The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - Part 127 (NO SPOILERS)

[danoyse]

Wow big shame about Ebert.

 

[georgec]

Is Ebert spoiler review or not?

I haven't looked, but usually he discusses spoilers openly in his reviews.

 

[Tvar10]

The Prestige is so amazing. And that fan trailer of TDKR with the three parts of a magic trick from the movie get me every time I see it.

You have a link? I haven't seen it before

 

[Yawsbass]

Wow big shame about Ebert.

Where are people seeing this? It's not on his website or Twitter or anything.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

TDK and Prestige ahead of Inception for me, I find that the latter is harder to watch over and over again.

If you asked me a different day those two might be ahead of Inception and possibly even Begins. This is a list that is constantly changing, lol. I am just glad Nolan cares so much about what he's doing that he takes time with his movies and doesn't rush through them. They're definitely not without flaws, but there hasn't been one from him yet that I didn't want to watch again immediately after finishing it. Maybe Insomnia, but you get what I'm saying.

 

[stefan850]

Wow big shame about Ebert.

Why?

 

[georgec]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120717/REVIEWS/120719981

Haven't read it. Beware spoilers. 3/4 stars.

 

[BuddhaWasABat]

Damn. I am a little disappointed with Ebert. I mean he did give it an overall positive review so I am glad about that but still it is a little disappointing. Oh well.

 

[JackWhite]

There are a few tiny spoilers. He basically says Bane isn't the most compelling villain and that the first act is slightly confusing. Other than that, he enjoyed it.

Alright. Hmmm......If the flashbacks confused him, that's kinda sad. But I still love Ebert.

 

[ghoulstock]

Is Ebert spoiler review or not?

There are a few small spoilers (at least, I didn't know about them ha), but nothing major.

 

[The Chris]

Why?

I think because it is a whole star lower than the first two.

 

[Deserana]

Why?

I mean in a way that he gave the first 2 a 4/4 and was hoping for a full score. Nothing to worry here I'm not depressed!!!

 

[Boom]

His closing remarks:

This is a dark and heavy film; it tests the weight a superhero movie can bear. That Nolan is able to combine civil anarchy, mass destruction and a Batcycle with exercise-ball tires is remarkable. That he does it without using 3D is admirable. That much of it was shot in the 70mm IMAX format allows it to make that giant screen its own. That it concludes the trilogy is inevitable; how much deeper can Nolan dig? It lacks the near-perfection of "The Dark Knight" (2008), it needs more clarity and a better villain, but it's an honorable finale.

 

[Joker594]

Ebert seems to really enjoy the action and performances, but misses the humor and more interesting villains of the first two films. He also felt that there was a little bit less Batman than he bargained for. He found the movie to remarkably grim and have a stellar second half. Overall, he thinks it serves as a successful conclusion. t:

 

[JackWhite]

I think because it is a whole star lower than the first two.

I'm not pissing and moaning; but a 3.5 would have been better. Just saying.

 

[joker1524]

I think if tdkr had a 99 on RT some of u would still complain

 

[Yawsbass]

I think because it is a whole star lower than the first two.

Yeah, precisely. He seemed to appreciate the technical aspects of it, but didn't think it was "much fun", which is somewhat understandable I suppose. Still, would have been nice to have seen four stars across the board from him.

 

[TheFuture]

Ebert seems to really enjoy the action and performances, but misses the humor and more interesting villains of the first two films. He also felt that there was a little bit less Batman than he bargained for. He found the movie to remarkably grim and have a stellar second half. Overall, he thinks it serves as a successful conclusion. t:

Lack of interesting villains criticism would worry me, lack of Batman criticism wouldn't.

 

[kvz5]

Yeah I think his biggest complains were Bane ("Bane is the least charismatic of the Batman villains") and the shortage of Batman time.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If there's any positive to take away from this, it's that Ledger's Joker is still universally praised four years after-the-fact - which pretty much spits in the face of anyone who thought the critics got caught up in hyperbole when the film was initially released.

He gave us a villain for the ages, that's for sure.

Agree with this. Any BS about "sympathy for his death" will be washed away by time. The performance still holds up and will continue to hold up over time. It is that damn brilliant. And honestly, it's not just the performance. The writing for that character was perfect too. A ton of great lines and some interesting philosophical ideas. Still though, it bothered me 4 years ago when BB got overshadowed and it's starting to bother me now with TDKR as well. I still need to see the film of course, but the standard I will be judging it against is BB and not TDK. I care more about Bruce's story, not about whether Nolan can deliver another great villain of the week.

 

[Joker594]

Bear in mind that Ebert gave the same rating (3/4) to The Prestige.

 

[joker1524]

Ebert seems to really enjoy the action and performances, but misses the humor and more interesting villains of the first two films. He also felt that there was a little bit less Batman than he bargained for. He found the movie to remarkably grim and have a stellar second half. Overall, he thinks it serves as a successful conclusion. t:

First film barely had any villians lol

 

[JackWhite]

Ebert seems to really enjoy the action and performances, but misses the humor and more interesting villains of the first two films. He also felt that there was a little bit less Batman than he bargained for. He found the movie to remarkably grim and have a stellar second half. Overall, he thinks it serves as a successful conclusion. t:

I could have sworn someone said this had a little bit more humor? Well I'm glad it's even more grim. The less Batman thing bothered me, but it's looking like Bale is electric both in and out of the suit. So the Batman moments should not only deliver but be iconic as hell.

 

[Deserana]

Am I the only one here who thinks Bane looks better and more interesting than The Joker??????????

 

[stefan850]

I think because it is a whole star lower than the first two.

So? It's a shame that Ebert didn't enjoy it as much as he did BB and TDK? I'm sure his day was not ruined, although I don't even care.

He is not the cosmic law of film enjoyment.

He gave 3 stars to Godfather II/Blade Runner/The Good the Bad and the Ugly/, 2 and a half to Unforgiven/Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid etc etc etc

It's a positive review, that's all that is (partly) relevant.