The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4! - - - - Part 13

[Travesty]

So now all the bad acting in the movie is supposed to be on purpose? Not too sure if I buy that one yet.

 

[Fabian]

so now all the bad acting in the movie is supposed to be on purpose? Not too sure if i buy that one yet.

+1000

 

[Nevincer]

all CIA, MI6, and other agents/spies are all not like Bourne and Bond. There are some people that are annoying and cheesy. It's life. If everyone was like the former, we'd have very boring films...

Perfectly said.

So now all the bad acting in the movie is supposed to be on purpose? Not too sure if I buy that one yet.

Never said that. Referring to a specific character.

 

[Travesty]

Never said that. Referring to a specific character.

You know what I was referring to.

Still don't buy it.

 

[Nevincer]

I feel he did exactly what the part called for and required. He's over the top, cocky, annoying and yea a *****e. He is supposed to be this high ranking CIA op who obviously has no idea what he's up against. He's in way overy his head dealing with the a caliber of the likes of Bane, waaayyyyy over his head. And, he pays for it with him and his teams life.

Exactly. I don't know what else you could expect from the actor when portraying that archetype.

 

[Travesty]

Exactly. I don't know what else you could expect from the actor when portraying that archetype.

So now the SWAT guys in TDK are excused, because their acting was so good, that they knew to act horrible?

 

[craigdbfan]

I loved the prologue but there's no denying the CIA guy was hamming it up beyond what was necessary.

One can still perform an incompetent character without the crap/forced delivery. Thankfully the scene was saved by Bane, and his sacrificial goon who do a good job of setting the mood.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Nitpicking, at it's finest. Dialogue? Really gentlemen? Should I bash Bond's dialogue in the introduction to Casino Royale? And The Joker's to TDK?

The CIA *****e and Bank Manager are at the same level of overacting, in my opinion.

 

[craigdbfan]

The dialogue wasn't the problem. It was the unbelievably terrible delivery.

 

[kvz5]

his sacrificial goon

 

[craigdbfan]

AKA kvz favorite character in the movie.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The dialogue wasn't the problem. It was the unbelievably terrible delivery.

I didn't find the delivery terrible at all. I found the delivery to be nonchalant, sort of 'the calm before storm' type.

 

[kvz5]

AKA kvz favorite character in the movie.

Only one that matters. Fact.

 

[EliteF50]

My main problem with Aiden's performance was his body movement. The way he hunched over and held his gun up looked very femminine. And the "gasy" voice he used when talking to Bane was dumb, too.

EDIT: His facial reactions/movements were also bad.

 

[The Guard]

The dialogue for the prologue is expository. It's not "good" dialogue in the least. The agent's dialogue is absurd. People simply don't talk like that. Not in the real world. Hence my Bond film statement.

Nor is TDKR having the same prologue weaknesses as TDK appropriate. They should have learned from the weaknesses in the previous film's prologue and bit parts (over the top acting and clunky dialogue) and corrected them. They apparently didn't.

Exactly. I don't know what else you could expect from the actor when portraying that archetype.

Restraint. Especially from an established actor like this. He's a decent actor, and has done much better, but he's AWFUL here. Yelling his lines even after the plane doors are closed? It's just absurd. There are ways to play "arrogant *****e" without reducing it to an utter cliche and playing it over the top, awkwardly, and loudly. This performance doesn't even belong in this relatively serious scene. He's OVERacting to the point of distraction, which is just as bad as not acting enough.

Acting is about balance, not about randomly stressing words so it seems like you're being emotional. It's about finding a realistic and appropriate level of emotion. He failed to do so given the context of the scene.

Now, maybe as an actor, he's trying to make a splash as a character actor, but I guarantee you he made the wrong impression for any serious filmmaker. Had he used some restraint in his performance, the scene almost works. He could still be a little over the top, a little "arrogant *****e". Just not as MUCH.

He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?

Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.

Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...

There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.

It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?

If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.

Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.

As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?

 

[shauner111]

I don't see what everyones problems are with Aiden...i didn't see anything wrong with his acting. i liked it a lot actually. This is an action movie, an intelligent one but still an action movie. There's a bad actor in every movie, honestly. Especially "good action flicks". I dont care if you're Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, or whoever..every movie has em'. If you're irritated then its cuz hes doing his job. Makes u enjoy the fun of Bane threatening and knocking out this guy

 

[The_Raganork]

The dialogue for the prologue is expository. It's not "good" dialogue in the least. The agent's dialogue is absurd. People simply don't talk like that. Not in the real world. Hence my Bond film statement.

Nor is TDKR having the same prologue weaknesses as TDK appropriate. They should have learned from the weaknesses in the previous film's prologue and bit parts (over the top acting and clunky dialogue) and corrected them. They apparently didn't.



Restraint. Especially from an established actor like this. He's a decent actor, and has done much better, but he's AWFUL here. Yelling his lines even after the plane doors are closed? It's just absurd. There are ways to play "arrogant *****e" without reducing it to an utter cliche and playing it over the top, awkwardly, and loudly. This performance doesn't even belong in this relatively serious scene. He's OVERacting to the point of distraction, which is just as bad as not acting enough.

Acting is about balance, not about randomly stressing words so it seems like you're being emotional. It's about finding a realistic and appropriate level of emotion. He failed to do so given the context of the scene.

Now, maybe as an actor, he's trying to make a splash as a character actor, but I guarantee you he made the wrong impression for any serious filmmaker. Had he used some restraint in his performance, the scene almost works. He could still be a little over the top, a little "arrogant *****e". Just not as MUCH.

He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?

Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.

Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...

There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.

It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?

If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.

Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.

As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?

It's an interesting world where I can disagree with this answer but love it

I don't see what everyones problems are with Aiden...i didn't see anything wrong with his acting. i liked it a lot actually. This is an action movie, an intelligent one but still an action movie. There's a bad actor in every movie, honestly. Especially "good action flicks". I dont care if you're Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, or whoever..every movie has em'. If you're irritated then its cuz hes doing his job. Makes u enjoy the fun of Bane threatening and knocking out this guy

And somewhat agree with this answer and hate it.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?

Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.

Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...

There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.

It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?

If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.

Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.

As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?

 

[Nevincer]

It's an interesting world where I can disagree with this answer but love it



And somewhat agree with this answer and hate it.

Right on the money. I'll give it to Trav, Guard and Craig on their counterarguments, but the scene and the performance are still not an issue for me given the context.

 

[spider_rob]

The dialogue for the prologue is expository. It's not "good" dialogue in the least. The agent's dialogue is absurd. People simply don't talk like that. Not in the real world. Hence my Bond film statement.

Nor is TDKR having the same prologue weaknesses as TDK appropriate. They should have learned from the weaknesses in the previous film's prologue and bit parts (over the top acting and clunky dialogue) and corrected them. They apparently didn't.



Restraint. Especially from an established actor like this. He's a decent actor, and has done much better, but he's AWFUL here. Yelling his lines even after the plane doors are closed? It's just absurd. There are ways to play "arrogant *****e" without reducing it to an utter cliche and playing it over the top, awkwardly, and loudly. This performance doesn't even belong in this relatively serious scene. He's OVERacting to the point of distraction, which is just as bad as not acting enough.

Acting is about balance, not about randomly stressing words so it seems like you're being emotional. It's about finding a realistic and appropriate level of emotion. He failed to do so given the context of the scene.

Now, maybe as an actor, he's trying to make a splash as a character actor, but I guarantee you he made the wrong impression for any serious filmmaker. Had he used some restraint in his performance, the scene almost works. He could still be a little over the top, a little "arrogant *****e". Just not as MUCH.

He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?

Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.

Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...

There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.

It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?

If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.

Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.

As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?

I've found that Nolan and his screenwriter's main problem is exposition dialogue. It's always so forced and unnatural sounding.

 

[Brain Damage]

The dialogue for the prologue is expository. It's not "good" dialogue in the least. The agent's dialogue is absurd. People simply don't talk like that. Not in the real world. Hence my Bond film statement.

Nor is TDKR having the same prologue weaknesses as TDK appropriate. They should have learned from the weaknesses in the previous film's prologue and bit parts (over the top acting and clunky dialogue) and corrected them. They apparently didn't.



Restraint. Especially from an established actor like this. He's a decent actor, and has done much better, but he's AWFUL here. Yelling his lines even after the plane doors are closed? It's just absurd. There are ways to play "arrogant *****e" without reducing it to an utter cliche and playing it over the top, awkwardly, and loudly. This performance doesn't even belong in this relatively serious scene. He's OVERacting to the point of distraction, which is just as bad as not acting enough.

Acting is about balance, not about randomly stressing words so it seems like you're being emotional. It's about finding a realistic and appropriate level of emotion. He failed to do so given the context of the scene.

Now, maybe as an actor, he's trying to make a splash as a character actor, but I guarantee you he made the wrong impression for any serious filmmaker. Had he used some restraint in his performance, the scene almost works. He could still be a little over the top, a little "arrogant *****e". Just not as MUCH.

He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?

Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.

Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...

There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.

It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?

If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.

Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.

As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?

I disagree with you, but very well put argument. I wish I saw more of these kinds of posts around these parts.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is here. Nolan's Batman flicks have never had realistic dialogue. But so what?

Do real people talk like they do in Star Wars?
Do real people talk like they do in James Bond?

No. It's dramatic dialogue that works for the context of this type of film.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Aiden's overacting is a valid argumentative point, but Guard's five page essay in which we're supposedly forced to loath the CIA Operative is sincerely because the scene offers lazy writing -- that in itself a form of a 'MacGuffin'.

An operative's job is to extract intel from his or her contact and/or prisoner, and they'll get it by any means. So, I ask you, how does one's level of arrogance apply here? It doesn't.

The '*****e' had every right to feel confident with Pavel spilling his guts, Bane in handcuffs, and his men armed to the teeth on the ''company's'' aircraft. Aiden's character perceived the situation as one of total control, or the power seat. Who knows? Perhaps Aiden's character despised criminals like Bane, and he wanted to break Bane's level of confidence by threatening and talking down to his asset/prisoner.

Guard's post is well-written, however, it doesn't excuse the manure located beneath the surface. The audience is, or at least should be, fully aware of who the villain is, but will that stop them from adoring a character like The Joker? People will still root for the villain because he is a total badass. Furthermore, are we suppose to view a complex villain (like Loki and The Lizard) and not sympathize or relate to him or her because it radiates of 'horrific' writing? Give me a break. This is a comic book adaptation, not reality.

 

[vanson]

the CIA guy also overacts because the guys have hoodies on and cant see that he is playing them.. so he gives it everything because it doesnt matter..

when banes hood is taken of he is still overconfident, but not as much as before.

i think it all makes sense.

 

[Ramsay Snow]

the CIA guy also overacts because the guys have hoodies on and cant see that he is playing them.. so he gives it everything because it doesnt matter..

when banes hood is taken of he is still overconfident, but not as much as before.

i think it all makes sense.

This is how I saw it, too. Partly the reason is the hoods - he has to sell his intimidation and he fails.

 

[vanson]

This is how I saw it, too. Partly the reason is the hoods - he has to sell his intimidation and he fails.

yeah basically aiden plays it normal but his character overacts.. sounds little bit weird :P