The Dark Knight Rises Critic Review Thread

[Rowsdower!]

Well, Rex Reed is apparently a troll. I haven't read his full review yet (which I won't do until I see the movie on Friday) but I think this quote on the RT page for TDKR says all you need to know about him:

"Speaking lines they cannot possibly understand, not one actor makes any attempt to be believable. So manufactured and synthetic that they eventually lose all sense of reality, they're like reconstituted orange juice and processed cheese."

Yes, Rex... I'm sure that this cast, packed full of Academy and Golden Globe Award winning and/or nominated actors, phoned in all of their performances, and even if they hadn't, it wouldn't have mattered because they're all morons, too stupid to comprehend the meaning of anything they were saying.

What a douchebag.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by NMaudlin

Hey guys, I see the movie in 4 hours.

Insert jealous comments below.

EDIT: Sorry, I though I was in General Discussion. Thats what I get for posting on an iPhone I suppose. To keep it relevant I will put up a quick review tonight. Im sure theShape has already covered everyones questions by now but I'll be hanging around for any further interrogations. Just dont start with the head...I'll get all fuzzy...

Well..Just don't forget this is a NON-SPOILER thread...if you do, we don't know who you are..but we will look for you..we will find you..and we will kill you. Have good time

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

"Too grim.", "Too long." ,"Bane isn't like Joker." "Too much action" same stuff

"Too grim"
It's the Dark Knight movie. Last movie had sad end.Of course it'll be grim. Protagonist lost his love, his possible successor, took the blame,beaten and shot, he is an outlaw. It would be big **** off to previous audience if it didn't have such tone.

"Too long"
The last movie. It better be long. It's farewell to fans.

"Bane isn't like Joker"
Because he isn't suppose to be like Joker. Tommy Lee Jones/Two-Face anyone?

"Too much action.Too big scale"
It's a Batman movie.Summer blockbuster.Not art house film.

They can criticize direction,acting,story, plot holes and mistakes but seriously, what's wrong with these guys?

It's like watching Red Thin Line and criticizing it because it doesn't similar to Rambo movies.

You're in absolutely no position to be acting like 'oh too long? psh, watch this - IT'S THE LAST MOVIE! Criticism solved.'

That guy has seen the movie, you haven't. Wait until you see it, judge for yourself, and leave other people alone who have different opinions. You'll be amazed at how much stress 'live and let live' will save you in the next few days.

By the way, "The last movie. It better be long. It's farewell to fans." is a terrible argument.

[NMaudlin]

First, and foremost you have nothing to fear. There will be NO SPOILERS in this review. Until 3-4 hours ago I was hiding under a rock in fear of spoilers just like you. I won't be spoiling a thing. I may post a spoiler review elsewhere for those interested in seeking it out. Finally, I DID see it in traditional IMAX the way it absolutely should be seen.

The movie is fantastic to say the least. Anne and Hardy stole the show. I had no trouble understanding lines. Bat-voice was better than in TDK. Lots of really great and unexpected callbacks to the previous films. Im surprised reviewers complained about the second act/halfway point because it contained some of my favorite scenes (though the climax/third act is in a league of its own!) The predictability/unpredictability will vary from reviewer to reviewer. I had a strong suspicion how certain things in the ending would go, but I was surprised by others. The phrase full circle is thrown around a lot and it definitely applies, because the film is the absolute perfect bookend to the trilogy. I have some minor gripes (most are too spoilery to post here, I'm afraid) but as I was leaving the theater I got in my car and as I was navigating home I pulled on to a small side-street that just so happened to be named "Shumacher Lane". That puts perspective on things.

As far as Oscars, Id say chances are low. Its just not an Oscar film (and it wasnt ever meant to be). Maybe some of the smaller awards but not Best Pic in all likeliness. Ill answer any other non-spoilery questions that I can, but I probably wont get to them until tomorrow.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

It's sad that, amidst the sea of glowing positive reviews, the emerging story that's getting real traction is the 2 negative reviews and the vitriolic abuse and death threats those who wrote them have been subjected to.

DEATH THREATS. Over a review.

Aaaah, reminds me of the good ol' days of death threats over Michael Keaton.

Originally Posted by Maximus

I also noticed that there are two reviewers from the same newspaper in Australia who both rated it negatively. I believe their reason was that it was too big and boisterous, but they rated the Avengers excellently when that is almost a carbon copy of Transformers.

They also rated uninspiring and boring movies like Captain America fresh despite TDKR obviously being a higher quality product. It just seems like they want to go against the grain, especially because they work together.

edit - Andrew Urban - rotten - but a bloated one, full of the bling of blockbuster superhero filmmaking, from the giant stunts...

This is the guy who rated Avengers fresh yet it sounds like it could be written for that movie, and he is not the only one. Marshall Fine did the same thing; they just seem like fanboys arbitrarily rating these movies based on their favorite company.

Of course they are. They're reviewers: people giving an opinion. Not any different from what you can find here. What are poeople expecting from them? To tell us what is actually really good? They're just telling us what they think/feel.

[Minus Shock]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

You're in absolutely no position to be acting like 'oh too long? psh, watch this - IT'S THE LAST MOVIE! Criticism solved.'

That guy has seen the movie, you haven't. Wait until you see it, judge for yourself, and leave other people alone who have different opinions. You'll be amazed at how much stress 'live and let live' will save you in the next few days.

By the way, "The last movie. It better be long. It's farewell to fans." is a terrible argument.

I disagree heavily with you. It's pretty clear that people are rating this movie not as much based off the quality of the film but the content. I suppose you can argue back and forth that content drives quality, but I don't think that way. I think it's the movies. A Transformers movie COULD be great if it were given half a thought at story and actual film making tactics applied, like acting... direction... etc. It's a movie, they are fantasy no matter what the genre (see Magic Mike, there aren't that many awesome looking male strippers who ARE into chicks) but as long as the actual film making end of things is solid the movie will be at least solid.

Being harsh on a movie because of the villain they used is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. As someone said... Fans pressured Marvel into pressuring Rami to use Venom and look what we got. Because the movie has huge action pieces.. Uhm did you forget what movie you were going to? That is LITERALLY like giving a Metallica concert a bad review because they played loud and fast music. The negative points that I have read thus far are just complete ********. I haven't heard anyone say the sound sucked, the visuals were bad, the acting was bad, the editing was bad, etc. In fact even in the negative reviews those are given praise. So I stand by what I have said and what it sounds like others are saying, The movie is getting a bit rail roaded because of how people think the movie should have been made. The reviewer should rate the movie they saw, not talk about the movie they want to make. idk it's insanely frustrating. I used to be a reviewer on a fairly prominent website a few years a go. I saw like two movies a week and would review them, so it's not like I am just pointing a finger, I don't really review movies anymore because anymore if you are being fair and being realistic it's boring. People will fluff their reviews to make a name for themselves.

[TomPiltoff]

I have no idea why you're telling me how much better Transformers could be and how Spider-Man 3 went wrong.

Sorry to say this, but you're just reading off the same butthurt template that always begins towards critics around this time of a movies release. Negative reviews come up, fans feel the need to discredit the review and reviewer. Oh not because they didn't like the movie, no of course not. Just that they're terrible reviewers who don't even know how to do their jobs. OK.

Reviews are subjective. People approach movies differently. People write differently. Just accept that you will agree with some and you will disagree with some.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

You're in absolutely no position to be acting like 'oh too long? psh, watch this - IT'S THE LAST MOVIE! Criticism solved.'

That guy has seen the movie, you haven't. Wait until you see it, judge for yourself, and leave other people alone who have different opinions. You'll be amazed at how much stress 'live and let live' will save you in the next few days.

By the way, "The last movie. It better be long. It's farewell to fans." is a terrible argument.

It has to be long. Also fans would like to see as much as they can for the last time. It's not just 3rd part.. It's conclusion. They must create a story includes previous movies and this one.

I don't need to see the movie to tell what's obvious BS.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

I have no idea why you're telling me how much better Transformers could be and how Spider-Man 3 went wrong.

Sorry to say this, but you're just reading off the same butthurt template that always begins towards critics around this time of a movies release. Negative reviews come up, fans feel the need to discredit the review and reviewer. Oh not because they didn't like the movie, no of course not. Just that they're terrible reviewers who don't even know how to do their jobs. OK.

Reviews are subjective. People approach movies differently. People write differently. Just accept that you will agree with some and you will disagree with some.

If you are a critic and you are gonna write about KFC hotwings, you suppose to be proffesional. You can't give negative opinion because of you don't like chicken. You can't give negative opinion because it's hot, it's wings, it's too much.Critics aren't average joe. They are critics. They must do their job objectively.

Again, if i go to KFC and rant about my hotwings are spicy, who would take me serious? If i go to Batman movie, i must know what i'll get and give an opinion about that.

Same for movies. You can't give negative opinion about Charlie Chaplin movie is slapstick, Batman movie is grim, Kill Bill has cheesy dialogs,Machete is ridicilous or Jurrassic Park isn't gore. That's difference between being proffesional and amateur. Knowing what you are talking about. Being objective.

If it was random dude says movie was too grim, i would say it suppose to be grim,maybe Batman isn't for you. But if a critic says it's bad because it's grim, i would call him amatuer and trash his lights off.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

It has to be long.

No, it doesn't have to be and you've yet to make an argument for that (because "it's the last one" doesn't hold water at all).

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

Also fans would like to see as much as they can for the last time.

Right but that's outside of what goes into making a movie. If it was all about how much people would tolerate, TDKR would be 5 hours long.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

If you are a critic and you are gonna write about KFC hotwings, you suppose to be proffesional.

Let me stop you right there, because everything that comes after this is built on that faulty premise. A critic is supposed to tell us whether they liked the movie or not, period. It's not supposed to be people who are just pre-disposed to like Batman that review the movie.

Semi-related, this is farking embarrassing.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

No, it doesn't have to be and you've yet to make an argument for that (because "it's the last one" doesn't hold water at all).



Right but that's outside of what goes into making a movie. If it was all about how much people would tolerate, TDKR would be 5 hours long.



Let me stop you right there, because everything that comes after this is built on that faulty premise. A critic is supposed to tell us whether they liked the movie or not, period. It's not supposed to be people who are just pre-disposed to like Batman that review the movie.

Semi-related, this is farking embarrassing.

That's were you wrong about it. If proffesional critics must be objective and able to support thoughts with facts. They can't be emotional, can't be subjective about the movie.

Their job isn't tell us if they like the movie or not. Their job giving their objective opinions.What's good and what's not with facts. They must know what kind of movie they are talking about.

A critic watch shakespeare's work and say "it's not good, they don't talk like average joe, unrealistic and poetic language is boring" That's just indicates he is amateur. He should have know it's shakespeare. He should know the source.

Seriously, i don't like romantic movies. If i go to a romantic comedy and say "i didn't like it because it was kinda romantic but also it had humour. Not a good mix." That's makes me, me. I don't even write it like that in SHH,but these people able to write in newspapers and such.

That's difference between being a critic and average joe.

About being too long, it's only 13 minutes longer than previous movie. It's a conclusion, 13 minutes more is not much for ending a trilogy.

Fan attack is quite normal. If they do their job bad, they'll be under heat. That's same about every job. Do it good or quit. Funny they can't take negative opinions about themselves but they give it easily.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

If proffesional critics must be objective and able to support thoughts with facts. They can't be emotional, can't be subjective about the movie.

Completely false. Critics are people like anybody else - it's a given that what they write is their opinion.

Now, that doesn't mean that you have to take all critics seriously. Because they're individuals with different tastes, you can find reviewers you trust more than others. I'm not telling you you have to take negative reviews to heart - if you think somebody sounds like an idiot for complaining about length or tone, fine! Feel free to discount them and never take them seriously again. But they aren't doing their job incorrectly.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

Their job isn't tell us if they like the movie or not. Their job giving their objective opinions.

WTF is an objective opinion? Please define that for me.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

A critic watch shakespeare's work and say "it's not good, they don't talk like average joe, unrealistic and poetic language is boring" That's just indicates he is amateur.

No, it indicates he doesn't like Shakespeare. In the future when that guy critiques something, you can say 'hey I remember this guy, he thought Romeo and Juliet sucked. I won't pay him any mind'.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

About being too long, it's only 13 minutes longer than previous movie. It's a conclusion, 13 minutes more is not much for ending a trilogy.

When critics say the movie is too long, they mean unnecessarily so. It's not '2 hours and 45 minutes? That's just too long!' Their argument is that the movie doesn't need to be that long, that the story could be tighter and more concise. You and I may see the movie and disagree, but it's an opinion - you aren't going to disprove it. And based upon your line of argument, you don't even understand the critique.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

Fan attack is quite normal. If they do their job bad, they'll be under heat. That's same about every job. Do it good or quit. Funny they can't take negative opinions about themselves but they give it easily.

Well that's just all BS. Fan attack is normal, but normal ≠ justifiable.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because to be honest you're giving the impression that everything you're complaining about stems solely from the fact that you like Batman. None of these criticisms would come up if they were in favor of the film. The final straw was when you acted as if the idiotic, predictable fanboy backlash is somehow a measured, justified response.

[Baneis8feettall]

We can argue about this all day, but you are not willing to understand the line between being a professional and amateur.

People who don't do their job professionally will always be under heat.

If a critic gives a negative opinion about shakespearian play that "they talk too much and poetic way" He'll be a joke or attacked and probably get fired rightfully.

If you gave Raging Bull negative opinions because it's not entertaining like Rocky series, Jack Lamotta isn't like Rocky Balboa, same thing would happen. Batman has more hardcore and large fanbase, so rightfully they bash stupid reviews.

If you call yourself a critic, you must know Batman is a somber hero. You must know Joker must be funny and over the top and Bane must not. Critics can't be ignorant viewers, they must be re-search these things if they are professionals.

Even if they find the movie bad, they must have reasons that they can prove. Their idiocy exposed and fans are attacking them.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

We can argue about this all day, but you are not willing to understand the line between being a professional and amateur.

We simply have different ideas of what a reviewer should be. It's not that I don't understand your argument, it's that it isn't persuasive. Like I said, we simply have different perceptions of reality if you're defending the people harassing reviewers.

Still waiting for you to clarify exactly what an objective opinion is, by the way.

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

We can argue about this all day, but you are not willing to understand the line between being a professional and amateur.

People who don't do their job professionally will always be under heat.

If a critic gives a negative opinion about shakespearian play that "they talk too much and poetic way" He'll be a joke or attacked and probably get fired rightfully.

If you gave Raging Bull negative opinions because it's not entertaining like Rocky series, Jack Lamotta isn't like Rocky Balboa, same thing would happen. Batman has more hardcore and large fanbase, so rightfully they bash stupid reviews.

If you call yourself a critic, you must know Batman is a somber hero. You must know Joker must be funny and over the top and Bane must not. Critics can't be ignorant viewers, they must be re-search these things if they are professionals.

Even if they find the movie bad, they must have reasons that they can prove. Their idiocy exposed and fans are attacking them.

Hahahaha. Wow.
Good to know that if I didn't like the movie and can't provide a satisfactory explanation as to why I felt that way that pleases you, I'm an idiot apparently.
Some people won't like this movie, plain and simple. Some critics won't like this movie, plain and simple.
Deal with it. You can't possibly justify fans attacking the negative reviewers simply because they didn't like the film, and the fact that you're even trying to automatically makes me lump you in with those 'fans' that are taking things way to far.

[Baneis8feettall]

Reviewing something without having bias opinion (emotional,political etc), knowing the genre and what audience expect, if it's adaptation knowing the roots and what fanbase expect and things like that.

If you review an action/crime movie based on comics, then you must know the action/crime genre and Batman comics well enough. Otherwise you get exposed like it happened by fanbase.

If my father was writing a review about Metallica's Master of Puppets.. he would complain about it's too loud, too fast, lyrics are horrifying, vocalist is screaming bla bla. That's because it's his subjective view. If he knew thrash/speed metal must be loud,fast and have such lyrics and vocals... and judged it after all, he could write an objective review and what's good and what's bad even if he doesn't like thrash metal at all.

That's the main difference between a good critic and my father. That's difference between being professional and amateur.

I'm not against bashing bad critics. They should knew the movie must be grim before watching it. If we know the difference between the tone in Avengers comics and Batman comics, they have to know it because they are the ones titled as "movie critic"

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

Hahahaha. Wow.
Good to know that if I didn't like the movie and can't provide a satisfactory explanation as to why I felt that way that pleases you, I'm an idiot apparently.
Some people won't like this movie, plain and simple. Some critics won't like this movie, plain and simple.
Deal with it. You can't possibly justify fans attacking the negative reviewers simply because they didn't like the film, and the fact that you're even trying to automatically makes me lump you in with those 'fans' that are taking things way to far.

First of all, you are not a movie critic.You are one guy in general audience. You are not titled as movie critic, you are not earning your life for it. You don't have to know anything about what makes a good movie and you can still give an opinion about it even if it's stupid. You would be exposed if you can't back up your negative criticism. However you might still doesn't like the movie.

Movie critics are professionals. It's their job.That's what they do for living. They can't be ignorant, they can't be bias.Even if they give their emotional opinions towards to movie, they must put the line under it. Of course, i'm talking about good critics.

[Juicy J]

Fair enough. If you wouldn't mind, show me an example of a negative review you find biased and objectionable and another negative review that you find valid.

[Baneis8feettall]

Movie critics aren't paid for what they like or not. People don't care about their favorites.They care about if it's a good movie by it's genre, if it's good adaptation from it's roots,acting,story,visuals and other things.

A critic can't go to mexican restaurant and give negative rating because foods weren't like italian. He can't write foods are bad because they are spicy. Good critic would know they suppose to be spicy.Good critic would compare it with other mexican restaurants, compare it with origins and give sourceful review about it. He might say i don't like mexican foods, he might say people who don't like spicy food shouldn't go there but he can't say bad restaurant just because it's not his taste.

Criticism requires some knowledge,objectiveness. If you can't fill requirements,it will backfire like it happened with those critics.

You can't write The Godfather is failure because "it's all machoism, females aren't strong, too much guns and no room for love bla bla" That's something my girlfriend might say.Someone professional would know it's about mafia, it's a crime movie, the way italian mob families work, the original book and write something depends on that. His criticism would have some source.

There is a difference between an expert and random dude. An expert cannot have freedom of ignorance that random dude can have.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

If you review an action/crime movie based on comics, then you must know the action/crime genre and Batman comics well enough.

OMFG, what? No dude, you are so entirely off. I know I said we just have to agree to disagree, and I stand by that as I'm not putting in the effort to rebut you point by point anymore, but this is just so far from the truth that it's laughable.

TDKR has to be a good movie before it can be anything else. If it requires the viewer to be familiar with the comics then it fails.

STILL waiting for you to explain what an objective opinion is.

[LegendAssemble]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

OMFG, what? No dude, you are so entirely off. I know I said we just have to agree to disagree, and I stand by that as I'm not putting in the effort to rebut you point by point anymore, but this is just so far from the truth that it's laughable.

TDKR has to be a good movie before it can be anything else. If it requires the viewer to be familiar with the comics then it fails.

STILL waiting for you to explain what an objective opinion is.

Couldn't agree more! However I will say I much preferred Keaton's Batman to Bales until I more familiarized myself with the Batman comics...Now I just prefer Conroy

Anyway I would also add that the truly greatest superhero movies fall into a different genre first. It's what made the Dark Knight so good and the reason Iron Man 2 ended up looking so lack luster compared to its predecessor.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

OMFG, what? No dude, you are so entirely off. I know I said we just have to agree to disagree, and I stand by that as I'm not putting in the effort to rebut you point by point anymore, but this is just so far from the truth that it's laughable.

TDKR has to be a good movie before it can be anything else. If it requires the viewer to be familiar with the comics then it fails.

STILL waiting for you to explain what an objective opinion is.

Being a critic is a serious job. It's not like random dudes throwing opinions. If you are titled as movie critic, that means you are a movie expert and you have fill all the requirements for it.

A critic MUST know the genre and if it's an adaptation they MUST know the source. They must know what fans expecting from that genre and the source material.

Their negative opinions doesn't depend on reliable things. That's why they get all the criticism by fans.

I already answered your question about objective review couple of posts ago btw.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

A critic MUST know the genre and if it's an adaptation they MUST know the source. They must know what fans expecting from that genre and the source material.

[face_palm] No dude. Are you seriously not grasping this? TDKR is a movie. It's not a comic book. It has to stand on its own two legs as a movie. If it only works if you're familiar with the characters by having read the comics, then it fails.

Also, Batman fans are not the only people going to see this movie. You and I don't need to read reviews because we're going to see this no matter what. This may come as a shock to you, but not everybody goes on SuperHeroHype.com and is a guaranteed day one ass in the seat. There are people who don't read Batman comics or keep up on Batman news, and they rely on critics to decide what they're going to check out. So again, knowledge of the character is absolutely not required for critics.

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

I already answered your question about objective review couple of posts ago btw.

Was it when you said

Originally Posted by Baneis8feettall

Reviewing something without having bias opinion (emotional,political etc), knowing the genre and what audience expect, if it's adaptation knowing the roots and what fanbase expect and things like that.

?

Because honestly, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, that doesn't make any sense. Objective opinion is a nonsense term, as is the idea of 'reviewing something without having bias'. Bias is inherent in everything. It's like saying 'hey I know you hate hamburgers, but put your bias aside and tell me if this is a good one'.

[Voyeur]

Oh man, in less than 12 hours, I will be playing calling in sick to watch The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX at Universal Studios! Can't wait.

[er101]

Just leaving for the film now. Can't wait.