The Dark Knight Rises - letdown or not?

[HighFivingMF]

Not at all. Just as close to perfect as the other 2.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I get that but as much as I loved Rises ultimately its taken something away from the first two films for me.

Like I said though Nolan could've ended his series without having Bruce retire etc. I personally wanted the third to continue straight from TDK and have the first trilogy as Batman's first year in crime fighting. Then we could have had another trilogy covering his second year but it wouldn't have to be as grounded. I just think its a same cause the first two films (especially the first) left sone amazing groundwork.

But here's the thing now....are people saying it's a letdown only because it's not what they wanted to see in a film and Nolan's vision? Lol. Even when someone says it was a letdown, they do end up saying it was a good film nonetheless, lol.

I always say to people Inception is Nolan's best film. I still think Nolan wasn't that even on doing Rises, I think he did it more for the studio than anything with them allowing him to make Inception.

Imo, Prestige is Nolan's best film; Inception had the same problem with TDKR in that Nolan isn't quite at his best when dealing with ensembles.

Plus, could we stop saying Nolan didn't want to do a third Batman film? I think that's a bit ridiculous to say. Nolan didn't at first, as he's said many times he didn't want to return because there aren't many good third films out there but he did return when he found the right story for him.

Speaking for myself, I found TDKR a let down, but if I was a critic writing for Rotten Tomatoes I'd still give it a positive review? Why? Because it's a good film, miles better than a lot of the crap that came out this year. But it's not on par with either BB or TDK and it's certainly one of Nolan's worse efforts.
Thus. A letdown.

My point is that judging if it was a letdown by Rotten Tomatoes doesn't work. While I don't think it's a small minority who found TDKR disappointing, it is a small minority who feel the film is a complete unwatchable mess. Many of the people who were let down by TDKR still liked a lot of what it had to offer.

So it seems people are calling it a letdown because it can't be compared, to some, to BB and TDK? Isn't that where it gets messy because it should also be looked at its own thing or what it does with the entire trilogy rather than comparing film by film? If we compare Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, we'll know which is the better film, but QoS is still great, imo.

Not necessarily.

TDK was universally liked. TDKR wasn't. It was polarizing. That in itself makes the third film disappointing.

It doesn't live up to the second film.

That in itself means TDKR has some fans that really love it and fans that really hate it. It, in no way, is as truly disappointing to the word with the likes of Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, X-Men 3, Daredevil, et cetera....

as much as people use epic and iconic too much....people use disappointing way too much as well.

Ooop ya did it again.

*sings Britney Spears*

 

[Micromind]

Ehhh no the bomb was only threatened to be detonated if anyone tried to come in and invade Gotham or leave it. Nobody was trying that. Bane was saying he was giving Gotham back to the people but nobody had any control except for Bane and the LOS. It was all bull.

I know that.

Nobody knew about the unstable core except for Fox and Tate.

And Bane and Talia.

But I agree with you on the fact that the people of Gotham were not aware about the issue of core decay and it's life of five months.

Ooop ya did it again.

LOL.

 

[Brain Damage]

So it seems people are calling it a letdown because it can't be compared, to some, to BB and TDK? Isn't that where it gets messy because it should also be looked at its own thing or what it does with the entire trilogy rather than comparing film by film? If we compare Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, we'll know which is the better film, but QoS is still great, imo.

It was a letdown on it's own as well. It's full of needless new characters who either don't get enough development (Talia) or get too much (Blake), and worse, it neglects some of its main players for them (Alfred). The story is not a natural progression of events, as TDK and BB were. Instead, it relies on tons of forced exposition and events that we don't get to see on screen but get to hear characters talk about (the energy project). Not to mention one too many plot conveniences (every cop going down into the sewers, Bruce magically appearing in Gotham, Bruce's magic leg brace which gets mentioned once and then is completely forgotten). It tries to balance two love interests and completely forces it with Miranda. They have two scenes before they suddenly decide to do the deed, one of which is her being hostile towards him. Selina Kyle gets a lot to do with both Bruce and Batman, but she spends half the movie screwing him over and then their relationship is quickly rushed so they can end up together before the movie's over. Not to mention she gets about thirty seconds of screen time in the entire second act. It has a fascinating, menacing villain, who gets perfectly fitting motivations and a fascinating background, only to have that background be taken away and put into the much less developed character. All so there can be a big dramatic plot twist at the end of the film. And to add icing on the cake, it relies on a generic ticking time bomb scenario for its finale.

However.

It's an amazingly well shot film. Seeing this in IMAX was unbelievable, and Wally really did do some of his best work here. As did the entire cast. Both Hathaway and Hardy killed it in their respective roles, I can't praise their performances enough. Bane is of the scariest, most intimidating villains I've ever seen on film. The scale is immense, and this movie really does feel larger than life. While I wish we got to see more of the final battle (the cops vs mercs, not the Bat chase), what we did see was extraordinary. Zimmer also brought his A game for this, developing spectacular new themes for Bane and Catwoman and expanding on his and JNH's work from the previous films. There are some moments/scenes that are more than up to the BB/TDK caliber, like the stock exchange scene and Alfred's confession to Bruce. All in all, the action is some of the best in the entire trilogy, like the opening scene and both of Batman and Bane's fights.

So yes. It's story does not live up to either Begins or TDK. It's certainly way more ambitious than either of them, but because of that, it doesn't manage to live up to its own aspirations. But there's still a lot to love in this film, and it's exceptionally well made. You have to respect it for what it tries to do, if you had told me 10 years ago that one day someone would make a Batman movie with Talia Al Ghul as the villain, or with Bane breaking Batman, I wouldn't have believed you. As Batman fans, I think we all gotta give Mr. Nolan and company a hand.

 

[Micromind]

However.


It's an amazingly well shot film. Seeing this in IMAX was unbelievable, and Wally really did do some of his best work here. As did the entire cast. Both Hathaway and Hardy killed it in their respective roles, I can't praise their performances enough. Bane is of the scariest, most intimidating villains I've ever seen on film. The scale is immense, and this movie really does feel larger than life. While I wish we got to see more of the final battle (the cops vs mercs, not the Bat chase), what we did see was extraordinary. Zimmer also brought his A game for this, developing spectacular new themes for Bane and Catwoman and expanding on his and JNH's work from the previous films. There are some moments/scenes that are more than up to the BB/TDK caliber, like the stock exchange scene and Alfred's confession to Bruce. All in all, the action is some of the best in the entire trilogy, like the opening scene and both of Batman and Bane's fights.

So yes. It's story does not live up to either Begins or TDK. It's certainly way more ambitious than either of them, but because of that, it doesn't manage to live up to its own aspirations. But there's still a lot to love in this film, and it's exceptionally well made. You have to respect it for what it tries to do, if you had told me 10 years ago that one day someone would make a Batman movie with Talia Al Ghul as the villain, or with Bane breaking Batman, I wouldn't have believed you. As Batman fans, I think we all gotta give Mr. Nolan and company a hand.

^^ Agreed.

The story just needed more time to be fully developed, I think there was a rumor that WB approached Nolan about splitting TDKR into two parts, but apparently he was not interested.

 

[solidsnake86]

Keep 'em coming folks. The results are almost neck and neck after only a day. Proof that the people let down by this movie ain't a minority.

30 people on a message board would hardly be considered a majority, let alone a significant number.

 

[Fudgie]

*sings Britney Spears*

30 people on a message board would hardly be considered a majority, let alone a significant number.

Ya don't get it. I ain't saying this thread is the total of the world hahaha. I'm saying this is an example of how the opinion is divided on TDKR. With flicks like TDK, Avengers, Spider-Man 2 and all those kinda movies there's no polarizing divide.

Ya could make a thread like this on an forum anywhere on the net and I betcha ya would get the same kind of divided results.

 

[solidsnake86]

^don't worry I get it. But all those movies you listed have criticism as well. I think with TDKR it was always going to have a divided opinion among fans because the story line was not something everyone was on board with.

The first two movies were essentially pulled from the comics, so was this movie to an extent. But here, you have a "robin" like character that isnt from the comics. So you have the people that dislike that. You have Bruce hanging up the cowl, which a lot of fans were against.

I thought the movie was well done. I think some of the so called plot holes that people bring up are dumb, like "how did bruce get back to gotham." I completely understand why some people don't like the story, but I still think as a film its very well done.

At the end of the day, everytime a superhero film is in the news, somehow this trilogy gets mentioned. I think that says something about what Nolan was able to achieve, whether you like the film or not.

 

[zeptron]

Ya don't get it. I ain't saying this thread is the total of the world hahaha. I'm saying this is an example of how the opinion is divided on TDKR. With flicks like TDK, Avengers, Spider-Man 2 and all those kinda movies there's no polarizing divide.

Ya could make a thread like this on an forum anywhere on the net and I betcha ya would get the same kind of divided results.

I'm not sure about Spider-man 2 now. As now I'm constantly seeing people bash the Raimi trilogy.

 

[Anno_Domini]

And people even bash TDK and Avengers, lol. Not as much as TDKR, sure, but every film has its share of bashing, a lot or a little.

 

[Batman jr.]

And people even bash TDK and Avengers, lol. Not as much as TDKR, sure, but every film has its share of bashing, a lot or a little.

People bash a lot of things these days when it comes to movies.

Every little detail has to be *****ed about over & over again.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not sure about Spider-man 2 now. As now I'm constantly seeing people bash the Raimi trilogy.

Spider-Man 2 is still held in very high regard. The only reason there was any kind of noticeable backlash against Raimi's movies (not counting Spider-Man 3 as that was never popular) was because of The Amazing Spider-Man. The classic cycle of something new comes along and suddenly the older stuff is rubbish compared to it.

When the Batman reboot comes along you can bet your eye tooth the much loved TDK will be backlashed just like Raimi's movies were. Whereas with TDKR, it's divided fans from the get go. TDK and even Batman Begins never did.

To answer the question of the thread; yes TDKR was a disappointment to me for many reasons I've said time and again on the TDKR forum. Bottom line it was a big step down in quality from the previous two movies. Nolan didn't continue the fine standard he'd established.

 

[shauner111]

It's a cycle, people bashed the Burton Bat-flicks when the Nolan movies came out. And yeah it's true, if the reboot mixes dark/serious/fantasy then we will start hearing people bash the entire Dark Knight Trilogy for its realism and inaccuracies.

The only thing is that Batman Returns was always a mixed bag, in the same way TDKR seems to be online. And the first Spider-Man that Raimi made has always been mixed as well. I always heard criticisms of Kirsten Dunst or Maguire or Green Goblins suit, whatever. I just think the fans of Spidey 1 ended up liking the sequel even more + the haters were now past the origin story and got used to the main characters and saw Spider-Man 2 as the better movie.

I would rank Batman 89', Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, X-Men 2 as universally loved by its fans. Amazing Spidey is just as mixed as Raimis original.

But in no way was i letdown by TDKR. In some cases i felt it was a step up. Even if that's an unpopular reaction around these boards sometimes.

 

[cryptic name]

Hey guys and gals I want to get some opinions away from the Bat forums to see what other general CBM fans thought about Rises.

Did ya think TDKR was a let down or not? Just place your vote on the poll and lets see some numbers.

Not at all, I loved it. I do realize it's not the movie a lot of people wanted, so I guess you could say I'm let down that so many people felt let down by it.

 

[Arach Knight]

TDKR has too many plot holes, moments where things are too convenient, poor pacing and a serious absence of the principal character. The film bears his name but he is seen for all of 30 combined minutes, which is unacceptable for a non-origin feature that is nearly three hours in length. I is a fun film to watch, but a poor end for a stellar series. I won't be completing the trilogy. I'm sticking with Begins and TDK as a duology. It ends better anyways woth Batman on the run, Gotham saved and hope existing for Gotham despite so much tragedy.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't think TDKR has any real plot holes. It has some plot elements that get called holes but can be explained from the story.

My problems with TDKR (which I voted was NOT a letdown, BTW), are primarily pacing and characterization related. I would not have ended the film in the same way, and I'm bored by John Blake (and frustrated Gordon has such a small role / lacks an arc). But overall I enjoy the film.

 

[Rockbottom]

Im not going to say it was perfect, because I'd change quite a few stuff, mainly just remove Blake totally (I hate the idea of someone else other than Bruce even possibly becoming Batman) and add in more time with Bruce as Batman, then extend Bane and Batman's final brawl but I love the film and im very grateful Nolan came back for it.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I never get the argument about Batman not being in costume enough as a negative. Really? That's a criticism? He suits up when it serves the story. Not the other way around. Would people really like the movie more if there was a couple more scenes of him standing around in the suit? It just sounds like people get bored when there isn't superheroes on the screen every five seconds and that sounds rather childish.

Also, I've seen a lot of complaining that Bruce would never ever retire and that it was completely out of character (both the beginning and end). Have people really not read The Dark Knight Returns? I mean, you can argue that point if you want, but it's not like this idea has had no precedent before, especially a massively influential one.

People also get peeved that they didn't simply call John Blake 'Dick Grayson' or 'Tim Drake' but if they did, people would have *****ed as well and called him Robin In Name Only. This was Nolan's way of combining all the seperate elements of Robin into one character and being able to do what he wanted with him.

 

[Arach Knight]

I don't think TDKR has any real plot holes. It has some plot elements that get called holes but can be explained from the story.

- How is it that Bane raids the Gotham stock exchange in daylight, is seen hacking the computers by hundreds of witnesses and cameras, but no one bothered to ask what he was doing on the computers? It makes it unbelievable that Wayne could be bankrupted so easily when even a cursory investigation (or good common sense) would lead the police to follow Bane's activities and determine that he engaged in fraudulent activities through Wayne's account. I bank with Wellsfargo and they've paid greater due dilligence when someone tried to steal my credit card info and use it in Texas.

- How is it that Bruce Wayne retires immediately after the events of TDK, and was seen in good health at the end of the film, but somehow his body is so worn in TDKR despite the stated absence of his tenure as Batman? You don't become a cripple from eight years of doing nothing.

- How did Bruce Wayne return from the prison without any money, passport or identification?

- How is that several federal agencies failed to run a simple finger print scan, dental record check and face recognition check as their first means of identifying the cadaver found on the plane? Although a mid-air blood transfusion "looked cool," the first thing checked by coroners and investigators are finger prints, dental records and image databases, not your blood. The body used wasn't even a double of the doctor. It was a random man in a body bag.

- How do the instruments of a federal plane fail to identify the approach of a large non-stealth aircraft with a massive radar cross section?

- Why would the CIA fail to remove hoods and confirm the identities of the prisoners on the plane?

- Blake knows that Bruce is Batman, not because Batman appeared roughly when Bruce Wayne returned. Not from the fact that Bruce Wayne became a recluse around the same time that Batman was last seen, but because Bruce's smile looked fake and as an orphan, Blake understands what its like to pretend to be someone you're not??

- When did Bruce have time to rewrite his will and leave things to Robin and Selina?

- How did Bruce have time to carry the bomb six miles away from Gotham, eject and get six miles away from the blast radius with only five seconds left for the escape?

- How was Lucious analzying the data of a lone prototype that gpt destroyed in a nuclear explosion? There should have been no autopilot investigation because the Bat blew up.

 

[Arach Knight]

I never get the argument about Batman not being in costume enough as a negative. Really? That's a criticism? He suits up when it serves the story. Not the other way around. Would people really like the movie more if there was a couple more scenes of him standing around in the suit? It just sounds like people get bored when there isn't superheroes on the screen every five seconds and that sounds rather childish.

Also, I've seen a lot of complaining that Bruce would never ever retire and that it was completely out of character (both the beginning and end). Have people really not read The Dark Knight Returns? I mean, you can argue that point if you want, but it's not like this idea has had no precedent before, especially a massively influential one.

A) It is a Batman movie. Sorry to have to inform you, but people actually see these movies to see the principle character taking on said role. It isn't an issue to not have the costume in every other scene, but it is a problem to allow so much time to pass without having the principle character do something. Batman Begins was shorter and an origin film yet it had nearly twice the Btman screen time. There is no excuse for TDKR's lack of Batman. And for the record, I love books like Gotham Central where Batman is rarely seen. TDKR simply mismanages screen time. The absence of Batman is just one way that it shows.

B) Bruce Wayne retired in The Dark Knight returns because he was an old man. He was forty-five and not in the same condition. As he was in his youth. One of the sub points to the first half of the story was about how difficult it was to resume the role at the age of fifty-five. It isn't the same as Bruce retiring in his early thirties when he is in his prime.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Bruce wasn't exactly in his prime. He was 39, rusty after eight years of inactivity, with a bad leg, busted knees, and a back that was damaged and primitively repaired during the course of the movie.

I thought that handing it off to Blake just like that was a bit farfetched, but thematically it works for me because it shows Bruce growing past his issues, inspiring others, and letting go of his self-imposed burden.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

- How do the instruments of a federal plane fail to identify the approach of a large non-stealth aircraft with a massive radar cross section?

IIRC, the League of Shadows' plane came from behind. Almost every plane has their radar in the nose, pointed forward. 360 radar coverage is not common at all, and requires a dedicated design. They were at low altitude with lots of mountains around to block radar.

 

[Arach Knight]

Bruce wasn't exactly in his prime. He was 39, rusty after eight years of inactivity, with a bad leg, busted knees, and a back that was damaged and primitively repaired during the course of the movie.

I thought that handing it off to Blake just like that was a bit farfetched, but thematically it works for me because it shows Bruce growing past his issues, inspiring others, and letting go of his self-imposed burden.

Oh no, retiring at the end of TDKR was fine. I am refering to Bruce retiring at the end of TDk for eight years until TDKR. If that is what was meant, then I retract my complaint about the comparison to The Dark Knight Returns.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Most of your questions are quite plot holes if you want to take them as plot holes(I didn't think they were bad enough to be plot hole material, imo) EXCEPT for...

- How is it that Bruce Wayne retires immediately after the events of TDK, and was seen in good health at the end of the film, but somehow his body is so worn in TDKR despite the stated absence of his tenure as Batman? You don't become a cripple from eight years of doing nothing.

While the night Harvey Dent died was Batman's last confirmed sighting, there is no direct conclusion that Batman indeed retired right after. Wayne Manor was not re-built by then but through dialogue, Bruce HAD been in the batcave for some time, but just not awhile. It's easy to assume Bruce had stayed as Batman for a while and only retired after the Dent Act came to play as thru dialogue with Batman and Gordon in the hospital, Batman mentioned that he stopped because Gotham didn't need him anymore and that they(him and Gordon) "won".

And for the injury. His leg could have started to hurt and stayed as an injury through years and years of not exercising the leg. I've seen it happen with my own father even.

- When did Bruce have time to rewrite his will and leave things to Robin and Selina?

Bruce may have re-did his will to give John that bag only to give him the "keys" to be Batman since he knew Bruce's alter ego. And as for Selina, Bruce didn't leave anything for Selina, he only took the necklace with him as it's even stated the necklace was missing. Nothing was left for Selina.

- How was Lucious analzying the data of a lone prototype that gpt destroyed in a nuclear explosion? There should have been no autopilot investigation because the Bat blew up.

I had a tough time with this as well, but since there was no question of radiation among the ones analyzing the prototype as well as Lucius just standing there with no worries as well, they could've definitely been looking at a different prototype(we can see at least three when Lucius first showed Bruce...one built prototype and one on each side that looks broken down) and they could have just been looking through the other prototypes as Fox's order to see what they could have done to fix The Bat. Fixing the auto-pilot on all three prototypes could've been the sign Bruce gave Lucius to show he's alive.

 

[hammerhedd11]

A) It is a Batman movie. Sorry to have to inform you, but people actually see these movies to see the principle character taking on said role. It isn't an issue to not have the costume in every other scene, but it is a problem to allow so much time to pass without having the principle character do something. Batman Begins was shorter and an origin film yet it had nearly twice the Btman screen time. There is no excuse for TDKR's lack of Batman. And for the record, I love books like Gotham Central where Batman is rarely seen. TDKR simply mismanages screen time. The absence of Batman is just one way that it shows.

No excuse? To whom is Nolan reporting? This is his story, his version of the characters. He doesn't have to follow a guideline on how to make a Batman movie. That's boring.
Yes, Batman was in quite a bit less than past films, but all for reasons pertaining to the plot. Should he have worn his batsuit in the prison to make up for this imaginary screen time the films have to reach? The very idea that people time the exact screen time of him suited up is kind of sad, because it seems a lot of people miss the point of what makes his character so interesting.

I came to see Batman too, and I did see Batman. Bruce Wayne is Batman, regardless of whether or not he is in the suit. Nolan captures essential parts of his character and puts him on a journey. I was so engrossed in Batman's journey throughout the film that I didn't even notice the shortened time in the suit, because that's not really what Batman is about. Batman is more than a suit and its sad that that's more than even a quibble in something that examines the character with such care. Is this really the priority of fans?

It's a fallacy to think that Batman is absent from much of the film, because Batman is the entire focus of the film whether he is seen or not. Screentime is arbitrary. It's what they choose to show. Batman is more than a suit. Batman becomes a legend that lives beyond Bruce in this film. He inspires a city to stand against evil. That's Batman. That's what Batman is about. It's sad that people don't see that.

B) Bruce Wayne retired in The Dark Knight returns because he was an old man. He was forty-five and not in the same condition. As he was in his youth. One of the sub points to the first half of the story was about how difficult it was to resume the role at the age of fifty-five. It isn't the same as Bruce retiring in his early thirties when he is in his prime.

It was more than old age. As it is more than just physical limitations in the movie, which are specifically stated outright. And if your quibble is that it doesn't follow the comic, (never mind that it's not even really canon) than I say welcome to the world of adaptations.