I remember watching the plot twist villain reveal in the movie theater and I was actually surprised. I was so angry with myself, "I know this character. I know that Raz had a daughter, not a son. How could I not see this coming?" If a movie can genuinely surprise someone who knows the mythology, you know something went right.
3:15 The arc didn't start over again. Before Bane broke his back, Bruce was just trying to be Batman again, but he wasn't truly Batman. He was still rusty and wasn't on his A game, which is why Bane absolutely kicked his ass. When he's put in the prison, however, is when he starts to truly rise. As Gotham starts to destroy itself, he has a motivation to be Batman again, and is reminded why he became batman, as well as how. Not trying to change your opinion, just pointing out something more people need to notice.
"And is reminded why he became batman" to suppress civilian revolution and support the capitalist framework that keeps his city crime ridden so he still has a job punching poor people.
I actually love _The Dark Knight Rises._ LOVE it. I liked Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. A LOT. While the Michele Pfeiffer Catwoman was pretty much the ultimate sex-toy fantasy version, and that's NOT A BAD THING, Anne Hathaway's version is so much more realistic and layered. She's out for herself, and that is the essence of Catwoman. If she has to charm a man to do what she wants to do, she will do that. If she has to act like a helpless, hysterical girl, she will. But otherwise, she doesn't give a shit about being anyone's girlfriend. She's not _primarily_ there for the man's emotional support, or as a trophy the male protagonist must earn. Compare this to Mary Jane in the Spider-Man trilogy, who is openly treated as frivolous and useless -- we don't care about her acting career, more than superficially, and she's mostly a thing for Peter Parker to obtain, hold on to, and repeatedly rescue. Those were good movies, but Mary Jane is definitely, DEFINITELY not why! Selina does go through a character arc, influenced by Batman, as she _reluctantly_ falls in love with him, of doing some things because they're simply the right thing to do, or at least to save Batman's ass. This made her a perfect, believeable Selina Kyle as I understand her from comics like _Batman: Hush,_ _Batman: Year One_ or _Gotham City Sirens._ My reaction to her could be expressed as, "This is GOOD feminism, this is the kind of feminism that makes women MORE appealing, not less." But I am biased. Anne Hathaway's tone and attitude is eerily reminiscent of the most influential girlfriend I've ever had in my life. I also really, REALLY like that as "Bruce Wayne, eccentric billionaire" he could choose from a wide variety of top-shelf supermodels, but the real guy (Batman/Bruce/Whoever) loves two (maybe three) women -- Rachael, Selina, and Talia's facade as Miriam -- who just aren't on that supermodel level of ideal/perfect/blank/whatever that men (even me) usually respond to the most. I loved Rachael Dawes, period. Katie Holmes was good, Maggie Glyllenhall was even better. I wouldn't be impressed by Maggie simply from a picture, but through her acting in TDK, I saw her as a VERY desirable woman. Selina starts out as distinctly unlikeable, and not a perfect beauty -- she's simply not Michele Pfeiffer -- but she sells me on herself, she's enough of a mystery to interest me, but she has that "You'll never control me, or even get the truth from me, unless I choose it" attitude. Miram, of course, is a facade. But while she's the least beautiful of the three, you see how -- if she was "real" within the movie -- she could be exactly what Bruce Wayne needs. When her true character was revealed, she became distinctly ugly, which was bold, but the Miriam Tate facade was more than acceptable. It humanizes Bruce more to see that he doesn't just fall for starlets and ballerinas and whatnot. He falls for women who are real people to him, women who make sense to him in his warped and damaged world. I always appreciated this about the trilogy, as opposed to the four previous films that just ran through the hottest actresses they could get. I never felt Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman were cast for their acting talent (to be fair, Kidman's "Dr. Meridian Chase" had some useful science to drop on Batman, but it was nothing an adult shouldn't already know), and that woman who played Julie Madison in Batman and Robin, I'm not sure she was even a real actress in the first place, just a model, didn't _need_ to act, and didn't. Totally insubstantial. The "disposable arm-candy" thing, one new hottie per movie, was just lame, if you think about it. It only works if you go with the "Batman has no sexuality at all" theory, that beautiful women are just accessories to his Bruce Wayne disguise -- which is a pretty good theory, but Nolan's version of Batman was ultimately more healthy, in the sense that he let the women he loved get to know his true self. I know the fans want him to Always Be Batman, and they should HAVE that, but for a trilogy that comes to a conclusion, TDKR had the only possible happy ending that made sense. For that reason alone, I love it and overlook its flaws gladly.
+Ben Culture I really like it too. It's got some problems in pacing and some narrative choices don't completely gel with the themes or characterizations in the movie but I think those problems are relatively minor and at worst knocks it down to a pretty damn good three-star action-adventure piece with reach that slightly exceeds its grasp. Hathaway is definitive in my opinion, Hardy was very good, and Bale knocks it out of the park. Make no mistake, this is a good movie.
+Hezekiah Ramirez -- For some reason, it's huge to diss on Bale these days, but I'm not into it. He was perfect. I've seen Batfleck's movie, and he's extremely good, but the characterization is 100% Frank Miller, which is not authentic Batman.
I didn't feel like the arc started again. he technically became batman again, but he wasn't truly batman again. as Alfred said, he doesn't fear death, he welcomes it, so he fails. not until he's in the pit does he truly get the motivation to become batman again. the man says "you do not fear death, this makes you weak" but then he says "I don't fear death". so when he does climb out of the bit, he truly becomes batman again, the dark knight truly rises.
I loved this movie when I saw it, but all of your points are pretty much dead on. Still loved it though. *see TASM fans, you don't have to rage at anyone who doesn't share your overall opinions and deny actual flaws.
I understand why people get angry when something they love gets criticized, but at the end of the day we go to critics for a unique perspective on a movie, not hear someone "echo" every single opinion we have.
I thought Bane was a terrific villain, real iconic and jet black in his humour & execution. If Heath Hadn't died, it would've been the best Batman film
Even my mom knew that Talia was the main villain of the movie months before it came out, how is that a plot twist only comic fans will get the rumors were all over the internet almost a year before the movie came out.
I feel like that isn't the movie's fault. Sometimes there are rumours, and things get leaked. What disappointed me was that the ending was so predictable and anti-climatic.
I can see where you're coming from, but comparing it to Schumacher is nowhere near accurate. DKR was a story movie. It did focus a lot on characters and had a whole lot of build up. I'll give you that. I've heard really mixed reviews on Rises, but I still think it's a worthy sequel to the Nolan series, and an excellent film. Again, this is my opinion, much as yours is yours.
Me too. When I came out of the cinema I was sure that the general consensus would be that this movie was a disaster that ended Nolan's career or something (the general consensus is always overly melodramatic), and I was genuinely surprised that so many people liked it.
Mm. I still think the point of TDKR was the overall thesis of Nolan's trilogy; that Gordon, and Wayne were these really weird, well intentioned, criminal conspirators that eventually brought Gotham to the brink of ruin out of some irrational fear that not *doing something* was certainly going to bring Gotham to the brink of ruin.
Modest Proposal: At the beginning of the movie, Bruce isn't crippled at all. Catwoman gives the thumbprints to Daggett, who gives them to Bane. Bane goes to Wayne Manor, breaks the Bat, sends him to prison, and then the rest of the movie happens as expected, with Batman absent during all of the chaos until he RISES (obnoxious Nolan sound effect). Tightens the whole movie up quite a bit, actually.
I feel like Bob would enjoy the movie more watching it a second time. I found it to be as satisfying a conclusion to this trilogy as was possible, and it's easily my favorite movie of the year.
Of course, this will all be justified years later when the real-life President of the United States (won't say who it is - you wouldn't believe me anyway) quotes Bane in his inaugural address.
Ok, Captain Hindsight here! First, we make Catwoman the main character! have the entire movie from her point of view and her anarchist views. Make Batman a virtual guest star in this. She actually gets her dream of an end to a hierarchal society but it's not as much fun as she thought. You can even have her try and fill Batman's role why he's busy in that hole on the other side of the world. Also don't be cute, just have Joseph Gordon Levitt's character's name be Officer Dick Greyson!
Any random fight scene on the CW's "Nikita" is better shot, better choreographed, and just all-around more fun to watch than any fight scene Christopher Nolan has ever directed. Which might be the primary reason why I'd like to see Batman make the move to live-action TV.
Very well put together and respectful review, but I don't care for how hes basically saying that making a worthwhile sequel to the Dark Knight was a lost cause from the very beginning.
Christoper Nolan could have ended with any of his batman films they a very contempory and I got them on blu ray as soon as I could thank you christoper Nolan hope you make other great films like inception
I thought that the beat-down between Bane and Batman was actually quite cool in the atmosphere it created. I watched the movie a few times while it was in theaters, and in my last viewing, the theater had a man who brought his pre-teen son along. This kid was a typical comic-movie kid in that he wouldn't be quiet the entire time, that is until the fight, where such a sense of dread/shock was created that even the dumb kid became completely quiet as Bane destroyed batman while explaining why.
superman flew off before batman knew what was going on and said "so thats what that feels like" this is exactly what he said when cat woman runs off on him
Nolan and Goyer suffer from make-it-up-as-you-go-along plots -- the dialogue is indicative of the malaise -- ponderous, humourless and riven with clichés (see Tom Wilknison's hysterical reading of the 'begged like a dog' line in Batman Begins) These are serious little boys playing with action figures in a limitless CGI wonderland, they don't care for character or story -- it's kid's stuff anyway. The Dark Knight is a series of great vignettes with no connecting narrative tissue, just what's needed to get from scene A-to-B, DKR is a mess.
"These are serious little boys playing with action figures in a limitless CGI wonderland, they don't care for character or story -- it's kid's stuff anyway" Spot-on description of Avengers Age of Ultron but whats this have to do with TDK trilogy?
*"humorless "* "Nice Coat" ~ Begins "Do you know how you got these scars? No, but i know you go THESE!" ~~ TDK "Perhaps, you should read the instructions first?" ~~ TDK
Tom Hardy is one of the most physically threatening actors in Hollywood, so I think he was a really great choice and worked well. Bane's funky voice, though, always seemed like an annoying quirk to try to get past instead of a natural feature. And the feeling that he was called in as a last minute replacement to fill the gaping hole left by the Joker colored everything so much that it was really hard to ignore. Anne Hathaway filled an interesting social commentary role, but the femme fatale side of her character was so incredibly bland and utterly un-Catwoman that I'd have preferred it if they just had her be an original character instead. I think that would have worked a lot better. Those notes are of marginal consequence, though. The ultimate truth is that I was actually enjoying the movie a lot until the final half hour or so, then it fell and it fell hard.
I agree with you about Bane's weird voice. I don't know why Bane didn't interest me. Like Bob, I liked that the movie tried to make a unique villain, but I just wasn't impressed. I like Hathaway, but couldn't take her Catwoman seriously. Overall, I think I enjoyed the prison scene best, and the scenes with Alfred were great.
Volvandese In my opinon the bane voice is something that was really great when it worked but was kind of a bit gibberish when it didn't. Like I really loved the scene where bane read aloud commissioner gordorn's confession as if it were wonderful poetry
So many of my favorite critical reviewers have been praising this movie as some kind of outstanding masterpiece. Some going so far to say it was even better than The Dark Knight. But I came out of the movie feeling kind of "eh" about the whole experience. Thank you for giving this an honest review. Although I will say I think you overpraised Anne Hathaway a bit. Not that she isn't a great actress, but her role wasn't really THAT spectacular in this movie.
I think the whole point of Bruce Wayne having to become Batman again in the 2nd half was to show that he hadn't really ever truly become Batman again in the first half at all...
Dominic Walker Catwoman pulls a "Batman" on Bruce himself (disappearing while the other person is still talking, but looking the other way) and he says "So that's what that feels like." In Kingdom Come, it's Superman who gives Bats the slip, but the line is identical.
I think that the badguy in the movie was supposed to be joker trying to prove once again that anarchy lies just under the surface of humanity and when his actor died they had to come up with a new badguy. could be wrong though and probably am
the movie was disappointing but still quite good. it is like The Godfather Part 3 of comic book films, by no means bad but very overshadowed by its own past
+slashandbones13 This. I would compare it to Return of the Jedi as well. ROTJ and TDKR both have brilliant scenes in them and are arguably the most epic in scope, but are the weakest of their respective trilogies for various reasons. I really, really loved Bane though. I don't agree with Bob, I think that he was just as compelling as The Joker.
Odds are he'd say the exact same things about Bane if he was adapted the same way he was in Arkham Origins (with the Spanish accent, mask and Venom intact)
Spencer Malley Possibly. It is interesting though that for a movie that is supposedly so bad, I see it being quoted all the time even four years later.
That's how I see it as well. I believe Godfather 3 and Dark Knight Rises are actually above average entries in their respective genres that just happened to follow the two best of each.
I've never understood how or why Bob's gone from "it's good but not great, and not as good as the other two" to "bad" as mentioned in later videos by him. Man of Steel and the JJ Abrams Star Trek Reboots? Yes, I get it. Going back to hating Micheal Bay and his Transformers films? Sure. But why does he now think TDR is bad? It kinda reminds me of people who turned on The Force Awakens within a year or so.
I think changing one's opinion on both TDKR and TFA are reasonable views to hold. After the drought of the prequels, the world was thankful that Star Wars was good again, that was their bar of expectations. But once TLJ came out, for those who thought the new approach was better and had more substance and thematic weight, TFA paled in comparison. Also, the major failing of TLJ, the casino, is a direct result of TFA wasting so much time being about nothing that it forgot to establish the world, political context and reason for this 30 year in the future trilogy existing, leaving TLJ to have to awkwardly establish whilst simultaneously expanding. Disliking TDKR is probably a decision I less agree with, but it's basically the same standard as the previous example. As the superhero genre continues to be saturated, we keep getting more examples of better films, and it falls further and further down the ranking, comparatively getting worse over time. As someone who saw all the Nolan films after they came out, TDK is the only one which still stands out for me as a legitimately great film. The rest are good, but they pale in comparison to later additions to the genre.
While I love the execution of Bain, Catwoman, and most of the story, I think that what ruined it was Talia's motivation. "I hated my father for kicking Bain, but now I wanted to avenge him by setting up a convoluted attempt to destroy Gotham City because you, Batman, murdered my father." It just seems so stupid. And Bruce didn't murder Ra'as. He left him on a train going on a collision course to fend for himself. And he already saved his life beforehand. According to the novelization. Ra'as' body was never found at the train crash, so how did she know he was dead? The thing that I don't understand is that even if Batman directly killed Ra'as, that's not against the policy of the League of Shadows. The League is known to teach their students to shun mercy, and kill anyone who opposes them, even their masters. It's encouraged among the League. Even Ra'as hoped Batman would directly murder him when Ra'as was at his mercy. Besides, Talia in the comics and animated series had helped Batman challenge her father before. I have trouble believing that Talia in the film just set up this convoluted revenge scheme to break Batman and destroy Gotham just to resolve her confusing daddy issues. It sounds like a last minute excuse to cover something else rather than a legitimate motivation. As a last minute correction, I would've have Talia and Bane merely set up the scheme to test Batman's resolve: not to avenge Ra'as, but to enlist Batman back into the League of Shadows. Batman proved he could recover from a broken back, escape from an inescapable pit, get back to Gotham, and beat Bane. If Talia just wanted to destroy him, she would've just killed him after Bane broke his back. Talia wouldn't have anything to gain from destroying Gotham with an atom bomb, either. I probably would've had Talia decide to end her test of Batman after Bane gets killed by Catwoman. She would leave, but she would still vow to enlist Batman back into the League, and would continue to test him after he has recovered. And in the very end, the Lazarus Pit is hinted to exist, and that Ra'as may still be alive. Who knows how it could've been improved, because there's a lot to the film that does work.
You are totally right, except for one thing: TDK had massive plotholes and WTF character moments. It had a lot of good *moments* in it, many of them extremely iconic and awesome, but the overall movie doesn't hold up unfortunately.
I thought this was the best movie ever...until I thought about it more later on and realized a lot of questions that weren't answered. Watched it again thinking I missed out or something and that's when I can say I really felt the pacing of this movie was just "off", it felt like a multipart series finale rather than a movie. It was passable, I still enjoyed parts of it.
Problem with making a character like Bane is that his character in the Comics and other media was so weird it wouldn't have worked in a realistic movie. A luchadore with a steroid addiction that towers above everyone but still manages to prove himself intellegent wouldnn't have made for realism. While I think that the portrayal isn't accurate or strong as the other villians I wasnt bothered by it and I think he stands pretty tall on his own.
Surely it being the sequel to arguable one of the best super hero movies ever would cause critics to be more heavy handed rather than less so. think about it.
Knowing this is the internet, and knowing the people who liked the Nolan Batman movies, this'll get me a lot of hate, but having watched all but this one, I can say that only one thing in the entire trilogy is... okay. Not even all that good. And thats the Joker. Sure, he is the best live action Joker, by far. But, compared to the DCAU Joker, especially when voiced by Mark Hamill, who is, and probably always will be the hands Down best Joker, In my opinion, even Heath Ledger, whom I respected and enjoyed seing on screen, cannot get to me the same way as just hearing the Hamill Joker laugh his trademark laugh. I mean, had Ledger been alive, do you think they would have picked him for the Arkham series of games? Probably not. And Bale as Batman is probably the worst choice they could have made. Same goes for Bane. While he was never the most complex Vilain, I loved the fact that he was latino in the past. He was one of the few non-caucasians, who weren't monsters in some way, of Batmans enemies, and probably his most dangerous one, not only finding out that Bruce Wayne was Batman, but also breaking his back, and pretty much taking over Gotham. In short, I hate the Nolan movies, they only really have one redeming factor, and even that one is only okay. Hate me if you want, don't care. Nothing you say or do will change my mind, so unless you want to have a creative discussion, don't Waste my time, or your own.
as do I! I just don't like how he was handled in Batman Forever/Batman and Robin. I think that the comics and animated series gave that character the dignity he deserves
I think Bob didn't get the story of the movie. Batman's first appearance is supposed to be awkward and underwhelming since he's only returning as a last measure thing. Then he's defeated by Bane (in the best fight scene ever for my money) and has to "rise" for real.
1:09 you always want to end things on a high but c’mon. There’s no way the film world could have continued unless there was a sequel to the dark knight. I found the end of the dark knight satisfying but not as in the end of a franchise. It felt like this batman had one more story to tell. And if you ask me , he did (albeit a very convoluted one )
the big problem with this movie is that it is less a finale to the trilogy than them burning down the clubhouse so weird joel can't mess it up like he did to old tim's.
In my opinion the biggest problem with DKR and that puts it behind DK is the villain. Bane just isn’t very interesting; he is a one dimensional character only interested in destroying Gotham City for the sake of destroying Gotham City and is, by the end, even robbed of the semi-interesting back story the movie was spent building up. I could watch the Joker for nearly three hours because I wanted to know what he would do next, but I always knew what Bane was going to do next and didn’t care.
Not really I just found the movie to be boring and bit pretentious. Dark Knight was slow and not action packed but the performances and the script were better. So I was engaged.
+Spencer Malley I found Bane to be under whelming he was just a generic bad guy and I felt that Bale wasnt as strong in the role this time around. (just my opinion) Also the whole gulit angle by Gordon bugged me. I could knit pick here and there but the bottom line is this movie in my opinion was a one everybody wanted to see but nobody really wanted to make. The script was just so flat and dragged in the middle. It really felt like the screen writters didn't know what to do with Nolans Batman based on the restrictions of "realism" Nolan imposed on them
Something along the lines of "So that's what that's like" when someone leaves Batman in the middle of a conversation. I forget what happened in the movie, but it happened in Kingdom Come when Superman bolted mid-convo while he's in the batcave.
I loved dkr, but what made the Dark Knight so much superior to me isn't Heath Ledger. It was that the story wasn't mainly about Batman. It was about Harvey Dent's tragic fall from grace, and Batman was just our eyes. Sort of like a more badass Nick Carroway. But that's just me
Nolan's thesis on Batman was The Dark Knight...and it was damn good, the chaos vs order struggle of Joker and Batman was perfect for his talents and he probably should have left it there. I don't think he had anything else to say about the character in this one, he had a lot of ideas, sure, he could have explored them in a movie that wasn't about Batman. I still liked the movie quite a bit, definitely the weaker of the three but I'm glad I saw it. It's funny how opinion differs - I thought Levitt's character was the most unnecessary in the movie. Take Blake out of the story and the film loses nothing, he's just there for the pointless Robin reveal at the end which was hardly worth it - I thought his presence took even more of the spotlight off the protagonist in a movie already overstuffed with characters.
+jomo999 Levitt's character was a necessary part of the movie because he's chosen to carry on the legacy in the end. If Nolan had chosen to walk after TDK, WB would've most likely brought someone else in to direct a third movie, like they did with the Terminator movies.
Huh, after the remaster of the Bat Quartet on The Big Picture included a note from the future about how much The Dark Knight Rises sucked, I hopped over here to remind myself why Bob hates this movie so much and ... nothing. He was disappointed that it wasn't as great as he'd hoped after The Dark Knight, but, as he reiterates multiple times, it's not a _bad_ film. So ... what's with the vitriol eight years later? People typically don't go from "meh" on a film to actively hating it, usually the most passionate responses fade over time.
What made this movie lame, aside from all the stuff Bob points out, is simply that we don't see Batman doing any cool sh*t in it. I go to superhero movies to see the hero being super. The basic formula of a good superhero movie is that a situation is created which cannot be resolved by ordinary means and the superhero does something awesome and saves the day. A good superhero movie has a good story that draws you into a situation where characters you care about are in peril and everything seems just totally f*cked and then the superhero comes along and does the impossible in an awesome way that is fun to watch. The best superhero movie ever is the first Matrix movie, because precisely this happens and it happens at the climax of the film and not in the second act. The Dark Knight Rises has none of this. It's not bad, it's just boring, the same way that Iron Man 3 was boring, because the superhero stripped of his powers is boring, and the superhero getting his powers back is not awesome, it's just a return to the status quo. In the Dark Knight Rises Batman does awesome stuff off-camera, people spend lots of time waiting for Batman to do awesome things, but Batman does not do a single awesome thing on-camera. And no, Bruce Wayne climbing out of some pit is not awesome; that might be awesome in a realistic drama about a normal person like 127 Hours or something, but not in a superhero movie about a billionaire ninja detective. Batman punching Bane in the face is not Batman being awesome, it's Bruce Willis being awesome and this is not a Die Hard movie. I'm an anarchist, I don't like the politics of this movie, but that doesn't matter, I can turn that stuff off because basically all superhero movies are proto-fascist and I still enjoy them if there is some element of fantastical wish-fulfillment. Spider-Man slings web, Thor wields the might of Mjolnir, Superman flies and saves people and stops murderous villains without stooping to their level, and Batman ... Batman picks off the bad guys from the shadows while outsmarting the supervillain in some incredible didn't-see-that-coming display of brilliance. That's what should have happened in this movie and it didn't, not for one minute. Come to think of it, there wasn't much awesome stuff in the Dark Knight either. There was that one scene in the high-rise where he takes out the cops and bad guys at the same time while saving the hostages, which could have been awesome, but it was in the dark and with shaky-cam so that we couldn't really see what was happening. But that was ok because Heath Ledger was so awesome as the Joker. And there wasn't a whole lot of awesome in Batman Begins either, but we were all just happy that Batman was cool and not campy, and the batsuit and Batmobile were kind of awesome. I think we should face up to the fact that Christopher Nolan doesn't actually know how to make a really good superhero movie and just kind of got lucky with Batman Begins and Dark Knight.
I said that Batman didn't do much awesome stuff in The Dark Knight and I was wrong, there is one thing: he snatches the Chinese money launderer from the office tower in Hong Kong. We see the hero get into a situation that we don't know how he'll get out of, then we see him get out, and we see how he did it, in a way that makes sense in hindsight; awesome. But that's about it. Every other awesome thing *that we saw happen* in The Dark Knight was done by the Joker or another character.
"Christopher Nolan doesn't actually know how to make a really good superhero movie" Given that hes made three critically praised ones, That doesn't really seem to be the case at all.
Meh. The critics have their opinions and I have mine. My opinion on the Dark Knight movies is that: (1) Batman Begins was enjoyable because of the freshness of its approach, but failed to deliver the goods in the third act and therefore failed to be a *really* good superhero movie; (2) The Dark Knight was an excellent *supervillain* movie and a very enjoyable movie overall but not a great superhero movie as such (3) The Dark Knight Rises was a tedious bore I really enjoyed Memento and Inception and I certainly had fun watching Batman Begins and The Dark Knight but I don't think that Nolan has actually made a really good superhero movie per se.
Chris Powell "Batman picks off the bad guys from the shadows while outsmarting the supervillain in some incredible didn't-see-that-coming display of brilliance". Batman did a fair amount of the former in Batman Begins as for the latter, He's never done that in movies anywhere (not even in everyones perfect Mask of the Phantasm movie)
Spencer Malley He did the picking off guys from the shadows thing but it wasn't shown in a clear way. Think about how awesome the stealth levels from Batman: Arkham Asylum are and you see how much the Nolan movies suffer in comparison. Or, compare Batman doing stealth with Jean Reno's character doing stealth in that awesome opening scene from Leon: The Professional. My complaint is that the movies *imply* that Batman is doing something awesome, but it isn't actually *shown*. The same is true of the fight scenes; instead of showing us some awesome martial arts we see a lot of shaky-cam and quick cutting and guys fall down for no visible reason. (I realize this was because Christan Bale could barely move in the Batsuit, but that's not a good reason.)
Horrifically over-rated film - Nolan's worst film by some distance. Not a bad film but a dead average mess. How anyone can say this is better than previous two batman nolan films is beyond me. Incredibly pretentious story which tries so hard to say something by not bothering to say anything- empty ideas (as bob perfectly puts it "all text no subtext") its just surface with no depth. The difference in The Dark Knight was they kept the Joker's philosophy nice and basic without trying to pretend it was something deeper than it was and much of joker's ideas are a bit of a decoy anyway. example: Agent of Chaos but still the most organised person in the movie. Talia is an awful cardboard character who even Marion Cotillard cant save (check out her french films not her english ones) and the twist while I get might serve as a surprise or easter egg for the batman comic fans, came across as cheap and really bad for non-fans - as bob says it himself. There's lots of plot holes but I am not the pedantic logical type of reviewer who thinks this makes a bad film (otherwise Inception would be a masterpiece because there are no flaws in the plot, when in fact its an above average cerebral blockbuster which only focuses on the function and mechanics of the plot. It has got very nice visuals and a decent score - but it gets boring once youve seen it once.) Still Inception is a refreshing blockbuster compared to the usual crap so he deserves credit for that. Hoping that Interstellar is more like Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Memento and the Prestige rather than Inception and Dark Knight Rises.
Because it's redundant within the movie itself, and doubly redundant within the series, Batman Begins already did the whole 'setting Bruce on his purpose thing' and it did it much, MUCH better.
It was good but some of its problems (I.E. The 8-year leap, the revelations of Bane, the comic book winks, and a few other things I won't spoil) hinder it from being better. It's nigh impossible to top TDK but I wish it would have been more of an equal. The actors, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, and Anne Hathaway, bring their A-game. The action is great. But its not the grand finale everyone was hoping for. Still, I enjoyed it and I am gonna get it on Blu-ray.
What do director's have against Bane? Schumacher didn't like his backstory or personality, Nolan didn't like his origins or his getup. Seriously, why did Nolan make him wear Darth Vader's crotch piece on his face?
I always thought of this movie as being pretty good though destined to disappoint, and not only forgiven, but considered great by people who let things slide because it's Batman and/or because it's Nolan. It's got problems the way stuff like Iron Man 3 or X-Men: Days of Future past has, honestly. Far from a mediocre or bad movie, but also concretely not great.
I loved everything about it, up to the ending. Then I hated the end. Not Talia, but I mean the Robin Easter egg, quick kiss and then ka boom (ha ha just kidding you know we'd never kill the Batman).
Sadly, the death of Heath Ledger propelled the Dark Knight into a 'god movie', where people automatically deny that any movie will ever compare. Dark Knight was good, yes, but I think people make it out to be more than it is. So when a new sequel comes along, they immediately decide that it will not be anywhere near as good. They are wrong. DKR is a great story, with good characters and ended the series in a meaningful way.
Dark Knight isn't canon either. It's its own self contained story. And the reason they felt they had to remake Batman is because of one person. Joel Schumacher. But I love the 1989 Batman, I just like Dark Knight more :)
Don't anybody flip out on me, but I don't really care for any of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. I especially have little time for Heath Ledger's Joker performance. No, I didn't think it was a never-be-equalled performance. Don't @ me. The central problem I have with them is that they spend to much time being dull and joyless, and being ashamed of their roots not only barely worked here, but didn't work at all when transplanted to Superman. I've had a better time with the least of Marvel Studios's output than the most of Nolan's.
Its always an instant eyeroll to me when people call TDK trilogy "ashamed of their roots". Their all packed to bursting with references to classic Batman comic storylines.
Thing is this I can understand why some may find the dark knight trilogy joyless and not very fun but overall if your a fan of batman then this trilogy still gives you the best most accurate faithful depiction to date. This pretty much applies to all superhero films but what you appreciate is a great story that incorporates the events of the comics. Batman begins is obviously influenced by Batman year one and the long Halloween, the dark knight is influenced by the killing joke and the long Halloween again and if course dark knight rises features knightfall and its that kind of stuff that you appreciate.
It's an okay movie, the weakest in the trilogy in my opinion. The Dark Knight was fucking fantastic and I would argue a modern classic, while Batman Begins is one of the few origin movies that I never really get tired of watching. Rises just felt off and lost my interest by the end.
While I agree that Dark Knight may be inflated a bit due to Ledger's death, Dark Knight Rises is an unholy mess from a plot and charachter standpoint, and if it WASN'T the seqeal to Dark Knight, I'd bet money it would have been savaged in reviews (it was to an extent) with audiences decrying it as the worst Batman film since Schumacher's tenure.
Adam West Batman: mindless entertainment on the surface, profound but ambiguous commentary on society underneath. The Dark Knight Rises: supposedly profound but totally non-committed commentary on the surface, mindless action movie in reality. Not that it makes either of them objectively bad or good, but we should see things for what they are.
I'm glad there are others who disliked it as much as I did. I can't believe this film is as critically acclaimed as it is. It was an absolute mess. I felt that the movie was too long, yet rushed, and poorly paced - let me say I have nothing against three hour + movies. Gordon Levitt was bad in this film, as was Anne Hathaway - and they ruined Bane. His voice was comical, and he never stole a scene once like The Joker did almost constantly. Crappy script and poorly directed.
I don't get what's so great about Catwoman in this movie. She didn't really stand out to me. Maybe a little biased for me to say since I hate Catwoman.
This movie is overhyped and I'm glad reviewers are pointing out flaws. DKR was not appealing (except anyone who wasn't Batman, Bane or Plot Twist), and the ending I hated. Nolan didn't like Penguin because he wasn't "realistic", yet we had a city under siege by terrorists and a Batman that is reckless. I'll stick to the prequels. They were awesome.
I dare anyone to say to tom hardy he couldn't speak well when he worked out so much bane is a tactician in the comics he broke batsmanship back and smashed through arkam asylam setting free the joker and super villains this show how intelligent bane is he weakens batman and finally breaks him sending him in a coma
Sorry, but Anne Hathaway, while somewhat tolerable in the movie, was a HORRIBLE pick for Selina Kyle. I find her pretty overrated overall. Sure, she can act, but her demeanor is pretty bland and uninteresting, at least to me. In order to get that femme fatale/rogue anti-hero-feel, you should go with someone that has that kind of charisma.
Geez, just read the comments. Is it a common thing now to be overly pessimistic on things you were disappointed? I agree DKR isn't as good as it should be for the finale, but I don't feel like throwing superlatives all over the place.
since when has the thirs movie in a trilogy been the best i mean come on we all knew it wouldnt be better than the second one id say this trilogy did exactly what it set out to do and succeed
What bob forgets to mention in the review is that the voices of both batman and bane are hilarious. Batman sounds like someone's comedy impression of a world and bane sounds like sean connery swallowed a whale. The action scenes are forcefully held back and nothing I couldn't catch on an episode of world's wildest police videos and the fighting comes off to me about as weighty and satisfying as watching a pillow fight. This movie sucks.
Spencer Malley Fair minded? What the fuck does that even mean? And why is the go to response from every asshole who can't accept that people have different opinions to accuse people of having mental problems if they disagree with them? We're not the borg, deal with it.
Racecarlock All right, Let me put it this way, I get being disappointed giving the act this movie had to follow but saying that "this movie sucked' is kind of close-minded given the acting, direction and writing are in no way inferior to any of the previous Nolan movies.
Spencer Malley Fair enough, but in all honesty, lines like "I'm afraid you want to fail" don't make sense even with good acting. Also, bane and batman with their silly voices are about as intimidating as silly putty.
Racecarlock I really don't see anything wrong at all with the line you just highlighted. I actually enjoyed Banes voice, it was very fitting given his role as fascist liberator within the movie and it helped to make him distinct among the usual stereotypical voices Bane's received in Animation. I understand complaints about Bale's voice (I truly do) but not every line of dialogue out of his mouth was "where is the trigger" or "this city is full of people". When he's talking normally, He sounds fine.
I remember watching the plot twist villain reveal in the movie theater and I was actually surprised. I was so angry with myself, "I know this character. I know that Raz had a daughter, not a son. How could I not see this coming?"
If a movie can genuinely surprise someone who knows the mythology, you know something went right.
3:15 The arc didn't start over again.
Before Bane broke his back, Bruce was just trying to be Batman again, but he wasn't truly Batman. He was still rusty and wasn't on his A game, which is why Bane absolutely kicked his ass.
When he's put in the prison, however, is when he starts to truly rise. As Gotham starts to destroy itself, he has a motivation to be Batman again, and is reminded why he became batman, as well as how.
Not trying to change your opinion, just pointing out something more people need to notice.
"And is reminded why he became batman" to suppress civilian revolution and support the capitalist framework that keeps his city crime ridden so he still has a job punching poor people.
I actually love _The Dark Knight Rises._ LOVE it.
I liked Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. A LOT. While the Michele Pfeiffer Catwoman was pretty much the ultimate sex-toy fantasy version, and that's NOT A BAD THING, Anne Hathaway's version is so much more realistic and layered. She's out for herself, and that is the essence of Catwoman. If she has to charm a man to do what she wants to do, she will do that. If she has to act like a helpless, hysterical girl, she will. But otherwise, she doesn't give a shit about being anyone's girlfriend. She's not _primarily_ there for the man's emotional support, or as a trophy the male protagonist must earn. Compare this to Mary Jane in the Spider-Man trilogy, who is openly treated as frivolous and useless -- we don't care about her acting career, more than superficially, and she's mostly a thing for Peter Parker to obtain, hold on to, and repeatedly rescue. Those were good movies, but Mary Jane is definitely, DEFINITELY not why!
Selina does go through a character arc, influenced by Batman, as she _reluctantly_ falls in love with him, of doing some things because they're simply the right thing to do, or at least to save Batman's ass. This made her a perfect, believeable Selina Kyle as I understand her from comics like _Batman: Hush,_ _Batman: Year One_ or _Gotham City Sirens._ My reaction to her could be expressed as, "This is GOOD feminism, this is the kind of feminism that makes women MORE appealing, not less."
But I am biased. Anne Hathaway's tone and attitude is eerily reminiscent of the most influential girlfriend I've ever had in my life.
I also really, REALLY like that as "Bruce Wayne, eccentric billionaire" he could choose from a wide variety of top-shelf supermodels, but the real guy (Batman/Bruce/Whoever) loves two (maybe three) women -- Rachael, Selina, and Talia's facade as Miriam -- who just aren't on that supermodel level of ideal/perfect/blank/whatever that men (even me) usually respond to the most. I loved Rachael Dawes, period. Katie Holmes was good, Maggie Glyllenhall was even better. I wouldn't be impressed by Maggie simply from a picture, but through her acting in TDK, I saw her as a VERY desirable woman. Selina starts out as distinctly unlikeable, and not a perfect beauty -- she's simply not Michele Pfeiffer -- but she sells me on herself, she's enough of a mystery to interest me, but she has that "You'll never control me, or even get the truth from me, unless I choose it" attitude. Miram, of course, is a facade. But while she's the least beautiful of the three, you see how -- if she was "real" within the movie -- she could be exactly what Bruce Wayne needs. When her true character was revealed, she became distinctly ugly, which was bold, but the Miriam Tate facade was more than acceptable. It humanizes Bruce more to see that he doesn't just fall for starlets and ballerinas and whatnot. He falls for women who are real people to him, women who make sense to him in his warped and damaged world.
I always appreciated this about the trilogy, as opposed to the four previous films that just ran through the hottest actresses they could get. I never felt Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman were cast for their acting talent (to be fair, Kidman's "Dr. Meridian Chase" had some useful science to drop on Batman, but it was nothing an adult shouldn't already know), and that woman who played Julie Madison in Batman and Robin, I'm not sure she was even a real actress in the first place, just a model, didn't _need_ to act, and didn't. Totally insubstantial. The "disposable arm-candy" thing, one new hottie per movie, was just lame, if you think about it. It only works if you go with the "Batman has no sexuality at all" theory, that beautiful women are just accessories to his Bruce Wayne disguise -- which is a pretty good theory, but Nolan's version of Batman was ultimately more healthy, in the sense that he let the women he loved get to know his true self. I know the fans want him to Always Be Batman, and they should HAVE that, but for a trilogy that comes to a conclusion, TDKR had the only possible happy ending that made sense. For that reason alone, I love it and overlook its flaws gladly.
+Ben Culture I really like it too. It's got some problems in pacing and some narrative choices don't completely gel with the themes or characterizations in the movie but I think those problems are relatively minor and at worst knocks it down to a pretty damn good three-star action-adventure piece with reach that slightly exceeds its grasp. Hathaway is definitive in my opinion, Hardy was very good, and Bale knocks it out of the park. Make no mistake, this is a good movie.
+Hezekiah Ramirez -- For some reason, it's huge to diss on Bale these days, but I'm not into it. He was perfect. I've seen Batfleck's movie, and he's extremely good, but the characterization is 100% Frank Miller, which is not authentic Batman.
I didn't feel like the arc started again. he technically became batman again, but he wasn't truly batman again. as Alfred said, he doesn't fear death, he welcomes it, so he fails. not until he's in the pit does he truly get the motivation to become batman again. the man says "you do not fear death, this makes you weak" but then he says "I don't fear death". so when he does climb out of the bit, he truly becomes batman again, the dark knight truly rises.
Am I the only one who gets an adrenaline rush every time this guy talks. The speed at which he speaks is infomercial worthy.
"Good but not great" is really the only way to describe this movie.
I loved this movie when I saw it, but all of your points are pretty much dead on. Still loved it though.
*see TASM fans, you don't have to rage at anyone who doesn't share your overall opinions and deny actual flaws.
I understand why people get angry when something they love gets criticized, but at the end of the day we go to critics for a unique perspective on a movie, not hear someone "echo" every single opinion we have.
iKhanKing As who enjoyed the Amazing Spider Man I just simply get kind of annoyed when he lists this movie as outright terrible.
I think MovieBob is pulling that "you're only edgy if you hate what everyone loves" movie review stance here.
This movie gets more hate than it deserves.
Nah, doesnt get enough
Or they could just be people who happen to have different opinions than you.
'cause it's terrible.
*****
Hell fucking no.
***** lol even Thor is better than Dark Knight Rises.
This movie gets more praise then it deserves.
I thought Bane was a terrific villain, real iconic and jet black in his humour & execution. If Heath Hadn't died, it would've been the best Batman film
CrippleCrowx Agreed.
In all the discussions for this film, I've never heard anyone refer to Bane as "Lord Humongous". I consider this a grave oversight.
Even my mom knew that Talia was the main villain of the movie months before it came out, how is that a plot twist only comic fans will get the rumors were all over the internet almost a year before the movie came out.
I feel like that isn't the movie's fault. Sometimes there are rumours, and things get leaked. What disappointed me was that the ending was so predictable and anti-climatic.
I can see where you're coming from, but comparing it to Schumacher is nowhere near accurate. DKR was a story movie. It did focus a lot on characters and had a whole lot of build up. I'll give you that. I've heard really mixed reviews on Rises, but I still think it's a worthy sequel to the Nolan series, and an excellent film. Again, this is my opinion, much as yours is yours.
Me too. When I came out of the cinema I was sure that the general consensus would be that this movie was a disaster that ended Nolan's career or something (the general consensus is always overly melodramatic), and I was genuinely surprised that so many people liked it.
Mm. I still think the point of TDKR was the overall thesis of Nolan's trilogy; that Gordon, and Wayne were these really weird, well intentioned, criminal conspirators that eventually brought Gotham to the brink of ruin out of some irrational fear that not *doing something* was certainly going to bring Gotham to the brink of ruin.
Modest Proposal:
At the beginning of the movie, Bruce isn't crippled at all. Catwoman gives the thumbprints to Daggett, who gives them to Bane. Bane goes to Wayne Manor, breaks the Bat, sends him to prison, and then the rest of the movie happens as expected, with Batman absent during all of the chaos until he RISES (obnoxious Nolan sound effect).
Tightens the whole movie up quite a bit, actually.
You know, this was the only film I ever walked out of the theater from. I mean, I kind of had to, everybody was getting shot.
Edgy, yet unoriginal. 2/10
I feel like Bob would enjoy the movie more watching it a second time. I found it to be as satisfying a conclusion to this trilogy as was possible, and it's easily my favorite movie of the year.
Of course, this will all be justified years later when the real-life President of the United States (won't say who it is - you wouldn't believe me anyway) quotes Bane in his inaugural address.
Ok, Captain Hindsight here! First, we make Catwoman the main character! have the entire movie from her point of view and her anarchist views. Make Batman a virtual guest star in this. She actually gets her dream of an end to a hierarchal society but it's not as much fun as she thought. You can even have her try and fill Batman's role why he's busy in that hole on the other side of the world. Also don't be cute, just have Joseph Gordon Levitt's character's name be Officer Dick Greyson!
Any random fight scene on the CW's "Nikita" is better shot, better choreographed, and just all-around more fun to watch than any fight scene Christopher Nolan has ever directed. Which might be the primary reason why I'd like to see Batman make the move to live-action TV.
Very well put together and respectful review, but I don't care for how hes basically saying that making a worthwhile sequel to the Dark Knight was a lost cause from the very beginning.
Not the film to end the trilogy that we deserved but the one that we needed
this was the best of the trilogy
That's an opinion I can't even begin to wrap my head around.... for me it's the worst of the three by a country mile.
Christoper Nolan could have ended with any of his batman films they a very contempory and I got them on blu ray as soon as I could thank you christoper Nolan hope you make other great films like inception
I thought that the beat-down between Bane and Batman was actually quite cool in the atmosphere it created. I watched the movie a few times while it was in theaters, and in my last viewing, the theater had a man who brought his pre-teen son along. This kid was a typical comic-movie kid in that he wouldn't be quiet the entire time, that is until the fight, where such a sense of dread/shock was created that even the dumb kid became completely quiet as Bane destroyed batman while explaining why.
the thing that bugged me the most about the movie is how the hell did Gordon survive the truck crash but Talia died?
superman flew off before batman knew what was going on and said "so thats what that feels like" this is exactly what he said when cat woman runs off on him
Nolan and Goyer suffer from make-it-up-as-you-go-along plots -- the dialogue is indicative of the malaise -- ponderous, humourless and riven with clichés (see Tom Wilknison's hysterical reading of the 'begged like a dog' line in Batman Begins) These are serious little boys playing with action figures in a limitless CGI wonderland, they don't care for character or story -- it's kid's stuff anyway. The Dark Knight is a series of great vignettes with no connecting narrative tissue, just what's needed to get from scene A-to-B, DKR is a mess.
"These are serious little boys playing with action figures in a limitless CGI wonderland, they don't care for character or story -- it's kid's stuff anyway"
Spot-on description of Avengers Age of Ultron but whats this have to do with TDK trilogy?
paulhudd no
*"humorless "*
"Nice Coat" ~ Begins
"Do you know how you got these scars? No, but i know you go THESE!" ~~ TDK
"Perhaps, you should read the instructions first?" ~~ TDK
Tom Hardy is one of the most physically threatening actors in Hollywood, so I think he was a really great choice and worked well. Bane's funky voice, though, always seemed like an annoying quirk to try to get past instead of a natural feature. And the feeling that he was called in as a last minute replacement to fill the gaping hole left by the Joker colored everything so much that it was really hard to ignore.
Anne Hathaway filled an interesting social commentary role, but the femme fatale side of her character was so incredibly bland and utterly un-Catwoman that I'd have preferred it if they just had her be an original character instead. I think that would have worked a lot better.
Those notes are of marginal consequence, though. The ultimate truth is that I was actually enjoying the movie a lot until the final half hour or so, then it fell and it fell hard.
I agree with you about Bane's weird voice. I don't know why Bane didn't interest me. Like Bob, I liked that the movie tried to make a unique villain, but I just wasn't impressed. I like Hathaway, but couldn't take her Catwoman seriously. Overall, I think I enjoyed the prison scene best, and the scenes with Alfred were great.
Volvandese In my opinon the bane voice is something that was really great when it worked but was kind of a bit gibberish when it didn't. Like I really loved the scene where bane read aloud commissioner gordorn's confession as if it were wonderful poetry
+Volvandese I'm sorry but Hathaway was the exact opposite of bland.
So many of my favorite critical reviewers have been praising this movie as some kind of outstanding masterpiece. Some going so far to say it was even better than The Dark Knight. But I came out of the movie feeling kind of "eh" about the whole experience. Thank you for giving this an honest review. Although I will say I think you overpraised Anne Hathaway a bit. Not that she isn't a great actress, but her role wasn't really THAT spectacular in this movie.
so good fight scenes are those choreograph dancing moves,this one that looks like real persons fights is bad.
Well, yeah: Real fights aren't fun. It's like dialogue: No one really WANTS to be realistic, because the real version is boring as shit.
I think the whole point of Bruce Wayne having to become Batman again in the 2nd half was to show that he hadn't really ever truly become Batman again in the first half at all...
What's the line from kingdom come he talks about?
Dominic Walker Catwoman pulls a "Batman" on Bruce himself (disappearing while the other person is still talking, but looking the other way) and he says "So that's what that feels like." In Kingdom Come, it's Superman who gives Bats the slip, but the line is identical.
ah, thank you
I think that the badguy in the movie was supposed to be joker trying to prove once again that anarchy lies just under the surface of humanity and when his actor died they had to come up with a new badguy. could be wrong though and probably am
the movie was disappointing but still quite good. it is like The Godfather Part 3 of comic book films, by no means bad but very overshadowed by its own past
+slashandbones13 You know what? That's actually a pretty good comparison.
+slashandbones13 This. I would compare it to Return of the Jedi as well. ROTJ and TDKR both have brilliant scenes in them and are arguably the most epic in scope, but are the weakest of their respective trilogies for various reasons. I really, really loved Bane though. I don't agree with Bob, I think that he was just as compelling as The Joker.
Odds are he'd say the exact same things about Bane if he was adapted the same way he was in Arkham Origins (with the Spanish accent, mask and Venom intact)
Spencer Malley Possibly.
It is interesting though that for a movie that is supposedly so bad, I see it being quoted all the time even four years later.
That's how I see it as well. I believe Godfather 3 and Dark Knight Rises are actually above average entries in their respective genres that just happened to follow the two best of each.
I've never understood how or why Bob's gone from "it's good but not great, and not as good as the other two" to "bad" as mentioned in later videos by him. Man of Steel and the JJ Abrams Star Trek Reboots? Yes, I get it. Going back to hating Micheal Bay and his Transformers films? Sure. But why does he now think TDR is bad? It kinda reminds me of people who turned on The Force Awakens within a year or so.
I think changing one's opinion on both TDKR and TFA are reasonable views to hold. After the drought of the prequels, the world was thankful that Star Wars was good again, that was their bar of expectations. But once TLJ came out, for those who thought the new approach was better and had more substance and thematic weight, TFA paled in comparison. Also, the major failing of TLJ, the casino, is a direct result of TFA wasting so much time being about nothing that it forgot to establish the world, political context and reason for this 30 year in the future trilogy existing, leaving TLJ to have to awkwardly establish whilst simultaneously expanding.
Disliking TDKR is probably a decision I less agree with, but it's basically the same standard as the previous example. As the superhero genre continues to be saturated, we keep getting more examples of better films, and it falls further and further down the ranking, comparatively getting worse over time. As someone who saw all the Nolan films after they came out, TDK is the only one which still stands out for me as a legitimately great film. The rest are good, but they pale in comparison to later additions to the genre.
While I love the execution of Bain, Catwoman, and most of the story, I think that what ruined it was Talia's motivation. "I hated my father for kicking Bain, but now I wanted to avenge him by setting up a convoluted attempt to destroy Gotham City because you, Batman, murdered my father." It just seems so stupid. And Bruce didn't murder Ra'as. He left him on a train going on a collision course to fend for himself. And he already saved his life beforehand. According to the novelization. Ra'as' body was never found at the train crash, so how did she know he was dead?
The thing that I don't understand is that even if Batman directly killed Ra'as, that's not against the policy of the League of Shadows. The League is known to teach their students to shun mercy, and kill anyone who opposes them, even their masters. It's encouraged among the League. Even Ra'as hoped Batman would directly murder him when Ra'as was at his mercy. Besides, Talia in the comics and animated series had helped Batman challenge her father before.
I have trouble believing that Talia in the film just set up this convoluted revenge scheme to break Batman and destroy Gotham just to resolve her confusing daddy issues. It sounds like a last minute excuse to cover something else rather than a legitimate motivation.
As a last minute correction, I would've have Talia and Bane merely set up the scheme to test Batman's resolve: not to avenge Ra'as, but to enlist Batman back into the League of Shadows. Batman proved he could recover from a broken back, escape from an inescapable pit, get back to Gotham, and beat Bane. If Talia just wanted to destroy him, she would've just killed him after Bane broke his back. Talia wouldn't have anything to gain from destroying Gotham with an atom bomb, either.
I probably would've had Talia decide to end her test of Batman after Bane gets killed by Catwoman. She would leave, but she would still vow to enlist Batman back into the League, and would continue to test him after he has recovered. And in the very end, the Lazarus Pit is hinted to exist, and that Ra'as may still be alive. Who knows how it could've been improved, because there's a lot to the film that does work.
You are totally right, except for one thing: TDK had massive plotholes and WTF character moments. It had a lot of good *moments* in it, many of them extremely iconic and awesome, but the overall movie doesn't hold up unfortunately.
I thought this was the best movie ever...until I thought about it more later on and realized a lot of questions that weren't answered. Watched it again thinking I missed out or something and that's when I can say I really felt the pacing of this movie was just "off", it felt like a multipart series finale rather than a movie. It was passable, I still enjoyed parts of it.
Problem with making a character like Bane is that his character in the Comics and other media was so weird it wouldn't have worked in a realistic movie. A luchadore with a steroid addiction that towers above everyone but still manages to prove himself intellegent wouldnn't have made for realism. While I think that the portrayal isn't accurate or strong as the other villians I wasnt bothered by it and I think he stands pretty tall on his own.
Surely it being the sequel to arguable one of the best super hero movies ever would cause critics to be more heavy handed rather than less so. think about it.
Knowing this is the internet, and knowing the people who liked the Nolan Batman movies, this'll get me a lot of hate, but having watched all but this one, I can say that only one thing in the entire trilogy is... okay. Not even all that good. And thats the Joker. Sure, he is the best live action Joker, by far. But, compared to the DCAU Joker, especially when voiced by Mark Hamill, who is, and probably always will be the hands Down best Joker, In my opinion, even Heath Ledger, whom I respected and enjoyed seing on screen, cannot get to me the same way as just hearing the Hamill Joker laugh his trademark laugh. I mean, had Ledger been alive, do you think they would have picked him for the Arkham series of games? Probably not. And Bale as Batman is probably the worst choice they could have made. Same goes for Bane. While he was never the most complex Vilain, I loved the fact that he was latino in the past. He was one of the few non-caucasians, who weren't monsters in some way, of Batmans enemies, and probably his most dangerous one, not only finding out that Bruce Wayne was Batman, but also breaking his back, and pretty much taking over Gotham. In short, I hate the Nolan movies, they only really have one redeming factor, and even that one is only okay. Hate me if you want, don't care. Nothing you say or do will change my mind, so unless you want to have a creative discussion, don't Waste my time, or your own.
Grey Summers Because of Windows 8's auto correct
As a batman fan it meet and exceeded my expectations
as do I! I just don't like how he was handled in Batman Forever/Batman and Robin. I think that the comics and animated series gave that character the dignity he deserves
I think Bob didn't get the story of the movie. Batman's first appearance is supposed to be awkward and underwhelming since he's only returning as a last measure thing. Then he's defeated by Bane (in the best fight scene ever for my money) and has to "rise" for real.
1:09 you always want to end things on a high but c’mon. There’s no way the film world could have continued unless there was a sequel to the dark knight. I found the end of the dark knight satisfying but not as in the end of a franchise. It felt like this batman had one more story to tell. And if you ask me , he did (albeit a very convoluted one )
the big problem with this movie is that it is less a finale to the trilogy than them burning down the clubhouse so weird joel can't mess it up like he did to old tim's.
In my opinion the biggest problem with DKR and that puts it behind DK is the villain. Bane just isn’t very interesting; he is a one dimensional character only interested in destroying Gotham City for the sake of destroying Gotham City and is, by the end, even robbed of the semi-interesting back story the movie was spent building up. I could watch the Joker for nearly three hours because I wanted to know what he would do next, but I always knew what Bane was going to do next and didn’t care.
It would have made sense to have a Dark Knight Falls in between
Have yet to stay awake during the whole movie. Including the first I saw it in theaters
You must have a seriously short attention span.
Not really I just found the movie to be boring and bit pretentious. Dark Knight was slow and not action packed but the performances and the script were better. So I was engaged.
Danny Garcia What exactly was so "boring"about it?
+Spencer Malley I found Bane to be under whelming he was just a generic bad guy and I felt that Bale wasnt as strong in the role this time around. (just my opinion) Also the whole gulit angle by Gordon bugged me. I could knit pick here and there but the bottom line is this movie in my opinion was a one everybody wanted to see but nobody really wanted to make. The script was just so flat and dragged in the middle. It really felt like the screen writters didn't know what to do with Nolans Batman based on the restrictions of "realism" Nolan imposed on them
anybody know what Batman line from Kingdom Come he is talking about?
Something along the lines of "So that's what that's like" when someone leaves Batman in the middle of a conversation. I forget what happened in the movie, but it happened in Kingdom Come when Superman bolted mid-convo while he's in the batcave.
I loved dkr, but what made the Dark Knight so much superior to me isn't Heath Ledger. It was that the story wasn't mainly about Batman. It was about Harvey Dent's tragic fall from grace, and Batman was just our eyes. Sort of like a more badass Nick Carroway. But that's just me
What was the Kingdom Come line???
Robin was in Rises, we just didn't know it until the last two minutes of the film. Which is stupid.
What's the quote from kingdom come?
It doesn't matter Mask of Phantasm will always be the greatest batman movie ever.
Nolan's thesis on Batman was The Dark Knight...and it was damn good, the chaos vs order struggle of Joker and Batman was perfect for his talents and he probably should have left it there. I don't think he had anything else to say about the character in this one, he had a lot of ideas, sure, he could have explored them in a movie that wasn't about Batman. I still liked the movie quite a bit, definitely the weaker of the three but I'm glad I saw it. It's funny how opinion differs - I thought Levitt's character was the most unnecessary in the movie. Take Blake out of the story and the film loses nothing, he's just there for the pointless Robin reveal at the end which was hardly worth it - I thought his presence took even more of the spotlight off the protagonist in a movie already overstuffed with characters.
+jomo999 Levitt's character was a necessary part of the movie because he's chosen to carry on the legacy in the end.
If Nolan had chosen to walk after TDK, WB would've most likely brought someone else in to direct a third movie, like they did with the Terminator movies.
Huh, after the remaster of the Bat Quartet on The Big Picture included a note from the future about how much The Dark Knight Rises sucked, I hopped over here to remind myself why Bob hates this movie so much and ... nothing. He was disappointed that it wasn't as great as he'd hoped after The Dark Knight, but, as he reiterates multiple times, it's not a _bad_ film. So ... what's with the vitriol eight years later? People typically don't go from "meh" on a film to actively hating it, usually the most passionate responses fade over time.
I have read Kingdom Come and I have seen the movie... which quote is he talking about?
What made this movie lame, aside from all the stuff Bob points out, is simply that we don't see Batman doing any cool sh*t in it.
I go to superhero movies to see the hero being super. The basic formula of a good superhero movie is that a situation is created which cannot be resolved by ordinary means and the superhero does something awesome and saves the day. A good superhero movie has a good story that draws you into a situation where characters you care about are in peril and everything seems just totally f*cked and then the superhero comes along and does the impossible in an awesome way that is fun to watch.
The best superhero movie ever is the first Matrix movie, because precisely this happens and it happens at the climax of the film and not in the second act.
The Dark Knight Rises has none of this. It's not bad, it's just boring, the same way that Iron Man 3 was boring, because the superhero stripped of his powers is boring, and the superhero getting his powers back is not awesome, it's just a return to the status quo.
In the Dark Knight Rises Batman does awesome stuff off-camera, people spend lots of time waiting for Batman to do awesome things, but Batman does not do a single awesome thing on-camera.
And no, Bruce Wayne climbing out of some pit is not awesome; that might be awesome in a realistic drama about a normal person like 127 Hours or something, but not in a superhero movie about a billionaire ninja detective. Batman punching Bane in the face is not Batman being awesome, it's Bruce Willis being awesome and this is not a Die Hard movie.
I'm an anarchist, I don't like the politics of this movie, but that doesn't matter, I can turn that stuff off because basically all superhero movies are proto-fascist and I still enjoy them if there is some element of fantastical wish-fulfillment. Spider-Man slings web, Thor wields the might of Mjolnir, Superman flies and saves people and stops murderous villains without stooping to their level, and Batman ... Batman picks off the bad guys from the shadows while outsmarting the supervillain in some incredible didn't-see-that-coming display of brilliance. That's what should have happened in this movie and it didn't, not for one minute.
Come to think of it, there wasn't much awesome stuff in the Dark Knight either. There was that one scene in the high-rise where he takes out the cops and bad guys at the same time while saving the hostages, which could have been awesome, but it was in the dark and with shaky-cam so that we couldn't really see what was happening. But that was ok because Heath Ledger was so awesome as the Joker.
And there wasn't a whole lot of awesome in Batman Begins either, but we were all just happy that Batman was cool and not campy, and the batsuit and Batmobile were kind of awesome.
I think we should face up to the fact that Christopher Nolan doesn't actually know how to make a really good superhero movie and just kind of got lucky with Batman Begins and Dark Knight.
I said that Batman didn't do much awesome stuff in The Dark Knight and I was wrong, there is one thing: he snatches the Chinese money launderer from the office tower in Hong Kong. We see the hero get into a situation that we don't know how he'll get out of, then we see him get out, and we see how he did it, in a way that makes sense in hindsight; awesome. But that's about it. Every other awesome thing *that we saw happen* in The Dark Knight was done by the Joker or another character.
"Christopher Nolan doesn't actually know how to make a really good superhero movie"
Given that hes made three critically praised ones, That doesn't really seem to be the case at all.
Meh. The critics have their opinions and I have mine. My opinion on the Dark Knight movies is that:
(1) Batman Begins was enjoyable because of the freshness of its approach, but failed to deliver the goods in the third act and therefore failed to be a *really* good superhero movie;
(2) The Dark Knight was an excellent *supervillain* movie and a very enjoyable movie overall but not a great superhero movie as such
(3) The Dark Knight Rises was a tedious bore
I really enjoyed Memento and Inception and I certainly had fun watching Batman Begins and The Dark Knight but I don't think that Nolan has actually made a really good superhero movie per se.
Chris Powell "Batman picks off the bad guys from the shadows while outsmarting the supervillain in some incredible didn't-see-that-coming display of brilliance".
Batman did a fair amount of the former in Batman Begins as for the latter, He's never done that in movies anywhere (not even in everyones perfect Mask of the Phantasm movie)
Spencer Malley He did the picking off guys from the shadows thing but it wasn't shown in a clear way. Think about how awesome the stealth levels from Batman: Arkham Asylum are and you see how much the Nolan movies suffer in comparison. Or, compare Batman doing stealth with Jean Reno's character doing stealth in that awesome opening scene from Leon: The Professional.
My complaint is that the movies *imply* that Batman is doing something awesome, but it isn't actually *shown*. The same is true of the fight scenes; instead of showing us some awesome martial arts we see a lot of shaky-cam and quick cutting and guys fall down for no visible reason. (I realize this was because Christan Bale could barely move in the Batsuit, but that's not a good reason.)
Need more than that. Unless he gets an origin and a story arc like Batman it doesn't freaking count.
Horrifically over-rated film - Nolan's worst film by some distance. Not a bad film but a dead average mess. How anyone can say this is better than previous two batman nolan films is beyond me.
Incredibly pretentious story which tries so hard to say something by not bothering to say anything- empty ideas (as bob perfectly puts it "all text no subtext") its just surface with no depth. The difference in The Dark Knight was they kept the Joker's philosophy nice and basic without trying to pretend it was something deeper than it was and much of joker's ideas are a bit of a decoy anyway. example: Agent of Chaos but still the most organised person in the movie.
Talia is an awful cardboard character who even Marion Cotillard cant save (check out her french films not her english ones) and the twist while I get might serve as a surprise or easter egg for the batman comic fans, came across as cheap and really bad for non-fans - as bob says it himself.
There's lots of plot holes but I am not the pedantic logical type of reviewer who thinks this makes a bad film (otherwise Inception would be a masterpiece because there are no flaws in the plot, when in fact its an above average cerebral blockbuster which only focuses on the function and mechanics of the plot. It has got very nice visuals and a decent score - but it gets boring once youve seen it once.) Still Inception is a refreshing blockbuster compared to the usual crap so he deserves credit for that.
Hoping that Interstellar is more like Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Memento and the Prestige rather than Inception and Dark Knight Rises.
+Lewis C "surface with no depth"
It's the story of a broken man learning how to find the will to live again, How is that "shallow" or "pretentious"?
Because it's redundant within the movie itself, and doubly redundant within the series, Batman Begins already did the whole 'setting Bruce on his purpose thing' and it did it much, MUCH better.
Ciaran Smith So what exactly did you want from a sequel from the Dark Knight? How it could it have not been "redundant"?
Spencer Malley I like how you put 'redundant' in quotation marks. probably because you don't know what it means....
Ciaran Smith I'm well aware of what it means and it doesn't apply to TDKR because it's a completely different arc from Batman Begins.
It was good but some of its problems (I.E. The 8-year leap, the revelations of Bane, the comic book winks, and a few other things I won't spoil) hinder it from being better. It's nigh impossible to top TDK but I wish it would have been more of an equal. The actors, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, and Anne Hathaway, bring their A-game. The action is great. But its not the grand finale everyone was hoping for. Still, I enjoyed it and I am gonna get it on Blu-ray.
What do director's have against Bane? Schumacher didn't like his backstory or personality, Nolan didn't like his origins or his getup. Seriously, why did Nolan make him wear Darth Vader's crotch piece on his face?
I always thought of this movie as being pretty good though destined to disappoint, and not only forgiven, but considered great by people who let things slide because it's Batman and/or because it's Nolan. It's got problems the way stuff like Iron Man 3 or X-Men: Days of Future past has, honestly. Far from a mediocre or bad movie, but also concretely not great.
I'm still pissed that the trilogy throws out Tim Burton's work as being non-canon and "didn't happen" and where the F*CK is Robin!?
You know what I love? ROBIN.
I loved everything about it, up to the ending. Then I hated the end. Not Talia, but I mean the Robin Easter egg, quick kiss and then ka boom (ha ha just kidding you know we'd never kill the Batman).
Sadly, the death of Heath Ledger propelled the Dark Knight into a 'god movie', where people automatically deny that any movie will ever compare. Dark Knight was good, yes, but I think people make it out to be more than it is. So when a new sequel comes along, they immediately decide that it will not be anywhere near as good. They are wrong. DKR is a great story, with good characters and ended the series in a meaningful way.
It's about 40x better than 'The Avengers', but I agree with most of the other stuff said here
Dark Knight isn't canon either. It's its own self contained story. And the reason they felt they had to remake Batman is because of one person. Joel Schumacher. But I love the 1989 Batman, I just like Dark Knight more :)
Got to be honest this would of been a great movie if it was just about GCPD.
“Not as good as the avengers” lmao ok
Well, for me, i really liked this movie. Hell, i fucking loved Bane. But hey, if other people don't like it, fine.
0:47 Cat Woman.
Don't anybody flip out on me, but I don't really care for any of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. I especially have little time for Heath Ledger's Joker performance. No, I didn't think it was a never-be-equalled performance. Don't @ me.
The central problem I have with them is that they spend to much time being dull and joyless, and being ashamed of their roots not only barely worked here, but didn't work at all when transplanted to Superman. I've had a better time with the least of Marvel Studios's output than the most of Nolan's.
Its always an instant eyeroll to me when people call TDK trilogy "ashamed of their roots". Their all packed to bursting with references to classic Batman comic storylines.
Thing is this I can understand why some may find the dark knight trilogy joyless and not very fun but overall if your a fan of batman then this trilogy still gives you the best most accurate faithful depiction to date. This pretty much applies to all superhero films but what you appreciate is a great story that incorporates the events of the comics. Batman begins is obviously influenced by Batman year one and the long Halloween, the dark knight is influenced by the killing joke and the long Halloween again and if course dark knight rises features knightfall and its that kind of stuff that you appreciate.
It's an okay movie, the weakest in the trilogy in my opinion. The Dark Knight was fucking fantastic and I would argue a modern classic, while Batman Begins is one of the few origin movies that I never really get tired of watching. Rises just felt off and lost my interest by the end.
While I agree that Dark Knight may be inflated a bit due to Ledger's death, Dark Knight Rises is an unholy mess from a plot and charachter standpoint, and if it WASN'T the seqeal to Dark Knight, I'd bet money it would have been savaged in reviews (it was to an extent) with audiences decrying it as the worst Batman film since Schumacher's tenure.
I can't understand the shit Bane is talking in the US version. He has a great dub in the german version though :D
Yeah, this should have been two companion films, not a trilogy
Adam West Batman: mindless entertainment on the surface, profound but ambiguous commentary on society underneath. The Dark Knight Rises: supposedly profound but totally non-committed commentary on the surface, mindless action movie in reality. Not that it makes either of them objectively bad or good, but we should see things for what they are.
They fucking neutered Bane in this movie by adding Talia at the end. crap!
I'm glad there are others who disliked it as much as I did. I can't believe this film is as critically acclaimed as it is. It was an absolute mess. I felt that the movie was too long, yet rushed, and poorly paced - let me say I have nothing against three hour + movies. Gordon Levitt was bad in this film, as was Anne Hathaway - and they ruined Bane. His voice was comical, and he never stole a scene once like The Joker did almost constantly. Crappy script and poorly directed.
I don't get what's so great about Catwoman in this movie. She didn't really stand out to me. Maybe a little biased for me to say since I hate Catwoman.
This movie is overhyped and I'm glad reviewers are pointing out flaws. DKR was not appealing (except anyone who wasn't Batman, Bane or Plot Twist), and the ending I hated. Nolan didn't like Penguin because he wasn't "realistic", yet we had a city under siege by terrorists and a Batman that is reckless. I'll stick to the prequels. They were awesome.
Bane the least engaging bad guy in the series? IMO, Scarecrow is worse.
I dare anyone to say to tom hardy he couldn't speak well when he worked out so much bane is a tactician in the comics he broke batsmanship back and smashed through arkam asylam setting free the joker and super villains this show how intelligent bane is he weakens batman and finally breaks him sending him in a coma
Sorry, but Anne Hathaway, while somewhat tolerable in the movie, was a HORRIBLE pick for Selina Kyle. I find her pretty overrated overall. Sure, she can act, but her demeanor is pretty bland and uninteresting, at least to me. In order to get that femme fatale/rogue anti-hero-feel, you should go with someone that has that kind of charisma.
Geez, just read the comments. Is it a common thing now to be overly pessimistic on things you were disappointed? I agree DKR isn't as good as it should be for the finale, but I don't feel like throwing superlatives all over the place.
I would have to put my score a little below yours. It's okay.
It's easy to tell that the two top comments are made by people who didn't watch the review after the spoiler-free part. Oy.
i know what you said.
since when has the thirs movie in a trilogy been the best i mean come on we all knew it wouldnt be better than the second one id say this trilogy did exactly what it set out to do and succeed
What bob forgets to mention in the review is that the voices of both batman and bane are hilarious. Batman sounds like someone's comedy impression of a world and bane sounds like sean connery swallowed a whale.
The action scenes are forcefully held back and nothing I couldn't catch on an episode of world's wildest police videos and the fighting comes off to me about as weighty and satisfying as watching a pillow fight.
This movie sucks.
Racecarlock "This movie sucks" Not according to most fair-minded moviegoers.
Spencer Malley Fair minded? What the fuck does that even mean? And why is the go to response from every asshole who can't accept that people have different opinions to accuse people of having mental problems if they disagree with them? We're not the borg, deal with it.
Racecarlock All right, Let me put it this way, I get being disappointed giving the act this movie had to follow but saying that "this movie sucked' is kind of close-minded given the acting, direction and writing are in no way inferior to any of the previous Nolan movies.
Spencer Malley Fair enough, but in all honesty, lines like "I'm afraid you want to fail" don't make sense even with good acting. Also, bane and batman with their silly voices are about as intimidating as silly putty.
Racecarlock I really don't see anything wrong at all with the line you just highlighted.
I actually enjoyed Banes voice, it was very fitting given his role as fascist liberator within the movie and it helped to make him distinct among the usual stereotypical voices Bane's received in Animation.
I understand complaints about Bale's voice (I truly do) but not every line of dialogue out of his mouth was "where is the trigger" or "this city is full of people". When he's talking normally, He sounds fine.
it's ok the movie came out a few years ago, you can give spoilers dude. No one minds, well 3 years ago when you made this i might have lol
Too bad you're wrong. That's what this guy is clearly doing
Maybe Im alone but I think Dark Knight and Dark Knight rises are on par and Batman Begins is worse than both
He said it was good at the very start of the review. How can you say somethings good but hate it because you want to be edgy.