The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 1

[AnneFan]

Actually that scene is one of my favs for Bane. He's really menacing in it, and his voice sounds particularly great there. Also I love the little quirks he has like wiggling his fingers while his henchman searches Gordon lol.

Yep. I also like the neck snapping scene with Daggett. Bane in complete control of his prey and while angry, not losing his cool.

 

[Rain in Gotham]

Banes voice is menacing and calming at the same time......man tom hardy needs to record audio book's in that voice

 

[Tacit Ronin]

[YT]IMC7H23-sMs[/YT]

Daredevil Final Trailer.

Simply glourious.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Shumacher batman or Shumacher anything over any Nolan film? Now that would be hard to take seriously.

Falling Down and A Time to Kill >>>>> Inception.

 

[shauner111]

Disagree with that. Inception is more creative and has one of my favorite endings in the history of cinema. Dat score. I forgot Falling Down was Shumacher though, so now I can't say every Nolan movie is greater. That's simply not true. Was a joke anyway.

 

[shauner111]

Speaking of Nolan, how about some criticism from my end. Let's change it up.

There are fans who think he's the Kubrick of his generation. I've read this before, especially during the Interstellar era. "Oh this is the 2001 of the 21st century". No. It is not.

Sure, they're two directors with great imagination and it's always an exciting event when Chris puts out a new movie, but Nolan doesn't treat the audience with the same respect. He's more concerned with making sure ALL audiences can enjoy the ride, no matter how complex the ideas are (or how simple). Even though Jessica Chastain will go on record saying the opposite. I love that woman but i have to disagree with her. Chris isn't on Kubricks level. Why is that? The guy makes some of my favorite "blockbusters" today. But what's his weakness??? EXPOSITION.

Kubrick would never explain things to the audience in the way that Chris does. I don't mind it in Inception because i find Nolan executes those scenes in an entertaining way, between the characters. They're going into the dream sharing blind. But in Interstellar, they already have the skills. They're scientists. They should know what a wormhole is. Nolan is trying to hold our hand, explaining things to us because he doesn't trust that we're getting it.

Characters often think out loud in his movies. To tell us what they're feeling.

Following is a good example of him spoon-feeding throughout, with characters constantly telling each other what it is that they do. It's like "here are the themes, you dumb modern audience. I won't show them to you, ill tell you them."

Point: I think Nolan is slowly becoming a more cerebral (but not without emotion) version of Spielberg. Not anything like Stanley Kubrick. My beef with Spielberg is his safe, Hollywood way of ending everything in a big happy bow even when it doesn't make sense. Steven is too concerned with keeping the audience happy, feeling good when they leave the theater. Nolan doesn't give a s**t. His endings are bolder than that. But Nolan's issue is with making sure the audience understands everything. Two greats who have flaws.

Who would you compare Nolan to, from the past? And to each of you, who is your favorite director of all-time and/or working today? No need to answer if you're not a big film guy/girl.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

True true. Nolan also doesn't have Kubrick's visual eye. His camera work is very basic and functional. They get things done but little else. Every shot in a Kubrick film is dense with ideas. Nolan also rarely ever holds shots. His editing rhythm is very modern and Hollywood-esque. Kubrick would relentlessly hold a shot and challenge us to keep up.

 

[shauner111]

It's like that shot in the trailers for Rises, where Bruce is walking into the party. I adored that shot, expected it in the film, and hoped he would stay on Bruce for a bit while he limps into the masquerade ball. I don't know if it was cut due to Imax not allowing 3 hours or whatever it is. Or if Nolan was up to his quick editing methods again and decided to cut it so he can get to the point quicker. Sometimes i admire that loose feel because it makes it feel alive, but yes, sometimes he doesn't stay on a shot long enough. The rhythm is quick and doesn't have the breathing room that i usually crave.

My nitpicks with Rises have to do with the editing rather than the script. Interstellar is the other way around. I actually think Nolan let shots breathe in Interstellar, more than usual.

 

[BatLobster]

I think Nolan definitely could be heading down a more Spielberg-ian path. Interstellar definitely had a strong "2001 mixed with Spielberg emotional tropes" feel. Next we'll see what his version of a big WWII movie is.

But ultimately, I don't think the "he's the next _____" comparisons tend to work. You can certainly see the influence of other filmmakers (including Kubrick) in his work, but at the end of the day Kubrick is Kubrick. Spielberg is Spielberg. Nolan is Nolan. They've all got their own flavor and are going for different things, even while working on large canvases. Nolan and Spielberg I think are both a bit more up the middle so to speak, where they tend to make films that are built for the masses. Nolan's work is more cerebral in terms of the ideas he's plays with and the way he plays with narrative, so he definitely tries to raise the bar in terms of the complexity level in a blockbuster film- but shauner is right that sometimes he leans very heavily on exposition to make sure no audience member gets left behind. I guess for me the difference between that and say a James Cameron script, is that Nolan's work tends to be more thematically dense. Even with the exposition, there's always still a lot there that isn't spelled out that's there for you to chew on and appreciate on multiple viewings.

If I had to compare, I'd say Nolan is some sort of hybrid of various qualities of Kubrick, Spielberg, Lean, Cameron (or maybe even Bay) and Hitchcock. But again, he's pretty much developed his own cinematic language at this point. What makes me think of Hitchcock isn't necessarily the filmmaking, but the presentation. Nolan's not nearly as much of a showman as Hitchcock, but he does make his movies feel like big events. Screening the prologue for TDK and TDKR six months in advance always seemed like a Hitchcock sort of stunt to pull, but it was a great way to build excitement for the movies. If you know anything about the way Hitchcock got involved with the distribution of Psycho to promote a spoiler-free atmosphere in the theaters, that's where I see the parallel. Both were/are very concerned with preserving that cinematic experience.

I think it was Anne Hathaway who said Nolan was like "Hitchcock with an automatic." As I said, I don't think there's any sort of 1 to 1 comparison to be made there, but I can kind of see the spirit of what she meant there.

 

[shauner111]

I tend to feel the same way, that he's a hybrid. I see what you mean about Hitchcock, even though i never compare Nolan to him, like Anne would. Im not sure what she meant with that statement. I usually compare Fincher to Hitchcock, if Hitchock was making movies in this modern era with the meticulous mindset of Kubrick. The guy even wanted to remake a Hitchcock film with Ben Affleck. It may happen one day.

Nolan has his own expression though. He seems to be a big thinker, who constantly thinks outside the box. Quite obsessively. Which is expressed through every lead character in his filmography. Every film shows that he fears losing his wife to some kind of tragedy. Wanting to be there for his children, fear of not spending enough time with them, wanting the next generation to live on and improve the world around them. That's what i get out of Nolan from his movies.

But i can't say "it's the fame and the scope of his films. That's the reason why he feels the need to hold the general moviegoers hand through every plot point and theme". Because he's been doing it since the days of Following where he had 10, 000 dollars to make his first feature. Or Memento which was simply based off an idea from his brother. Heavy exposition can be a trap. I hope he gets it in check just a bit.

 

[shauner111]

Who's your favorite working director atm Batlobster?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Steve McQueen for me. Now that's a dude that knows how to hold a shot.

Paul Thomas Anderson is another one. I know the Master got a mixed reception but the more I watch it the more I love it. It's become my favorite film of the 2010s.

I love how PTA is slowly losing interest in conventional form and structure. His films are flowing more like music, like Terry Malick's now.

 

[JackWhite]

Nolan's exposition started to get out of hand with Inception. But it wasn't until TDKR and Interstellar came out where I'm like, OK, he really needs to tone it down now.

I'm really looking forward to him going back to his roots with the upcoming Dunkirk film. If he was doing another Sci-Fi or space movie I really couldn't get excited about it at this point in time.

My favorite director right now would have been Tarantino, but Hateful 8 didn't quite do it for me. Even though I loved the performances in it.

 

[shauner111]

Steve McQueen for me. Now that's a dude that knows how to hold a shot.

Paul Thomas Anderson is another one. I know the Master got a mixed reception but the more I watch it the more I love it. It's become my favorite film of the 2010s.

I love how PTA is slowly losing interest in conventional form and structure. His films are flowing more like music, like Terry Malick's now.

Im a fan of McQueen but he can be a bit too bleak and depressing for me to call him my number 1 favorite director right now. I would like to see him juggle something with a little bit of humor.

PTA is one of my favs, same with Tarantino. Those guys will always be near the top or at the very top depending on my mood. And as far as im concerned, i have a hard time NOT putting Scorsese straight to number one as long as he's breathing and working! I have a feeling PTA will be doing something a little more conventional though, after Inherent Vice.

As of late Derek Cianfrance is my number one. Followed by Inarritu, Refn, Villeneuve, Aronofsky, Wook-Park, Bong Joon-Ho, Farhadi, Coens, Fukunaga.

Nolan's exposition started to get out of hand with Inception. But it wasn't until TDKR and Interstellar came out where I'm like, OK, he really needs to tone it down now.

I'm really looking forward to him going back to his roots with the upcoming Dunkirk film. If he was doing another Sci-Fi or space movie I really couldn't get excited about it at this point in time.

My favorite director right now would have been Tarantino, but Hateful 8 didn't quite do it for me. Even though I loved the performances in it.

I disagree about Inception. With Interstellar, most of the time the characters aren't doing anything other than looking at each other with a straight face, telling them ****. Luckily that movie still gets to me with Zimmers music, the father-daughter relationship, the great action sequences (dat docking scene is legendary to me) and a pretty emotional ending. But it's the toughest watch for me now that i have the blu-ray, thanks to the dialogue and most of the character interaction.

The only time where it was painfully obvious in Rises to me was when Daggett talks about the clean slate to Catwoman.

I don't know what to expect with Dunkirk. It could go either way.

Tarantino was my favorite for years. Still in love with his filmography. I strongly suggest watching Hateful Eight a second time. I dug it SO much more after being let down the first time.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I love the Hateful Eight. Yes, the first two chapters are slow as hell, but I love how the film is about race relations in America and its bleak implications.

 

[BatLobster]

I tend to feel the same way, that he's a hybrid. I see what you mean about Hitchcock, even though i never compare Nolan to him, like Anne would. Im not sure what she meant with that statement. I usually compare Fincher to Hitchcock, if Hitchock was making movies in this modern era with the meticulous mindset of Kubrick. The guy even wanted to remake a Hitchcock film with Ben Affleck. It may happen one day.

I agree, Fincher is a more apt comparison if you're talking about the actual filmmaking (still hoping that Strangers on a Train remake does happen). The Hitchcock parallel to me is purely about the ability both have to create this larger than life aura around their films.

Speaking of Fincher, he's definitely one of my favorites- Gone Girl reaffirmed that for me. The Coens, Scorcese, Edgar Wright and Tarantino are all in that club too for me. PTA...I feel like I might admire his films more than I love them. But he's ridiculously talented, no question.

I won't dodge the question though, it's Nolan. It's not that I think he's the absolute best working today, he's just my favorite. His sensibilities tend to line up with my own, and even the subject matter of his films has very often lined up with my own interests (Magic, space exploration, Batman- all things I've been very into at one point or another). As a genre fan, I love that nearly all of his films function as neo-noirs on some level, no matter what genre he's playing in or how large in scale. I also love that he seems to be the guy that gets the best work out of Hans Zimmer these days- his scores for Nolan films almost feel like as much of an event as the movies themselves. You take all of that and combine it with someone that is also delivering movies that function as extremely entertaining blockbusters, and then it just becomes this soufflé of so many things going right at once for me. I know that I'm going to get a very filling meal, so to speak, when I see one of his movies. Not a cool kid answer, but gotta be honest. That's just how I currently feel.

I've also got my eye on Rian Johnson. My hope is that Episode VIII will be next-level great, and it'll launch him as a major player that is able to get some original, big-budget ideas made. I see a lot of potential in him.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Looper is pretty dang good. I prefer it over Inception.

 

[BatLobster]

Looper is very good. I like Brick too, although it is a tad student-filmy- I appreciate what he was going for there.

Ozymandias might very well be the best thing in his filmography though. Even though its impact does rest on the shoulders of the previous 59 episodes in the series, it's just so damn perfectly directed and acted every step of the way.

The potential I see in Rian is a combination of what I've seen in his work, and hearing him on podcasts and other interviews where he talks about film. He's got some really interesting influences swirling around up there. Also just seems like a really cool, laid back dude. A film geek in the best sense of the word.

 

[shauner111]

Man, i agree with everything you said about Rian Johnson's movies. He's also the nicest guy on the planet lol.

I wouldn't put Looper over Inception but it's damn good.

Im against the Hitchcock remake though. I have no use for remakes and i only give DePalma's Scarface a pass because of what he changed. Im very iffy on Fincher's last two films. His remake of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was almost completely unnecessary and quite predictable (this is coming from somebody who didn't see the original beforehand). Gone Girl was very average for me. Stiff/unnatural dialogue and a dull ending that didn't feel realistic. The acting in the last half, great cinematography & attention to detail is what stopped me from giving it a bad rating. 3/5 for Gone Girl.

Don't get me wrong Batlobster, im still a big Nolan fan and consider him my current favorite director strictly when it comes to seeing films in a cinema. He's the big event director for sure.

PTA is tricky. I loved Magnolia when i first saw it as a teen. But as i get older i find myself not being able to relate to the religious elements he inserted in the story, and i do agree with him that it's too long. I do like every single film of his & think Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood are masterpieces from the decades they were released in.

I love the Hateful Eight. Yes, the first two chapters are slow as hell, but I love how the film is about race relations in America and its bleak implications.

The first time i saw it, it was the final act that bothered me.

 

[The Batman]

Is it just me, or has it become a bit of a fad to prefer Batman Begins over The Dark Knight?

 

[Travesty]

Not a fad for me.

 

[The Joker]

Is it just me, or has it become a bit of a fad to prefer Batman Begins over The Dark Knight?

Having seen the recent rank the Batman movies thread, no.

 

[The Batman]

Not a fad for me.

What are your thoughts on BB and TDK? Your opinion on TDKR is well known, but I don't think I've seen you talk about the other two much.

Having seen the recent rank the Batman movies thread, no.

I just checked the consensus that was posted in there. It is just me.

 

[Travesty]

I love BB. It's one of my all time favorite live action Batman movies. It's great. Sure, it has its faults here and there, its definitely not perfect, but I love it.

TDK I find to be overrated. I don't hate it, but I'm not amazed by it. There's definitely some stuff that I hate about it though, but for the most part, I just find the movie to be boring. I also hate the pacing of the movie, as it starts off great with the bank heist, but then after that, it's just a frantic sprint to the very end with the Two-Face encounter, and then the movie just ends. I also find it to be incredibly depressing, and it's not something I can watch all the time. Maybe once a year and I'm good. On paper, I feel like I should like it, but when it's put into action, it just doesn't work for me like BB does. So in other words, I think it's an ok movie that I have to be in a very specific mood to watch.

With TDKR, you would have to strap me in A Clockwork Orange style to get me to watch it again.

 

[The Joker]

With TDKR, you would have to strap me in A Clockwork Orange style to get me to watch it again.

I've known you since you joined here, and I still believe you secretly like it a lot more than you claim. Nobody who has spent the amount of time you have in the Rises forum (and still does 4 years later) could possibly detest it as much as you say. People tend to actively avoid forums for movies they loathe.

Or is it the sparkling personalities of myself and the others here that keeps drawing you back?