Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by Chris Wallace, Jun 15, 2010.
So what is it about the film that you don't like?
I don't want to make it sound I hated things about it, because I really didn't. Mostly, I felt it tried to pack too much in and ended up feeling both rushed and to condensed in a lot of areas. Unlike some who feel that it could have benefited from another 15-20 minutes I felt it could have had more trimming of characters and story elements in writing to give what was left it more breathing room. And it also seemed so intent on 'wrapping up' so neatly that it felt a bit too obliged to keep moving briskly along when it could have then a bit more time to spread its wings in some areas. It didn't make it a bad movie, per se, but there was a sense of a certain 'magic' from the previous two wearing off and that it was just enough time for it to get out with its head still held high....some of which can naturally happen to any third movie after really defining itself over the previous two. And some of the things that we kind of 'let slide' in the other movies like the surplus of verbalized exposition and such started to finally get more burdensome.
Basically, a 7.5/10 for me, with BB being a. 8.5 and TDk a 9-9.5/10. But again, not a bad movie, and it did its job quite well in putting a bow on this series. So I certainly wouldn't NOT recommend anyone seeing it, whereas other movies that I do actually find bad I would strongly suggest against unless it was just killing time on Netflix.
Not a bad movie. Thus I think TDKR escaped the Third Act Curse.
Has any other CBM done it?
Did Nolan save CBMs in yet another way?!
There is no curse. There is good and bad filmmaking.
Rises is tremendous film making. Technically and Thematically.
First off, I think there's been some misconception as to my meaning. When I refer to the "Third Act Curse", I do not mean that by some supernatural means all third films are inherently predestined to suck/do badly. I am referring to a PATTERN that has existed for quite some time, unbroken until, ironically, now.
I do feel that Rises has escaped this pattern. While not without its faults, it is overall both the best third act of the genre thus far AND the best of the trilogy. While I wasn't crazy about the ending, HATED the costumes and Bane's voice I personally found off-putting,* it avoided the common pitfalls of the likes of Spider-Man 3 and X3, and the general good points of the movie greatly outweighed the bad. All in all, I do feel that it's a worthwhile film and the second-best movie I've seen this year. And that's saying a LOT.
*Don't be offended-this is all my opinion. Ain't nothin' that I'm sayin' law.
What would be your first?
See I don't even consider the Nolan trilogy to be comic book movies. I see it more as action/crime dramas staring comic book characters, opposed to an actual comic book movie, that really really embraces the source material, like avengers did.
Though this was a good movie, not as good as the Dark Knight, and not as good as BB, but it certainly didn't get caught up in the Third Movie Curse.
If it's starring comic book characters...wouldn't it still be a CBM?
Clearly you don't get my point lol.
they were amazing movies.
I never really bought into the 3rd film curse business.Most of my favorate films are 3rd acts.Jedi is my all time favorite.Last Crusade,Army of Darkness,Return of the king-all strong films.
In the comic genre it's a bit closer,but I like S-M3 better than 2,X3 almost as much as X2 and personally,I think Batman Forever was the best of the 90's Batfilms.
Having said that,ironically I think TDKR is the weakest of the trilogy.But it's still a great movie.
Exactly what I think. TDKR was a good film, but it pales in comparison to TDK and I also believe it is not as good as Batman Begins.
I guess I feel a bit disappointed as I was hoping for something even better than TDK for the conclusion, and for me it did not occur.
Same reaction. LOL. But to each his own.
There are a few great "3rd act films", but most of those are in no way great.
Return Of the King
At Worlds End
Back to the Future
Anticipation and hype does that.
I never had much anticipation for any of Nolan's Batfilms simply because I believe in the director and he's never failed me(except for Insomnia, sadly), and since I didn't expect much, I came out of the midnight showing loving TDKR. To me, TDKR is the best of the trilogy, but to each their own.
Plus...as a CBM, TDKR does indeed break the curse. Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Batman Forever, Blade: Trinity, Superman III, whichever ones I forget...please. They can't hold a candle, let alone a matchstick, to The Dark Knight Rises.
I don't get the hate for Spider-man 3 in the first place,but the same objections for that film can be found in TDKR:
The villain's being "reinterpreted" somewhat differently from the comic
A new "love interest" being hastily thrown at the hero (Miranda/Gwen)
A last act reworking of a villain's origin (Sandman/Ra's)
The main objective being the same in all three films (Save MJ....again/Save Gotham from a terrorist attack...again)
The Butler making an important revelation that he should have made several years earlier.
There are probably others that I'm forgetting,but my point is not to say TDKR is awful,but that SM 3 isn't any more flawed than TDKR.
Unfortunately for your "point," the execution of Spider-man 3 was far worse than the execution of TDKR.
Bane is an example of how a villain can be envisioned the correct way to fit the director's universe.
Sandman is an example how the new vision can be complete trash and a waste of time with no conclusion or meaning to the story.
Miranda wasn't even much of a love interest to begin with. Another example that doesn't make sense.
What? What in TDKR re-worked Ra's al Ghul's origin?
Saving the city > saving Mary Jane
Spider-Man could save his city from a threat as well, but he's always saving MJ while Batman had saved Rachel a couple times, but also the city.
The audience is aware of what Alfred was hiding while the audience had no idea that Harry's butler knew about Norman's wounds and him being Green Goblin.
I'd love to hear any more "comparisons" you have, haha.
Sandman was given a motivation.Since he was a simple thug in the comics,it was needed.The real comparison is not with Bane but with [BLACKOUT]Talia,who is given a completely different motivation than the comics.(Revenge in honor of a dead father whom she hated?)[/BLACKOUT]
"Miranda wasn't even much of a love interest to begin with." My point exactly. Seriously though,Bruce sleeps with her after meeting her like twice in his life for a total of 10 minutes?With Gwen there was no pretense of a real love interest for Peter,just a reason to cause friction between him and MJ.
Ra's flashback-story seemed as hastily conceived as Sandman killing Uncle Ben.You can't tell me either was planned from the beginning in either case.
Spider-Man did save the city in S-M 2
I'll concede TDKR Butler scene is better executed (Thanks in large part to Caine) but it's still pretty stupid.Didn't Alfred think Bruce would become more withdrawn thinking his true love died wanting to be with him?
I really don't want to be in a place of "bashing" the film,as I enjoyed it very much (I gave it 9/10 on the Rate poll),and if it's your favorite of the 3,that's fine.(I like Spidey 3 more than 2.Does that make it a "better" film?Nope.I just enjoy it more.)
But people who want to wave the banner of "1st perfect trilogy!" and "1st flawless 3rd act!" are either seeing it through rose tinted glasses or have clearly seen a different movie than most of us.
Sandman has motivation, yes, but his motivation faded into darkness into the film that really killed that entire storyline.
[BLACKOUT]And Talia said her hatred was basically thrown to wayside because of her father dying.[/BLACKOUT]
Twice in his life? First of all, he's seen her three times in the film before they sleep together, but Bruce knew Miranda Tate for a while beforehand as she was the reason Bruce even built the fusion reactor five years ago.
And while their one night stand made little sense, I only see it as a wink to Talia and Bruce having a child in the comics, but in no way was Talia meant to be some kind of love interest, or at least I wouldn't see it as that. And neither was Gwen, but Gwen was meant to bring in some friction between Peter and MJ but it all fail flat after their kiss during that ceremony.
No, I can't tell you it was planned from the beginning, but in no way does it feel hastily either. Ra's did say he had a great love once, and it fits perfectly with him having a wife 30 years before the events of Batman Begins. It all makes sense which doesn't feel the same with the retcon with Uncle Ben's death now involving Flint Marko.
Which turned out to be the better Spider-Man film of the trilogy because it's simply not just the hero trying to save the damsel in distress which is always boring.
I don't know if Alfred would think that, but it hit a knocking point once Bruce decided to be Batman again, so I understand why Alfred would finally bring it up whereas Harry's butler should have told Harry about the sinister secret of his father way before. Like, as soon as the butler found out.
There's no problem in which movie is your favorite, just replying to your remarks and how I don't view them as being comparisons between the two films.
First perfect CBM trilogy. This is the point of this thread. Universally acclaimed as the first CBM trilogy to break the curse, and The Dark Knight Rises did prove to do such critically unlike Spider-Man 3. That's simply the main point for this thread.
Agreed. Insomnia is not a bad film, bur it is Nolan's weakest. I would never buy that movie.
You're right. The only problem with most of those is that the director changed and they choose to go in a different direction. Spider-Man 3 is the only exception to that rule. I also never really liked the Blade or X-Men films so those were a total wash anyway.
It's not hate, it's all around dislike because the film was poorly executed. The problem is that SM 3 is massively flawed and the points that you're trying to contect just don't match up.
Yes... so. He's right.
Sandman's motivation in the film was one of biggest things that didn't sit well with people. A perfect example is Batman 89 and making the Joker the person who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne.
Comparing his motivation to Taila's just doesn't make sense because it's too much of a stretch. Taila's motivations in the comics are all over the place. Sometimes she chooses Batman, sometimes she chooses her father, but Batman never had anything to do with Ra's death in the comcs. In fact, Taila herself had a hand in killing her own father not that long ago. So who knows what she would do if Batman had accidently killed her father.
You're forgetting that Bruce worked with her in the past for what had to be countless hours. He had also lost everything, he was beaten and he didn't even know it. If I were in his place I would done the same thing.
Yes, and that is another reason that SM3 was poorly executed.
The flashback story was not hastily conceived and it was planned from the beginning. Most everyone that's been here a while knows that. The only part of the flashback I didn't care for was Bruce seeing Ra's in the prison.
It's not stupid, it was perfectly played. There is no way Bruce could have become more withdrawn than he was. When you get right down to it Alfred knew he had to stop being Batman because it has consumed had whole life.
It's strange that you say that because it seems that's where you are now. How could you give it a 9 out of 10 when you found that many things wrong with the plot?
It's also strange that you like 3 more than 2. SM 2 was once the pinincle of the coimc book film. I know it's still in my top ten comic book film list.
Ha ha ha.... see this is problem. You're assuming that we have blinders on or we saw a different movie. We don't and we didn't. We only have a different opinion of the film, it's no different than how you feel about SM 3.
Excellent points Domini.