropist rather than a vigilante at various points, but it probably wasn't given the weight it needed to make it a more central theme. Perhaps there's some fanboy hero worship thing going on with me that refuses to countenance criticism of Nolan, but as I said after initially seeing the film (up there somewhere), the last hour or so just screams studio exec at me.
The way Talia appropriates his life story — and seriously, if Bane isn’t the guy who fought his way out of the prison he was born in, what the hell is he? — reminds me a little of that time J. Peterman bought Kramer’s life stories.
I honesty don't think studio execs interfere as much as media suggestions tend to think and, when they do, it's more likely to be with the first of a franchise.
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were massively successful and the studio execs gave Nolan a free hand and a shitload of money to make Inception and Nolan gave them one of the highest grossing films of all time.
Studio execs aren't stupid enough to interfere with something that's making shitloads of money and attracting critical acclaim. You can be pretty certain whatever was in the film was what Nolan wanted.
It's a lot more comforting to be able to blame the suits when a film ends up as some sort of half-cocked mess.
that what he wanted here is so different to what he wanted elsewhere.
Meant to say I really disagree RE: studio involvement. Virtually every account of a production that I've ever read, no matter how big and trusted a name the director/lead/producer/writer was, has been fraught with interference. I think it's more likely that it happens as a matter of course than is an irregularity.
Bit off subject though.
There's some good points in there, but mostly it's a jumble of his own vocabulary
My issues with that article, are that whilst some of the imagery (police beating up revolutionaries on Wall Street) was uncomfortable, as I said upthread my take on it was the main point was Bruce Wayne's exile as a metaphor for the rich's disengagement of society allowing the conditions for someone like Bane to exploit it; that actually Gotham needed Bruce Wayne to follow in his parents' footsteps more than it needed Batman.
But more than that, he calls the film bloated yet wants a full psychological analysis of Gotham's citzens. His main issue with the film seems to be that it wasn't a Political Science lecture
I think your take on it works, definitely. But essentially I'd say there's a middle ground to be struck between *full psychological analysis* and *depicting Gotham's citizens as an unthinking violent mob*
Fine, I admit it, I mainly liked it because of the Seinfeld joke.
the odd decent point, mostly utter shit
also am I being dense: I don't quite follow how an infinite source of energy leads to the end of world poverty? would help certainly but it seems like something of a simplification
DESPITE IT BEING THE PLOT OF THE FILM THAT IT DOES
it'd be like Michael Bloomberg trying to do it. does BatmanWorld not have Wikipedia?
I've posted this about 20 times now but are none of you even open to the slightest possibility that the ending is ambiguous.
I got the feeling it is quite possible that it is Alfred dreaming once more, attempting to console himself as a way of handling his loss.
Nolan's pretty known for his ambiguous endings (Inception obviously, Memento as well). if it was meant to be taken so, it would've been. Alfred turns around, sees the back of a Bale-type head, it cuts back to Alfred and he's smiling.
I'm not inclined to read too much subtlety into anything else that happens at the end.
you mean like earlier in the film where he saw a bale like head?
at the end he was facing alfred
also i dont get how memento was ambiguous
have you watched it in chronological order?
but I thought the point of that ending wasn't some much if he got the right man or not (and he prob didn't) it's that since he can't form new memories all he has left in his life is avenging his wifes murder which is the last thing he does remember.
So he will go on will he has been and probably keep accusing innocent people. That's why he says ''You might not be John G but you can be *my'' John G''.
Not seen it in years though.
It was made pretty clear in the film that Wayne had fixed the autopilot and then clearly shown that he was alive. There was absolutely no ambiguity involved in the way it was shot and, as Guntrip says, if that's what Nolan was going for he'd have shot it in an ambiguous way.
He's never seen them together, they weren't involved at all before the events that directly led to his death and I'm not even sure then that he did something in front of Gordon at the end to suggest they were an item.
It defies logic.
Fair enough if that is you lot's opinion but I have spoken to a few people who thought 'that's alfred's dream'. I didn't initially think it was, but I can see it that way.
The auto-pilot thing does make it less subtle sure.
Was it actually anne hathaway in the final scene? I really don't recall it being her
Not being funny but I'm not really sure it comes down to a matter of opinion where everyone's opinion is equally valid. It very, very clearly wasn't shot to be ambiguous and its pretty clear that's not Nolan's intention.
if it had ended with "YOU PRICK!"
People get so fucking prickly on here.
he doesn't mean literally dreaming, and the flashback shots of him sitting at the table and seeing some other couple who turn out to be someone else are presented as an actual flashback and not a dream so yeah it's not supposed to be a dream
because several people I know have similarly missed it and thought up a still lame but considerably better 'ambiguous' ending like you have.
whilst simultaneously being a high end Chinese gangster
If I say WHAT A LOVELY LOVELY VOICE!!! one more time
so part of my brain was just killing time while I waited to hear it. Felt like cheering when it finally came up.
Went to see this today and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was just a series of 24 condensed into 2.5 hours though, wasn't it?
*seriously, if Bane isn’t the guy who fought his way out of the prison he was born in, what the hell is he?*
either he was born there as well, which makes a child being born there not as rare as they make it out to be. Or he was just some random bloke who got thrown in there like all the others.
And if they had this legend about one child who escaped, how come no-one bothered to remember or mention that the child was a little girl.
– he said *No, this is Bane's prison now. He would not want this story told.*
One thing that occurred to me, which should have given away the fact there was a twist coming, is that we’re told Bane’s face was horribly mutilated by the prisoners and then the incompetent doctor. But the child in the flashback hasn’t got a scratch…
so don't worry guys, cinema still does exist.
because it was a breath of fresh air to go and see an action movie in the cinema and it actually be a coherent movie with actual action in it.
we all know what the biggest problem with this film was. That line about the lovely lovely voice - the kid didn't have a lovely voice! quivering and trembling in all the wrong places, not hitting notes first time, woeful stuff. completely ruined the film for me. wah wah wah wah.
BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEY KEPT SAYING 'DWP' I WAS LIKE WHAT ARE THE DEPT OF WORK & PENSIONS GOING TO DO ABOUT ANY OF THIS
it just didn't work for me at all and ruined the entire thing.
she completely ruined this movie for me. None of her scenes were believable, verbally or physically. I know it's batman but catwoman was the constant reminder that you're watching a superhero movie. Her stupid action hero quips ("About that whole no guns thing... Turns out I'm not as commited to it as you are" - when the fucking city is about to be nuked - NO, JUST NO) were just annoying and took me right out of the movie, same with the horrible fight scenes where she easily eliminates multiple men 5 times her size. Stupid.
reminded me of an unmasking in a Scream film or something. And the actress of Talia was pretty one-dimensional.
Fucking excellent for the most part but not TENSE all the way through like The Dark Knight.
The pacing felt a bit off, probably because the whole emo-Batman stuff at the beginning went on a bit too long and dragged it down, but once he and Bane meet it really hotted up.
Hathaway isn't annoying, which is quite a feat for her/Nolan.
Also, I really liked how the plot worked and fed back into a whole trilogy. Oddly it left me wondering what sort of third film they'd have made if Ledger hadn't died and the Joker could have been part of it. There wasn't really a place for him in this sort of tie-up.
It's supposed to be LOUD because it's half the point of a film like this, just as in Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Superman, etc. You shouldn't be ignoring the music, you're meant to be following its pace.
I already said I wasn't a fan of the emo-Batman stuff. But when the action got going it was excellent.
not on the wind-up or anything, trust me. i was almost in tears by the end of the three hours. everything that happened in the film was completely and utterly predictable, even for someone who has no interest in the comics. cliche after cliche. the 'fight' and 'chase' scenes were tedious. the film crumbled under the weight of its own epic self-importance, notwithstanding the one humorous line of dialogue in the whole film that people have latched on to (which probably wasn't even meant to be funny, judging by the rest of the film). the 'darkness' and 'bleakness' of the film was piled on so ham-fistedly that it was utterly laughable.
is he going to get out of the hole? i wonder? let's build tension by making him fail 4 or 5 times even though everyone knows he's going to get out of the hole! fuck me. the ending - my god, it was telegraphed so obviously i felt like shouting at the screen when it happened
worst film i've seem in a cinema. (i slept through The Matrix 3). might have been more tolerable if it wasn't 3 hours long..
and yet it still is a good movie. hmmm
that his cape would get caught in the back wheel and cause a major accident? The thing was a genuine snagging risk.
thought it was really good
Liked all the elements.
It must rank among the worst screen death's of all time!
Aside from that though, I really enjoyed the film. Think the trilogy stands very well overall.
Sure there are some flaws but... it's a comic book movie!
If this was a graphic novel series then folk would be creaming themselves. If Bruce Wayne had turned up out of nowhere to meet Ann Hathaway and wasted time making a massive flaming logo on the bridge in a book, you'd all be loving it!
or the guy who Gordon (i think) cajoled into leaving his house..didn't even show his death!
That's not much different to Batman Begins really. There's a lot of fantastical stuff in all three of the films and nods to obvious comic clichés. I think that's fine, given the subject matter.
I personally found the whole ending bit of Begins with Neeson and the League of Shadows and the microwave machine fairly ridiculous, although it's grown on me as I've watched it more.
Her acting for that was absolutely awful. Can't believe that was the best take. "WHAT A LOVELY, LOVELY DEATH SCENE!"
I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of Planet of Apes. YOU MANIACS, GOD DAMN YOU ALL.
And also people saying it should've ended with Alfred smiling without showing Bruce. Yeah probably would have been good but I imagine Nolan wouldn't have wanted another ambiguous ending after Inception. He isn't M Night Shyalamawnana.
I thought it was clearly not a dream but have read stuff since, that it was the same setting as his actual dream earlier (can't remember myself) which is abit weird and it showed batman at the controls with 5 seconds to go (again can't remember myself)
It's not too much of a stretch to assume Bruce kept tabs on Alfred and made sure to go there at the same time as him. There's absolutely no way Nolan would end two films with Michael Caine in a dream.
it seemed a bit weird for all that to just be made relatively meaningless but i mean that sort of that happened a few times at the end of the movie so w/e
the fantasy almost seemed like the more reasonable explanation
Still though, the same cafe
Old man returns to favourite cafe while on holiday shock.
Between Dark Knight and Prometheus this has been the worst year for people tiresomely reverse-engineering how plotholes COULD have made sense just so they can avoid admitting that a film they personally enjoyed is actually total garbage and makes zero sense in terms of either plot or cinematic visual language.
Just seems unlikely, he didn't mention which cafe, he may have at some point not shown I suppose. The ending just seems botched, ambiguous but not even committed to being ambiguous, I really don't know what to make of it
It was the something something cafe in Florence wasn't it? And when he said I got the feeling (filling in holes here I know) that it was somewhere Bruce already knew of i.e. it's somewhere the Wayne family went together while on their hols.
even if he just mentioned the city, surely it wouldn't be impossible for Bruce to track down an old man he's known all his life, going on holiday in a place he's been to loads of time before.
I cant remember to be honest, I thought he described it as a cafe but could be wrong. Dont get me wrong there is plenty to suggest the ending is literal, but there are a few things that dont fit like it shows batman at the controls seconds before it is about to blow up. frustratingly rather than it being open to interpretation it just seems that neither interpretations work and the ending seems a muddle
it was a flashback
would have been better than showing him
the entire rest of the film.
Yeah well done Batman, he'll be dead within a week.
which of these might Gotham need more:
a) a hard-working, honest, brave cop who will potentially lead the police force one day and clean up the system from the inside.
b) a bellend with no training, resources or income beyond his dole money, who puts on a costume and stalks alleyways looking for muggers to beat up.
Pretty much agree with michael w, loui and anal schwarzenegger's opinions.
It was EXCITING but kind of completely vacuous excitement. Nolan is brilliant at set pieces, but fucking hell, the script/story. So much bollocks in it. Way too many plot threads, almost as if they were writing it as they were going along. Would have been so much better if they'd streamlined the story. Characters are walking expositionators.
Marion Cotillard should never do another Hollywood film again. Been really awkward in every role. Really needs to go back to France.
Nolan should jack in this obsession with memory/plot twists for his next film. I think Insomnia was his last film not weighed down by ridiculously convoluted, messy plot.
when it held my interest it held it very well...... such a shame this only accounted for about 25% of the film. The rest of it was messy, boring, far fetched. I didn't care about Batman or Bane in this film at all, contrast that to the Dark Knight with Batman & Joker it's like night & day. Also why the hell where they driving an active nuclear device around the city?
Yeah, it's pretty fucken wicked.