Dark Knight Rises: Review

[Cainanite (imported)]

Before I toddle off to bed, I thought I'd check back and post this.

I had not read any reviews before I went to see the movie. I wanted to decide for myself. I didn't read any reviews before I made my review. I didn't want to influence my opinion, just give it raw.

Since writing my review, I have read others. It seems I am in the overwhelming minority opinion about this movie. Just about everyone loves it.

Well not everyone. Mostly, people under the age of thirty who are willing to think the movie's ham handed political commentary is somehow "deep". Some people who have given the movie negative reviews have had death threats made against them because of it. rottentomatoes (dot) com actually had to shut down their comments section (first time ever) because of death threats to negative reviewers from their online members.

Of the reviews I have now read (positive and negative), all of them say essentially the same thing I have said. It is just some reviewers pass off the faults of the movie as minor, because the rest of it is just so damn great. "Sure Batman and Bane are unintelligible, but who cares? The movie is awesome!", "The movie might be bloated and feel too long, but there is so much to like you won't mind.", "No, the politics don't make any sense and the plot holes are huge, but look, here is a picture of Anne Hathaway in her cat-suit."

So, in the hopes that I can avert any death threats that may be coming my way, I'll say this;

The majority of movie reviewers, and the Fan-Boys love the movie. Respect their opinion. The movie might be the worst of the trilogy. It might have bad acting, and not make any sense, BUT IT IS PURE AWESOME, AND NOLAN IS GOD!!!!

Please do not hurt me. I'm a bleeder.

[BossTamsin (imported)]

I admit, I'm gonna have to disagree with most people here. I quite liked the movie. Having just rewatched the first two, I felt it was a fitting end for the series. On it's own, it may well be the weakest of the three, but if you take it as the close of the trilogy, personally I thought it ended the series. There are moments that echo both the first two movies, and there is a symmetry (at least to me) between this movie and Batman Begins.

*Spoilery Spoilers*

I completely agree though, when you got Bane and Batman together on screen, I was desperately wishing for subtitles, just so I could figure out what the hell was being said. And I agree that the opening aircraft scene could have been handled differently.

I do disagree that the movie would have been better off without John Blake. If anything, I would have eliminated Catwoman (sorry, Anne Hathaway), and used that screen time to better develop Blake. Without here, you can show him doing more to actually earn the mantle, to prove that he deserved it. I have no objections that he's not either named after (well....) who he is, or that his origins aren't in agreement with comic lore. It would have been FAR too much of a giveaway. In fact, don't even have John Blake work out who Bats is (a definite weak point in the plot), instead just introduce him as someone with the anger and drive, and have him try to fill the shoes on his own, while Batman is indisposed. Maybe have him in a ski mask and on the streets during the time Bruce is away, just something more than occasionally fishing messages down a sewer grate, and drawing small chalk bat graffiti.

As for Bane.... about the only way I can justify him is to assume that essentially everything he did was in the name of drama, and causing chaos. breaking down Gotham the way Ra's wanted to in the first movie. He didn't believe the 'occupy' speeches he gave, he just wanted to tear the city down, which is why the bomb was going to go off anyways. (I admit, I'm not sure why he just didn't blow it right away, all I can assume is that he wanted to bring it to the same point of chaos Ra's plan would have from Begins, and then ensure the victory with the final boom.)

Those were some of my thoughts, at least.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Somebody is going to get an Oscar for this you know, its the Hollywood way.

River

[baldwin92 (imported)]

Okay, Okay I read the reviews and I will definitely not be seeing the movie until it is out on DVD or rental. Mostly because I hate going to the movies anymore. I have a disability and the stadium seating is just not for me. BUT the real question is DOES BATMAN (I.E. Bruce Wayne) DIE IN THE END? David Letterman said he did and got a nasty letter from Warner Bros. which makes it sound true. So spoil us What happens?

[kristoff]

Okay, Okay I read the reviews and I will definitely not be seeing the movie until it is out on DVD or rental. Mostly because I hate going to the movies anymore. I have a disability and the stadium seating is just not for me. BUT the real question is DOES BATMAN (I.E. Bruce Wayne) DIE IN THE END? David Letterman said he did and got a nasty letter from Warner Bros. which makes it sound true. So spoil us What happens?

Give a spoiler warning, though

[Cainanite (imported)]

Okay, Okay I read the reviews and I will definitely not be seeing the movie until it is out on DVD or rental. Mostly because I hate going to the movies anymore. I have a disability and the stadium seating is just not for me. BUT the real question is DOES BATMAN (I.E. Bruce Wayne) DIE IN THE END? David Letterman said he did and got a nasty letter from Warner Bros. which makes it sound true. So spoil us What happens?

SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!

Highlight below ONLY if you want to know the answer;

Bruce Wayne does not die. He gets a happy ending that has satisfied most fans. I found it all-right, but it could have been better.

BATMAN, however, does die.

The movie suggests that the Batman legacy will live on in John Blake.

END OF SPOILERS

Don't read it if you don't want to know, and do not respond to this post with a quote. My answer is in invisible text, that will show up if you quote me.

So don't!

You have been warned!

[Riverwind (imported)]

Okay, Okay

BUT the real question is DOES BATMAN (I.E. Bruce Wayne) DIE IN THE END?

God I hope so.

River

[Dave (imported)]

God I hope so.

River

In the COMICS -- on the printed page, this was called NIGHTFALL and you can go look that up and read about it. It would be spoiler-rriffic to describe. It goes back to 1991 and restarted the comics line without all of the old characters and stories invading.

In other words, it was a reboot of the entire Batman series.

The last STAR TREK with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc... was a reboot of Star Trek series with the only link to the past series being the old man Spock (Nimoy). Reboot meaning it got rid of the too old and dead characters, all of the TNG characters, The Deep Space 9 atrocities, the abysmal Voyager loonies (I gag even thinking about that excrement), and all that history went reboot bye, bye...

[Cainanite (imported)]

In the COMICS -- on the printed page, this was called NIGHTFALL and you can go look that up and read about it. It would be spoiler-rriffic to describe. It goes back to 1991 and restarted the comics line without all of the old characters and stories invading.

In other words, it was a reboot of the entire Batman series.

The last STAR TREK with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc... was a reboot of Star Trek series with the only link to the past series being the old man Spock (Nimoy). Reboot meaning it got rid of the too old and dead characters, all of the TNG characters, The Deep Space 9 atrocities, the abysmal Voyager loonies (I gag even thinking about that excrement), and all that history went reboot bye, bye...

I sometimes find the "reboot" idea necessary. Ocassionally I do not. I am for the concept when the original idea has become bloated and unmanageable like in the Star Trek universe. Batman needed a reboot after the horrible Michael Schumacher movies corrupted the franchise. I'm all for reinventing an established story, if it remains true to the original intent.

Where I break from that idea, is where the reboot changes or distorts the origin out of existence. For example, Micheal Bay is producing a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie where the origins have changed from genetic mutations that grew up in the sewers of New York, to Space alien bounty hunters crash landing on earth.

If the original story was strong and has endured, don't mess with it. The attempted Batman reboot, tried to have a new character become Batman. It was strong writing, and was successful, but fans complained, and sales dropped off. The story people love is the Bruce Wayne story. Trying to shoehorn a new character into the batman outfit was not pleasing to read, and in the end, DC had to engineer a way for Bruce Wayne to return to the role.

It is the same reason that every attempt to reinvent Superman has failed. You risk losing what made the character endure.

At DC Batman is Bruce Wayne again, and the story we all know has been restored. You can't just stuff someone else into the batman costume. Batman is a story about Bruce Wayne, not about what he wears to fight crime. It would be a better story if you changed his costume and got rid of the bat theme, than if you get rid of Bruce Wayne.

Reboot. Don't rewrite.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Oh I don't know, what would be a BATMAN movie without the Joker, it seems like every 3rd or 4th remake is of him, throw in two face once in a while and REDO.

Face it, there is only so much you can do with this guy, like Superman and bugs bunny they must do and act in the same way, with the same villains. It might just be time for this one to be put to bed at least for a while because some where along the way they made a wrong turn somewhere in Albuquerque.

tha-tha-tha-thats all folks.

River