Am I the only one that feels like TDKR prevents Nolan's trilogy from being perfect?

[KalMart]

I liked the idea of what they were going for, but execution-wise it all felt like it was trying too hard to wrap things up, too tidily. And in the process ended up feeling rather truncated and overstuffed. It was almost as if it was made more out of obligation than inspiration, if you will.

As we discussed before, TDKR didn't fall victim to the third-movie 'curse' like so many others do...but it still couldn't quite overcome all of the pitfalls that any third movie would encounter. Although it did still do considerably better than most. Yes, BB and TDK set the bar very high for its own third movie, but I still believe that TDKR fell short on several levels that were independent of internally-built expectations....things that I'd find disappointing in any movie about anyone. But really it's ultimately only that, and not sickeningly bad like so many other third installments can so easily be...and that in and of itself is an admirable achievement.

[JDonaldD]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

I was initially hoping for something along those lines for Bane as well. Then again, the take on the character that we eventually got in the movie has grown on me. I'm not sure whether or not what you mentioned would've actually been more interesting, as I think the Talia background gives Bane more depth as a character, as long as you don't see it as romantic. Another thing worth mentioning IMO is that upon my first viewing of the movie, I was really disappointed with the fact that his revolution seemed to be nothing more than a ruse. Upon further viewings, small details such as that line from the Stock Exchange ('Really? Then why are you people here?'), the disgust he shows towards Daggett, as well as his background in the pit makes me think he did indeed believe in his revolution. It was his own way of fulfilling Ra's' destiny (both proving himself to be the better man and worthy of the LoS despite his excommunication) and it's sufficiently distinct for me that I can accept some of the similiraties to the plot in BB.



Time to put a stop to them. Let's move on.

Yeah, I think there's enough in the movie to suggest Bane really hated the structure of Gotham. He could have done anything in the 5 months leading up to the detonation, he chose the revolution. What I think is interesting is that if the bomb were to go off, to the outside world it would look like a Gothamite blew the city up and failed the test. It would not only destroy most of Gotham but would be pretty soul crushing to the rest of the country. Imagine if this happened in NY and everyone else thought some random citizen pushed the button. It's similar to Joker's test at the end of TDK but Bane insured that the people would fail.

[BatLobsterRises]

I respect your opinion KalMart, and I think you have a very level-headed and unbiased assessment of the film. As I said, a lot of my reaction to it is emotional and visceral, which is hard for me to discount because I think that is largely what the film was aiming for. It did play into a lot of the conventional trappings of "the third movie", but for me, a lot of these elements were more enjoyable than they might otherwise have been in the hands of Nolan. I do think you're right that he tried extra hard to make it clear that this was a definitive ending, because of the ongoing nature of Batman in general and the natural expectation for there to always be a sequel. At the same time, I enjoyed that this was the first cinematic Batman universe where the events of each film carry real weight into the subsequent films, rather than everything being in some kind of vague continuity like the previous franchise.

It's biggest flaw is being overly ambitious, and I say this about a lot of overly ambitious films- that's my favorite flaw for a movie to have. I'd rather a movie of this scale be so large and ambitious that it leaves me wanting a little more, rather than be left with the feeling that the filmmakers didn't challenge themselves or the audience enough. And to be honest, both Batman Begins and TDK had that super tight, packed to the brim, almost montage-esque feel to them in places, that I felt like I was prepared for TDKR to go there when it sought out to encompass such a large canvas. Nolan talks a lot about films like Blade Runner and Star Wars that create an entire world that's off the screen and for me, TDKR really did that.

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

Yeah, I think there's enough in the movie to suggest Bane really hated the structure of Gotham. He could have done anything in the 5 months leading up to the detonation, he chose the revolution. What I think is interesting is that if the bomb were to go off, to the outside world it would look like a Gothamite blew the city up and failed the test. It would not only destroy most of Gotham but would be pretty soul crushing to the rest of the country. Imagine if this happened in NY and everyone else thought some random citizen pushed the button. It's similar to Joker's test at the end of TDK but Bane insured that the people would fail.

That's precisely my take on it. Bane and the LOS had 5 months to do whatever the heck they wanted to Gotham. There were other ways they could have tortured Bruce and brought chaos to the city, but they specifically chose a class revolution. To say that they put no consideration into how this would look to the rest of the country and the world undermines the deviousness and evil of their plan, and also neglects the way Ra's wanted the rest of the world to watch Gotham destroy itself in Begins.

[CJ]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I feel the same way. Although my rating didn't lower once I saw it again on blu-ray. Which is a good thing. I was hoping to appreciate it more than I did when I saw it in theaters. But the flaws were still the same for me, and stood out even more so. But I also appreciated the stuff I liked even more, too.

I don't own the DVD yet, but I've been watching clips on YouTube, and I'm thinking maybe the movie isn't quite as bad as I originally thought.

I still stand by my criticisms of the film, but I'm starting to like it a little bit more now. Originally I gave it a 5/10, now I'm thinking it deserves a 6.5/10 or 7/10.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I respect your opinion KalMart, and I think you have a very level-headed and unbiased assessment of the film. As I said, a lot of my reaction to it is emotional and visceral, which is hard for me to discount because I think that is largely what the film was aiming for. It did play into a lot of the conventional trappings of "the third movie", but for me, a lot of these elements were more enjoyable than they might otherwise have been in the hands of Nolan. I do think you're right that he tried extra hard to make it clear that this was a definitive ending, because of the ongoing nature of Batman in general and the natural expectation for there to always be a sequel. At the same time, I enjoyed that this was the first cinematic Batman universe where the events of each film carry real weight into the subsequent films, rather than everything being in some kind of vague continuity like the previous franchise.

It's biggest flaw is being overly ambitious, and I say this about a lot of overly ambitious films- that's my favorite flaw for a movie to have. I'd rather a movie of this scale be so large and ambitious that it leaves me wanting a little more, rather than be left with the feeling that the filmmakers didn't challenge themselves or the audience enough. And to be honest, both Batman Begins and TDK had that super tight, packed to the brim, almost montage-esque feel to them in places, that I felt like I was prepared for TDKR to go there when it sought out to encompass such a large canvas. Nolan talks a lot about films like Blade Runner and Star Wars that create an entire world that's off the screen and for me, TDKR really did that.

Honestly, I don't really 'blame' the movie a whole lot, and I'm probably a lot more forgiving than I may sound. If anything, it's a good example that things naturally run their course in many films...especially when the narratives for installments entail history/life-changing storylines. And certainly, I would never say that someone is better off not wasting the 2:45 to watch the movie as I would say for others....it's definitely worth a watch. But a certain 'magic' did wear off by the third movie, and that was disappointing, even though not a deal killer.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Honestly, I don't really 'blame' the movie a whole lot, and I'm probably a lot more forgiving than I may sound. If anything, it's a good example that things naturally run their course in many films...especially when the narratives for installments entail history/life-changing storylines. And certainly, I would never say that someone is better off not wasting the 2:45 to watch the movie as I would say for others....it's definitely worth a watch. But a certain 'magic' did wear off by the third movie, and that was disappointing, even though not a deal killer.

Fair enough sir. I can definitely say, being a huge fan of Nolan and all three of his Batman movies, that I walked out of TDKR knowing that I've now had my fill with the franchise and I think this definitely pushed things to the limit where it's basically exhausted itself and I would agree that "the magic" peaked with TDK, for so many reasons. It's best for this to live on in our memories now, rather than get milked to the bone.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Fair enough sir. I can definitely say, being a huge fan of Nolan and all three of his Batman movies, that I walked out of TDKR knowing that I've now had my fill with the franchise and I think this definitely pushed things to the limit where it's basically exhausted itself and I would agree that "the magic" peaked with TDK, for so many reasons. It's best for this to live on in our memories now, rather than get milked to the bone.

And for that, I'm VERY thankful that they decided to make the story an ending.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

Yeah, I think there's enough in the movie to suggest Bane really hated the structure of Gotham. He could have done anything in the 5 months leading up to the detonation, he chose the revolution. What I think is interesting is that if the bomb were to go off, to the outside world it would look like a Gothamite blew the city up and failed the test. It would not only destroy most of Gotham but would be pretty soul crushing to the rest of the country. Imagine if this happened in NY and everyone else thought some random citizen pushed the button. It's similar to Joker's test at the end of TDK but Bane insured that the people would fail.

Indeed, well said.

It was all about showing Bruce he was wrong about the people of Gotham: 'Torture?', 'Yes, but not of your body, of your soul.'

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by KalMart

When the movie came out in theaters, I gave it a 7.5/10. Now that I've seen it on BluRay, with a more normal and less blaring soundmix, I actually rate it at a 7/10. Even removing the unfair comparisons to TDK, it's still the weakest of the three and a rather disappointing piece altogether.

Great post and I agree. I'm still somewhere with a 6.5 rating on this film. The parts I liked I still like and the parts I don't, I still don't. Blu ray unfortunately hasn't changed my mind.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Deffo the worst Nolan movie and worst Nolan Batman movie. Not enough Batman in it. Too much John Blake. Bruce Wayne is like crippled on a cane or with a broken back for most of it. Bane's plan was dumb. Hated Marion Cottiard's dull character.

Anne Hathaway was the best thing in it.

I actually felt that Insomnia was his worst, with this being second to that...but still not a 'bad' movie, per se, and a distant second at that.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I actually felt that Insomnia was his worst, with this being second to that...but still not a 'bad' movie, per se, and a distant second at that.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Insomnia?

I ask because the first time I saw it I had a very "meh" reaction, but I've seen it a couple of more times since then and found myself liking it more and more each time.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Insomnia?

I ask because the first time I saw it I had a very "meh" reaction, but I've seen it a couple of more times since then and found myself liking it more and more each time.

I actually saw it twice...once in theaters, then rented it to see if I had somehow misunderstood or what have you...but no, it felt worse the second time.

[Legion]

Tdkr > tdk > bb

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by KalMart

I actually saw it twice...once in theaters, then rented it to see if I had somehow misunderstood or what have you...but no, it felt worse the second time.

It's a very... odd film. It's unlike any crime film I can recall seeing while at the same time having some very typical tropes, like the "boyfriend" character at the school. While the story certainly drags at times, I think the performances and the dynamics between all of the characters make it a damn good film. But I certainly can't understand why some don't really like it, and I admit, it's definitely my least favorite Nolan film.

But I'd love to see him work with Robin Williams or Al Pacino again. Williams is terrific throughout and Nolan got one of the best performances out of Pacnio I've seen in years. It's very refreshing to see a modern Pacino film where he doesn't chew up the scenery at every turn

[BatLobsterRises]

I feel kind of bad for Robin Williams...the guy had been wanting to be a villain in a Batman movie since 1989, and would have been eager to work with Nolan again. Even said he'd play an Arkham inmate just to get a piece of the action in this Nolan trilogy. Just didn't pan out for the guy.

Those Hugo Strange rumors feel so long ago now...

[KalMart]

Maybe he can play King Tutt in the next version.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think that's spot on.

The idea is, once both of his personas have been rendered irrelevant and he has no way to feel productive in Gotham, all that's left is this shell of a man who has been burying all this pain. He has no outlets left, so he just kind of shuts down and becomes numb to everything.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I could never get behind calling it a disappointing piece altogether. There were too many aspects of the movie that entertained, impressed, enthralled, moved and inspired me to ever label this movie some kind of failure. I mean there are several moments in the film that downright give me chills every single time and the ending really hits home and gets me choked up, so it's a very gut-level thing for me. The fact that the film features easily the most most outstanding cinematography and score of the trilogy, along with Bale's best performance (all IMO) certainly doesn't hurt when it comes to keeping me immersed in its world.

But, to each their own. Disappointment can only be derived from expectation, and I think because these movies are so many things at once, there were so many different types of expectations, which in turn led to wildly different reactions. It's only natural.

As of now I'm leaning towards this being my personal favorite of the trilogy, even though I see TDK as being the leaner, meaner piece of filmmaking.

I would certainly agree that however one is to rank the movies, the trilogy as a whole body of work deserves recognition for what it accomplished. If you're a Batman fan (one who appreciated Nolan's overall vision anyway...), I think you just have to stop and appreciate for a moment how lucky you are. There are so many fans of other characters and franchises that would love nothing more than to see the object of their fandom get the same kind of treatment and respect, and have the same kind of impact. And no doubt, it's set a benchmark that other franchise filmmakers are aspiring for now, Skyfall just being the latest example.

Agreed.