The Dark Knight Rises The Official Rate/Review Thread for TDKR (TAG SPOILERS!!!) - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's because you aren't good at reading films. Directors are very intelligent and use symbolism and meaningful subtext to enhance the surface narrative. Chris Nolan does this. In every film. He's no Tarkovsky, Kubrick, or Lynch, but he does work in this manner. It's very disheartening to see that folks actually believe that TDKR is nothing more than an action-driven Batman movie, void of poetry or ambiguity, and that any powerful connections to archetypes and mythology have gone right over their heads.

Disagree all you want, but that's exactly what we have in The Dark Knight Rises. I mean, you're saying none of this is there, yet as soon as the title was released we all KNEW exactly where this thing was headed because of the very allegory/myth that we connect a word like "rises" to. And we were right. And to say it was a typical hero sacrifice is wrong also. Those typical hero sacrifices are based on powerful archetypes, as is the Christ figure/savior. Those are very old, very simple, and very powerful myths that resonate with us and that is exactly why we see this recurring in hero stories. The hero goes on a journey(Bruce leaves Gotham, trains, sets out to destroy injustice), he is aided by a donor (Lucious Fox/Ra's Al Ghul) and endures great suffering, pain, sometimes even death to absolve his countrymen of their sins. Ahhh...why am I wasting my time?

I'm not in any way being arrogant. I'm just pointing out what Nolan did. I'm a filmmaker, I understand how filmmakers work, I'm adept at reading film. That does not make me special or better than anyone else by any means, it just means that I specialize in a particular area. Having said that, I probably tend to shove that down people's throats without realizing it because its frustrating to see folks oversimplify films that aspire to do more than just entertain, whether the film is actually well-made or not.

Also, I have been a jerk in my last several posts, especially to The Guard, and I hope he'll accept my apology. There's no reason to take a stranger's opinions on a film so seriously.

Yes you are wasting you time.
Batman as yet another metaphor for Jesus?
Please......
TDKR uses the "phoenix" mythology. That much is obvious. But why the Christian variant in particular on this?

So anyone who doesnt believe your opinion is poor at reading films
Claiming this to be the truth is incredibly arrogant.
 
I get the vibe that the majority of you have a strong dislike for this movie. For whatever reasons, I don't know, but why is the 2nd one so much better? It's not a ridiculous argument, but is it because of Heath's performance? His performance was unreal, but how can you weigh a movie mostly on one actor's performance. One can argue (myself) that Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance as Rachel was far weaker than Katie Holmes' performance. Now can you pick out one slightly weak, stiff performance from the new movie? Tough right. Hey at the end of the day it all comes down to opinion. I think most of us can truly agree that BB was probably the weakest of the three, yet still a masterpiece.
 
I still liked it the most. Heath's performance was great, but I thought Bane came off as more of a badass.
 
I get the vibe that the majority of you have a strong dislike for this movie.

Not judging by the rating polls on here, I think the majority actually like it, but there are some who are going to dislike it and just air their views more or maybe a better way to put it, is have more unanswered questions about the film.
 
I think regardless of everyone's nitpicks, this will be a very fondly remembered trilogy for most of the fan community and general audience alike.

It was a truly awesome era for Batman. He's once again a totally respected and treasured piece of mainstream pop culture.
 
I think regardless of everyone's nitpicks, this will be a very fondly remembered trilogy for most of the fan community and general audience alike.

It was a truly awesome era for Batman. He's once again a totally respected and treasured piece of mainstream pop culture.

QFT

:applaud
 
Well, arrogance and ego stroking aside, you're logic is flawed for one reason. You are comparing the writing in a comic book film with real life. The reason Blake discovers who Batman is may be valid in a real world scenario but if that's the case then why the hell can't Gordon figure it out for 3 movies, Selina? Selina dances with Bruce and kisses him yet she can't see that it's clearly Bruce Wayne wearing the mask. Nobody can figure it out but Blake because we're supposed to believe that, like you, he's superior to everyone else in psychology department. The point is that the film can't have it both ways without drawing some criticism for lazy writing. Like a-lot of other things in the film, it's not consistent with what they've set up over the last 2 films.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to sound pretentious, I just happen to be good at that. Just as there's people who are good at math (I'm not at all) or good at remember exact historical dates and facts (I'm bad at that too.

In any case, it is consistent for Gordon. Because Gordon never wanted to know who Batman was. He was very much characterized as the wife who doesn't want admit her husband is cheating on her; intentional ignorance and denial.

Catwoman was dumb, however. But that would've been dumb either way.

I also disagree with the concept that there should be a double standard for comic book movies and reality. If it works in reality, it should definitely work in a comic book movie too.
 
Either way this trilogy was a long time coming for the Batman franchise. Batman was overdue for a badass trilogy, and that's what it got.
 
Saw the movie last week and had to see it again the other day so I could absorb everything. It was awesome & epic, but I think I liked TDK a little more.

At my first showing in IMAX, some voices were really hard to discern and made it hard to hear what was being said, like Bane's and Batman's. At a regular theater it was much easier to hear.

My two biggest nitpicks against the movie haven't been mentioned much in this thread. First was the obvious backdrop of NYC as Gotham. I found it extremely jarring after the Chicago backdrop for BB and TDK. I thought the NYC shots were waaaay too obvious and I can't believe a director like Nolan would make such an obvious abrupt change from Chicago to NYC.

Also it really, really annoyed me how loud the music was against the soundtrack mix, especially in IMAX. Music should just NOT be that loud in any movie. There were times when it sonically obstructed from a character speaking too, so I could barely hear what certain characters were saying. WTF. Inception and TDK were also like this for me. I seriously think Nolan needs to fire his sound editing people because they're ruining his movies for me. Music should be subtle in a movie, not deafiningly obvious like in TDKR.

My favorite moment by far in the movie was
Crane's cameo
. I got a kick out of seeing him again and he definitely made the most of his screentime too. I wanted more! His delivery of his lines was just way too funny.

The shots of The Bat flying around Gotham at the end were especially awesome in IMAX too. Holy crap that was cool!

And I wanted to see more of Marion - not so much her character, just more of her. Because she's hot. :hrt:

Though I love Nolan's trilogy and approach to the Bat-world, if there's ever another Batman reboot, I'd personally like a more comic-booky movie next time around that resembles BTAS more. Would that be too much to ask? ;)
 
Last edited:
I think regardless of everyone's nitpicks, this will be a very fondly remembered trilogy for most of the fan community and general audience alike.

It was a truly awesome era for Batman. He's once again a totally respected and treasured piece of mainstream pop culture.

:up: This trilogy is ****ing awesome
 
Upon the third viewing the lack of Batman in this movie becomes annoyingly noticable.
 
No...I infer that the rope is designed to physically hold people back because the film SHOWS people being held back by the rope when they try to climb.

The whole "Make the climb as the child did...without the rope" thing isn't just about Bruce and fear. Its about it being physically impossible to escape without being free of the rope. Its literal...and its metaphor.

Only one other person attempts the climb throughout the movie. The rope appears taught on one side and has slack on the climber's side. I infer the rope as a literal safety and a metaphorical inhibition. Who says I cannot perceive a plausible and contradictory inference to yours?

That may be...and that is so...so stupid.

It's like facing Bane and being broken by him didn't change him at all.

Why would he not gain a respect and fear of death after he faces something that should make him afraid?

Seems like a missed opportunity for character exploration to me. Not that the film wasn't already chock full of those.
I notice how you conveniently omit my evidence to support your argument and resort to an ad hominem attack. Well, allow me to retort. Your ignorance justifies calling my explanation stupid. You obviously fail to explore the synonymity between "the most powerful impulse of the spirit: The fear of death," the "power [that] can be yours," and the sympathetic nervous system.

How would I explain it? The way scientists and doctors do. Adrenaline. Determination.
Do you even know how the sympathetic nervous system functions when you activate it and what hormone it produces? Do you know working out stimulates the sympathetic nervous system in the exact way as running from a pit bull? The SAS member Chris Ryan used determination to control the adrenaline coming from his sympathetic nervous system. He covered roughly forty miles per day for five days. He even remarked smelling like death through the ordeal. However, you simply cannot recognize the analogy between the anecdote, Bruce jumping without the rope, and the doctor's soliloquy.

That...has little to nothing to do with what happens in the film.

Supposedly Bruce didn't fear death already. But then he had to learn to fear death...to overcome fear of death? Thats so convoluted and nonsensical to me. Which is basically what all the "you must learn fear again" stuff was. Nonsense. Its philosophical mumbo jumbo, but its not based in anything tangible.

I feel like if this is what the film was dealing with...then the film should have been more about Bruce learning to deal with failure...and not vague ideas about fear.
The Enlightenment philosophy heavily influences The Constitution and Declaration of Independence, documents that preserves our great country. Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War nearly 2,300 years ago, but the US military still applies its strategies in combat today. People still practice jeet kune do and apply its philosophies to daily living. Bruce Lee has been dead for thirty-nine years. Martin Luther King Jr. applied Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolence philosophy to awaken America's social conscience. King's work still remains in progress to this day. You are white, so I do not expect you to acknowledge any tangible results from nonwhite philosophies; they will always remain convoluted and nonsensical to you. Excuse me for refusing to adopt your ethnocentric myopia and covert bigotry that you project through your rebuttals. You are right. Philosophy is a bunch of mumbo jumbo that is not based on anything tangible.

"When a country begins to feel threatened by its own inadequacies, the majority of men tend to prop themselves up by artificial means, rather than dig down deep into their cultural and spiritual wellsprings" (Martin Luther King Jr.)

"It was obvious to the master from the start of the conversation that the professor was not so much interested in learning about Zen as he was in impressing the master with his own opinions and knowledge. As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt him with remarks like 'Oh, yes, we have that, too' and so on. Finally, the Zen teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man. He poured the cup full, then kept pouring until the cup overflowed. 'Enough!' the learned man once more interrupted. 'The cup is overfull, no more will go in!' 'Indeed, I see,' answered the Zen teacher. 'Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. If you do not first empty your cup, how can you taste my cup of tea?'"

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides" (John Stuart Mill).
 
Last edited:
Again, you miss my point entirely by failing to understand that people derive meaning and entertainment from The Dark Knight Rises differently than you, despite your opinion of bad writing and storytelling. You elicit an analytical response when you dismiss others' perspectives as ridiculous. You see black and white. Others see cool, warm, light, dark, bright, dull in addition to black and white. Others can make the imaginative leap; they can complete the gestalt without having to compartmentalize the movie's formal elements into black and white. Why can some people do so? They perceive parallels to psychology, philosophy, art, religion, mathematics, science, music, literature, socio-political environment, and other aspects in reality, but you consider exploration into this "gray area" as ridiculous, pretentious, arrogant, and devoid of any entertainment value? A man with perma white or painted skin epitomizes ridiculous fiction, but why does the Joker in The Dark Knight generate an indelible and diverse meaning? Who are you to invalidate truths different from your own and dictate how people should enjoy a movie? Some guys think anime women are hot. I personally prefer real women. Can I judge those guys? I can disagree with them, but cannot say they are wrong. I honestly doubt if you can a discern the correlation with this analogy and our dialogue, but you demonstrate such an ability very well. "Ignorance is bliss my friend, don't burden yourself with these secrets of scary people" (Carmine Falcone).

It sounds to me like you are the one completely uneasy with my opinions of this film. Number one, I was never addressing you to begin with. You basically jumped on a reply that was never intended for you. Yet, here you are writing up another storm and trying hard to convince me how wrong I am for feeling the way I do. All the while explaining that no one is ever wrong for having an opinion based on personal perception. Kind of hipocritical don't you think? Who has the low tolerance for the opinions of others? Maybe it was the words I used that you didn't like. Sorry about that.

Now, to your point of view that everything in the world will evoke a different response from every individual and that my point of view is going to be different from another's, well yeah....I never said otherwise. Arguing an opinion and denying an opinion are two different things. I can't deny the opinions of others anyway nor do I try. So I said something was ridiculous. Yeah, I'm entitled to say that. I get irritated by the mindset that perception is everything and what's this to someone is that to someone else. Ever heard of film criticism? You think they live by those rules? If you live your life by this rule then nothing is real because what you find to be real and utter truth is just a blatant lie to someone else. Yet you feel they are correct in feeling this way. If you believe that then your truth holds no validity at all. It's the same as a person on drugs going on about "It all fits and the universe is all connected." No, some things are clearly wrong and some things are clearly right. What's the point in debating anything at all if your opinion is that anyone's opinion is correct because it's all about the way they perceive things? Well that's a lovely thought and all but to me THAT is TRULY ignorant bliss. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't pat everyone on the shoulder and say "That's not true for me but I'm sure it's true for you."

Also, I enjoy the way to you try to belittle and intimidate anyone that you disagree with by using big words and quotes. You call others ignorant and go on deconstructing just about every post you disagree with. It seems to me like you just want to pick fights so you can make yourself feel smart. Otherwise why did you initiate a verbal debate with me? It's okay for you to use innuendo to insult everyone on these boards yet you're engaging me for using the word "ridiculous?" Hmm. Weird.
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like you are the one completely uneasy with my opinions of this film. Number one, I was never addressing you to begin with. You basically jumped on a reply that was never intended for you. Yet, here you are writing up another storm and trying hard to convince me how wrong I am for feeling the way I do. All the while explaining that no one is ever wrong for having an opinion based on personal perception. Kind of hipocritical don't you think? Who has the low tolerance for the opinions of others? Maybe it was the words I used that you didn't like. Sorry about that.

Now, to your point of view that everything in the world will evoke a different response from every individual and that my point of view is going to be different from another's, well yeah....I never said otherwise. Arguing an opinion and denying an opinion are two different things. I can't deny the opinions of others anyway nor do I try. So I said something was ridiculous. Yeah, I'm entitled to say that. I get irritated by the mindset that perception is everything and what's this to someone is that to someone else. Ever heard of film criticism? You think they live by those rules? If you live your life by this rule then nothing is real because what you find to be real and utter truth is just a blatant lie to someone else. Yet you feel they are correct in feeling this way. If you believe that then your truth holds no validity at all. It's the same as a person on drugs going on about "It all fits and the universe is all connected." No, some things are clearly wrong and some things are clearly right. What's the point in debating anything at all if your opinion is that anyone's opinion is correct because it's all about the way they perceive things. Well that's a lovely thought and all but to me that is TRULY ignorant bliss. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't pat everyone on the shoulder and say "That's not true for me but I'm sure it's true for you."

You have no need to apologize. I respect your opinion since it broadens my perspective. I am not trying to convince that you are wrong. However, can you not grant me the common courtesy to explain my position, especially if you respond to it? I have experiences comparable to CConn regarding the movie. Excuse me for engaging in a public forum. Where is the hypocrisy when I never said you were wrong? I never say one opinion is correct over another. However, one does have an affinity to positions or opinions similar to his/her own. You are entitled to dismiss my explanation as ridiculous and pretentious, but you cannot censor me from defending it with a cogent argument. I have heard of film criticism. In fact, I read others' opinions prior to watching The Dark Knight Rises in an attempt to perceive experiences comparable or different than mine; this is the foundation to discourse. What do drugs have to do with critiquing a movie? We debate the merits and flaws of the movie here in the forum and nothing else; this is my position. I can state my position regarding social mores, norms, ethics, morality, or politics, but why here? My position regarding such issues require another level of critical thinking beyond the scope of comic books and movies. You present a non sequitir when you equate defending my opinions for a movie with a failure to take a stand for right and wrong. We can agree to disagree and still come to a consensus.
 
Last edited:
Also, I enjoy the way to you try to belittle and intimidate anyone that you disagree with by using big words and quotes. You call others ignorant and go on deconstructing just about every post you disagree with. It seems to me like you just want to pick fights so you can make yourself feel smart. Otherwise why did you initiate a verbal debate with me? It's okay for you to use innuendo to insult everyone on these boards yet you're engaging me for using the word "ridiculous?" Hmm. Weird.

Do you speak English as your primary language? If yes, then you should have no problem comprehending my responses. I cite those quotes to reinforce my argument and cannot write more eloquently than their authors. Should I feel sorry for your inadequacy projected towards my use of the English language? Look up ad hominem since you refuse to address my input regarding The Dark Knight Rises. Do you enjoy having someone insult your intelligence? I am of average intelligence, but certainly do not enjoy having it insulted and will defend myself by reciprocity. You are welcome to think "I just want to pick fights so I can make [myself] feel smart," but you are wrong. "Otherwise, why [do] you initiate a verbal debate with me" on a public forum for discussion? Furthermore, I cannot fight by punching keys. I have equal opportunity to participate in the dialogue just like you, no more and no less. I only have forty-one posts so it is impossible for me to have insulted everyone. Why use the words "ridiculous" and "pretentious" in a demeaning manner only to say your sorry later?
 
Last edited:
That has everything to do with psychology.

No one said otherwise.

I only said that Blake was never portrayed as a mentalist or expert psychologist, and that the fact he understood Bruce's psychology was because he was an orphan himself.

But if you were merely trying to write a reply that's completely out of topic, then sorry, that's proper good work mate.
 
Last edited:
I just came back from my first opportunity to see it.

I am happy to say that I really enjoyed it, and much more than I expected. It was a great story, perfectly concluding Bruce and Alfred's own journies, while giving strong arcs to newcomers Blake and Kyle.

Bane was a very convincing villain, and it is particularly commendable that he felt just as threatening as The Joker while very different. I was less convinced by the "twist" that saw Talia effectively occupying the status and even the backstory that we had been lead to attach to him; partly because it was foreshadowed so heavily, and partly because I think it slightly weakened Bane's character without really making Talia that much more interesting.

The plot weaved "Knightfall" and "No Man's Land" together quite neatly, and I really love the ending (though can you really have Robin without Batman?). I don't think they really "nailed" Catwoman, and she was a disappointment to me, but almost everything else was a pleasant surprise.

B
Not a milion miles away from my own thoughts, though I was more taken with Catwoman, and disappointed by the lack of development of the No Mans Land elements. But yeah, a great conclusion to the trilogy.
 
It sounds to me like you are the one completely uneasy with my opinions of this film. Number one, I was never addressing you to begin with. You basically jumped on a reply that was never intended for you. Yet, here you are writing up another storm and trying hard to convince me how wrong I am for feeling the way I do. All the while explaining that no one is ever wrong for having an opinion based on personal perception. Kind of hipocritical don't you think? Who has the low tolerance for the opinions of others? Maybe it was the words I used that you didn't like. Sorry about that.

Now, to your point of view that everything in the world will evoke a different response from every individual and that my point of view is going to be different from another's, well yeah....I never said otherwise. Arguing an opinion and denying an opinion are two different things. I can't deny the opinions of others anyway nor do I try. So I said something was ridiculous. Yeah, I'm entitled to say that. I get irritated by the mindset that perception is everything and what's this to someone is that to someone else. Ever heard of film criticism? You think they live by those rules? If you live your life by this rule then nothing is real because what you find to be real and utter truth is just a blatant lie to someone else. Yet you feel they are correct in feeling this way. If you believe that then your truth holds no validity at all. It's the same as a person on drugs going on about "It all fits and the universe is all connected." No, some things are clearly wrong and some things are clearly right. What's the point in debating anything at all if your opinion is that anyone's opinion is correct because it's all about the way they perceive things? Well that's a lovely thought and all but to me THAT is TRULY ignorant bliss. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't pat everyone on the shoulder and say "That's not true for me but I'm sure it's true for you."

Also, I enjoy the way to you try to belittle and intimidate anyone that you disagree with by using big words and quotes. You call others ignorant and go on deconstructing just about every post you disagree with. It seems to me like you just want to pick fights so you can make yourself feel smart. Otherwise why did you initiate a verbal debate with me? It's okay for you to use innuendo to insult everyone on these boards yet you're engaging me for using the word "ridiculous?" Hmm. Weird.


Sounds to me like you need to chill out. Just because someone has a more extensive vocabulary than you doesn't make that person pretentious or condescending. When it comes to art and the perception and enjoyment of it, would you not agree that your own subjective experience is the most important thing? Why do you act like there is only one truth, and that you hold the truth? I can tell you right now that truth is only effective as far one can convince himself of that "truth". Even what we consider scientific truth, isn't even truth; they are just theories that over-time became well accepted because of the internal consistency they exhibited. The second another, more extensive, theory comes along and proves to be more rigorous and consistent, it is considered the new "truth". You see, what we consider "truth" at the end of the day is only what we are willing to accept.. and of course your truth, will be different from mine. You just proved it in your posts. Does this detract from what it means to be a film critic? In some ways it does, because it says that a critics view has no more weight than your own view.. there's nothing wrong with that though. Critics are not useless though, because people will look for the opinions of critics with similar views as their own. If someone perceives things similar to how I do, it's likely I will perceive something novel in the same way.
 
Last edited:
I feel as though the conversation regarding the movie has degraded into mere infantile and boorish squabbling near totally-devoid of any actual intelligent or insightful thought.

And that goes for everyone. Hell, me too at this point. We've been arguing about the most random, pointless, and minuscule details about the movie that - anyone with any actual intelligent perspective - would realize is ultimately pointless compared to the larger themes and tones of the film.
 
Do you speak English as your primary language? If yes, then you should have no problem comprehending my responses. I cite those quotes to reinforce my argument and cannot write more eloquently than their authors. Should I feel sorry for your inadequacy projected towards my use of the English language? Look up ad hominem since you refuse to address my input regarding The Dark Knight Rises. Do you enjoy having someone insult your intelligence? I am of average intelligence, but certainly do not enjoy having it insulted and will defend myself by reciprocity. You are welcome to think "I just want to pick fights so I can make [myself] feel smart," but you are wrong. "Otherwise, why [do] you initiate a verbal debate with me" on a public forum for discussion? Furthermore, I cannot fight by punching keys. I have equal opportunity to participate in the dialogue just like you, no more and no less. I only have forty-one posts so it is impossible for me to have insulted everyone. Why use the words "ridiculous" and "pretentious" in a demeaning manner only to say your sorry later?

Funny thing is I like the movie and i was responding to one very small aspect of the film and what I thought was ridiculous about it. Here are just some of your quotes. Maybe by taking a second look at them you can see how one might take them as condescending or insulting.

I honestly doubt if you can a discern the correlation with this analogy and our dialogue, but you demonstrate such an ability very well.

Your ignorance justifies calling my explanation stupid.

Do you speak English as your primary language?

Should I feel sorry for your inadequacy projected towards my use of the English language?

I'm sure everyone is very impressed by your vocabulary but certainly we can discuss a Batman movie without taking all these digs at people we don't agree with. I called an opinion "ridiculous." What you are doing is insulting others and thinking maybe they aren't quick enough to pick up on it.
 
I feel as though the conversation regarding the movie has degraded into mere infantile and boorish squabbling near totally-devoid of any actual intelligent or insightful thought.

And that goes for everyone. Hell, me too at this point. We've been arguing about the most random, pointless, and minuscule details about the movie that - anyone with any actual intelligent perspective - would realize is ultimately pointless compared to the larger themes and tones of the film.

I agree and I apologize to you if I offended you with the post that started this long debate between me and Socrates there. As I said before, I really do like the movie quite a bit but I do get annoyed by some people who can't admit to ANY faults in the movie and go to extreme lengths to defend everything about it. You actually seem to be very level headed and smart.
 
I feel as though the conversation regarding the movie has degraded into mere infantile and boorish squabbling near totally-devoid of any actual intelligent or insightful thought.

And that goes for everyone. Hell, me too at this point. We've been arguing about the most random, pointless, and minuscule details about the movie that - anyone with any actual intelligent perspective - would realize is ultimately pointless compared to the larger themes and tones of the film.
TDK was a groundbreaking superhero movie and Nolan raised the bar. fact is that TDKR story is not as tight as TDK. everything that is happening is normal. the movie deserves that we nitpick about every detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,783
Messages
21,811,765
Members
45,626
Latest member
SunStorm333
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"