The Dark Knight Rises Is most of the criticism directed towards the movie fair?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say all criticism is fair? The way you criticize it and the way Roger Ebert criticize TDKR are gonna be different than what I have to say. But yeah, youre entitled to your opinion.

I think you and I are in agreement that TDKR, while a very good comic book film (perhaps breaking the third film curse of CBMs in Hollywood) was not as good as TDK.

However, my qualms are a little different than yours. I personally found Nolan's arrogance in retiring Batman after three films somewhat frustrating. I also think it strange that despite having a strong theme of "Batman's one rule," 4 of his 6 villains ended up dead.

I have many other little complaints that I won't go into.

 

The music was fantastic. It felt like a great mix of the past films and alot of new stuff thrown in.

The cops didn't want to go down without a fight...Bane had great coverage and protection...old-school-head-on-rush-in was fun. Last ditch attempt to save the city. A good way for all of Bane's men to be kept busy while Batman can focus on Bane.

''Gothamites'' didn't join Bane, as such. The criminals did. Wouldn't you be mad as **** if you were kept in jail over a lie?

What, exactly, would you expect the rest of the world to do?

Im sick and tired of all this ''realism'' hate. Its BASED IN REALISM...meaning its at least fathomable and possible at a stretch. It doesn't mean it needs to be 100% possible and normal. I saw nothing in Rises id say could ''never, ever happen''...plus, the film is set in 2016, so that could explain any ''its not possible'' things to some people.

If my Butler told me the dead girl I loved wasn't really going to be with me, after 8 years of believing she would, you'd call me strange for not trying to tap dat Marion? Come on...if anything, that's THE most realistic thing that happens in Rises!

 

Which is why I am not a huge fan of these.

It doesn't have to be fathomable. It's a comic book character. That's what makes these movies fun. If he could somehow do what he did, without basing the gist of the film in realism, well THAT would be something

 

This trilogy is simply one take on the Batman character. The next one will be different, and hopefully the next one is even more different. From realistic to wild and everything inbetween. THAT is what makes Batman so amazing - he is adaptable.

I'd rather get a mix of interpretations than the same type time and time again. You don't like this one? Fine, cos the next one might be more to your liking!

I just can't stand people who dislike it and feel like they have to rip into the ''realism'' thing...why? Just say you want it to be more fantastical next time.

Edit - I have no problem whatsoever if anyone dislikes..well..any film, that's their opinion and different opinions are great..but picking things apart so deeply, especially over small things cos you disliked something..bit much.

 

the majority of the criticism is definitely fair.... the ambition and scale of the project demanded that every aspect be on point...unfortunately many things weren't.

 

But see, for myself and many others, the fact that they treated it with a degree of realism gave more gravity to the events of the film and in fact made it more fun. I think it really appealed to the kid in so many of us who grew up thinking that if one had the resources and discipline...Batman could actually be real. That's what separates him from so many other superheroes.

 

It's fair Nolan acts so superior to the people viewing and acts like you're not allowed to criticize his work,so I say it's fair.

 

How has he ever acted like that?

 

That's a very immature way to look at it. Just because Nolan isn't directing something that you want to see doesn't mean he "acts so superior"

 

90% of the criticisms I've seen are fair. The other 10% is the usual nit picking.

 

His fanboys act like that, he doesn't.

 

I´ve seen the very other way around. Aside from just nitpicking, there´s clearly a bias raised from the impact that TDK had, and the nearly impossible to satisfy expectations it created, that made it an easy target for fanboys of other franchises, or even other versions of the character, to get up in arms about it before they even saw any footage and overly exaggerate flaws or just see them for the sake of seeing them.

Like the exposition thing, all of Nolan´s movies have a somewhat high exposition rate, which is due to the complexity of his stories. "Show, don´t tell" is a general principle, not a rule written in stone that should bring movies back to the silent era. Some things need to be shown, and the movie is full of interesting visuals that aid the storytelling, and others need to be told, particularly when the story has a certain degree of complexity.

Also the flashbacks: the movie is a completion of the tirlogy, a sequel to TDK and a bookend to BB, so you need to get back to it in order to help the moviegoer who didn´t remember certain things. The movie used some clever ways to do it, such as the montage between Gordon´s speech and Two-Face - there´s a moment where one seems to merge and become the other -, or Ra´s reapearring as a hallucination for Bruce.

Sequels reuse music from the previous installments, TDKR didn´t do it more than others. I never felt like the music was out of place.

I actually think the fight coreography evolved a lot, there was asense of brutatility to the Batman and Bane fight I don´t think it would have had if their moves were fancier in some way. Catwoman has fancier moves, and it works for her.

A blockbuster, as serious as it may be, needs some levity, and again CW provided a lot of that, in some pretty cool ways - she made my theater audience laugh out loud a couple times just with her shifts in facial expressions.

I´ve seen all the main things that some have described as plot holes, and pretty much all of them are explained. Not telling how Bruce got back to Gotham, for instance, isn´t necessarily a hole, it wasn´t explained but it doesn´t mean it doesn´t make sense. Bruce is a resourceful guy, he traveled the world for years with no money in BB, and he wasn´t the first guy in the world to do that kinda thing either, plus he took three weeks to get back. And if they did explain that they´d get the "too much exposition" complain. Or Bane leaving Bruce "with a doctor". He was in a prison, there´d be a guy there who´d at least know how to pop a bone back in place. He didn´t suffer a spinal chord injury like in Knightfall, and it´s not like he had Doctor House perform brain surgery with robots on him. He spent months recovering in the pit.

The3 story was in no way epic for the sake of epic. The story stakes were the highest ones of all the movies. The League Of Shadows long and carefully planned their vengeance over Gotham. Unlike any of the villains of the other movies, Bane literally took control of Gotham, which was a massive undertaking, and it was a massive undertaking to take it back.

 

Ultimatefan makes a huge amount of sense!

All my non-forum friends think Rises is better than TDK...I think many of us forum-fans got spoiled with TDK and are now picking Rises to shreds and its unfair. Like TDK more if you like but c'mon...

 

Ultimatefan makes a certain amount of sense.

But even most of the people who greatly prefer TDK will still at least agree that TDKR is one of the greats. Any nitpicking culminates in merely a fraction of a letter grade. "TDK was an A+ but these are the reasons TDKR was an A-"

Then there are those fringe people who say its one of the worst CBMs... which i think is just nutty.

 

It's deserved practically all of the criticisms it's gotten. It's the worst one of Nolan's Bat movies.

 

Meeh , who cares...as long as you like it.

There's definitely fanboys who like the movie and want for everyone to like it. Just like the other way. Some *****es dont like the movie , and they cant accept there's a lot of people who enjoyed them . I definitely think its strange someone not liking an movie , and simply not letting it go , but its their right. I prefer to spend my time with things i enjoy. Being Nolan's Batman one of them.

 

And if you look back, the forums had a ton of picking TDK apart, like saying that what The Joker did wasn´t believable - when he stole a ton of money from the mafia, was clearly of brilliant intelligence and used crooked cops as well - or that such a crazy, unreliable guy wouldn´t have such faithful henchmen - when most of his henchmen were former Arkham inmates or forced to join him.

 

I didn't think the exposition was nearly as heavy in TDKR as in previous films. Nolan did more showing this time.

 

In your opinion.

People are strange. Nolan, like his movies or not, has helped comicbook films more in general than any one person in the past 10 years, imo. If he didn't happen..studios wouldn't be putting so much effort into films like these like they are now

edit - before I get called a Nolan fanboy or whatever..look at the history. He has basically fixed up Batman for future reboots and gave Marvel, and more importantly Disney, the push into investing full throttle into Avengers. Idk why there is so much Nolan hate.

 

In lots of people's opinions.

 

In not as many as some try very hard to imply.

 

In my opinion as well, it just sounds so harsh.

 

That doesn't make it true. It's upto anyone to choose what they personally prefer, but arguing over which one is best is pointless because it can't be measured in a scientific or mathematical way. It's like the Bale vs. Keaton thing. That's like one painting vs. another..pointless..open to interpretation and personal taste.

IMO, all 3 films are almost totally equal in totally different ways. But I like Rises the best, just.

 

It's not about what I want, it's about what's FAIR!