[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

Is it what Harms posted a few pages back?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is it what Harms posted a few pages back?

Just in case anybody read those and doesn't want to know the answer to that ...

Spoiler:

So, you enjoyed it, Wade?

Control wrote:

So, you enjoyed it, Wade?

Sure did.

Like I said a couple pages back, though, I don't see this swaying anyone who didn't like the other two. It's got largely the same thematic stuff going on, even if it looks different and has different people saying it. It ain't a happy film.

I've got lots of opinions on this film, so instead of getting into all that, I'll just say that for all its flaws, it goes out on a high enough note to leave anyone who liked the other two films with a smile on their face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4v1hAnfy1I#t=2m1s

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'd rather lay down in a New York subway station while someone takes a sledgehammer to the wall unleashing the 500 rats per square meter and have them crawl over me than meet the people who post on RT.

FRWL rat tunnel on steroids!

I just saw it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Although I thought Joseph Gordon-Leavitt's character was a bit unnecessary.

Spoiler:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Although I thought Joseph Gordon-Leavitt's character was a bit unnecessary.

I think his function is purely there for thematic development.

Spoiler:

But I haven't seen the film yet. I see it tomorrow mornin'.

Here are some of the things I liked:

Spoiler:

And the things I didn't:

Spoiler:

Also, I think the "RISES as a political commentary" stuff is just bullshit. I read a commentary on THE DARK KNIGHT claiming it was praising George Bush and the necessity of the War on Terror, and I recall Nolan coming out and saying "no, it's just a film", so I think the same holds true here and that people are reading far too much into it.

I was a bit disappointed that there was more of John Blake than Catwoman.

As we approach zero hour, time for box office rankings. Cuz money makes the world go round.

All grosses adjusted for ticket price by Box Office Mojo because I'm too lazy to do the math myself.

OPENING DAY:
The Dark Knight: $74,087,400
Batman Forever: $36,498,400
Batman Returns: $30,671,000
Batman and Robin: $27,806,900
Batman (1989): $26,257,000
Batman Begins: $18,618,000

OPENING WEEKEND:
The Dark Knight: $174,738,000
Batman Forever: $96,104,100
Batman Returns: $87,192,000
Batman: $80,775,500
Batman and Robin: $73,976,300
Batman Begins: $60,228,400

DOMESTIC:
The Dark Knight: $588,314,100
Batman: $498,600,600
Batman Forever: $335,063,500
Batman Returns: $310,753,500
Batman Begins: $253,716,500
Batman and Robin: $253,716,500

Other goals for TDKR to shoot for:

-$43,500,000 midnight gross. Deathly Hallows 2's midnight record. If TDKR is anywhere near this, we could have a $100 million opening day.
-$61,800,000 opening day without midnight, $207,438,708 opening weekend. Marvel's The Avengers is the current record holder in both categories.
-$600,000,000 domestic total. The benchmark for a mega-blockbuster. Only once have 2 $500 million plus movies been released in the same year (1984) and the last time we had 3 $400 million movies was 2004.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Also, I think the "RISES as a political commentary" stuff is just bullshit. I read a commentary on THE DARK KNIGHT claiming it was praising George Bush and the necessity of the War on Terror, and I recall Nolan coming out and saying "no, it's just a film", so I think the same holds true here and that people are reading far too much into it.

I've read opinions that it's actually quite the opposite of that.

Wade and PM, how would you guys say it ranks within the rest of the trilogy?

dr. strangelove wrote:

Wade and PM, how would you guys say it ranks within the rest of the trilogy?

Well, I've come down a little on "The Dark Knight" and "Batman Begins" has appreciated over the years for me, so my rankings might be a bit different than most people's, but alas:

1. "Batman Begins"
I don't think the third act is as horrific as people make it out to be. Sure, it's a bit muddled and action-heavy, but it's an action film. The origin story and the feel of it all is enough for me to put "Begins" one very small notch ahead of "The Dark Knight."

2. "The Dark Knight"
Heath Ledger is by-and-large the film's greatest success. I really wish there was more Two-Face than there was because Aaron Eckhart did a helluva job.

3. "The Dark Knight Rises"
The scale here is just so big that it's hard to not feel invested. It's edge-of-your-seat at times. It's too bad the narrative jumps around so much and the fact that Catwoman is as underused as she is. Otherwise, given the film's awesome ending, it could have been the best of the three. As it stands, I still quite liked it.

I guess I'd rank 'em in the order they would made. I'd put them all in the B+/A- range.

Wiki has the whole plot. Maybe one of those in the know could check it out to see it's correct.

So, Wayne and John Blake really get married at the end?

I'm tempted to read the whole synopsis. I dunno. I already know the ending anyway.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Wiki has the whole plot. Maybe one of those in the know could check it out to see it's correct.

So, Wayne and John Blake really get married at the end?

I'm tempted to read the whole synopsis. I dunno. I already know the ending anyway.

It's correct.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

A couple more reviews from the more mainstream critics...
Travers (from Rolling Stone) gives a very positive review, but blasts the film's "reactionary politics".
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-dark-knight-rises-20120716

It's Bane who initiates the attack against Gotham and the stock exchange. Is Nolan equating the legit protest of Occupy Wall Street with Bane's terrorism? You be the judge.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-dark-knight-rises-20120716#ixzz20pBRvnWa
It's precisely that kind of reaction that I think the movie will provoke. Some will start to question whether Nolan is a Republican or a Democrat. But I anticipate a rather heated, fiery debate for the next couple of weeks as people argue about what Nolan is really saying with TDKR, or that they think he's trying to say.

I think its a non-debate. Rolling Stone, a provider of excellent rock-music coverage, is also a hypersensitive liberal publication (the editors are still lost in the '60's) so their panties get a little bunched if they even suspect that Nolan might be mocking the "legit" Occupy protests. IMHO the two scenarios are not intended to be connected, at least not politically. If a parallel is intended, its probably got more to do with mob-protest tactics than political messaging. Same thing goes for Dark Knight as validation for war on Iraq. You can spin it that way, but I don't think that's the message Nolan was attempting to deliver.

I don't think that bit in the movie is meant to be any sort of commentary on the Occupy movement so let's not get into political attacks.

Going to see this at 11am next Thursday.

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't think that bit in the movie is meant to be any sort of commentary on the Occupy movement so let's not get into political attacks.

"It's Bane who initiates the attack against Gotham and the stock exchange. Is Nolan equating the legit protest of Occupy Wall Street with Bane's terrorism? You be the judge."


The above quotation is a direct lift from the Rolling Stone article, as provided initially by Strangelove. So take it up with Rolling Stone. They're the ones who are fretting.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Wiki has the whole plot. Maybe one of those in the know could check it out to see it's correct.

I guarantee you that it is - I'm the one who wrote it. And it was bloody difficult to keep it within 700 words because there was so much going on, let me tell you.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Wade and PM, how would you guys say it ranks within the rest of the trilogy?

Personally, I think it fits in very well. Most of the returning characters feel like they're eight years older than when we last met them, and act accordingly, and the newer characters fit in, even if there are a few too many and one in particular gets an exposition dump early on. Some of the plot elements are a little unnecessary, and only really serve as a vehicle for the themes - the film isn't particularly subtle in showing the audience what the stakes are, which is a shame because it does overshadow some of the more-interesting aspects of the plot. Story-wise, it might be a bit confusing to begin with, but I think Nolan was still in INCEPTION mode, laying multiple plot threads that all spring together about halfway through, like a tightly-wound trap. By the end of the film,you might have forgetten some of the finer points that are laid down early on, though. Unfortuantely, the film does gloss over a few elements that it could have explored a little better.

As for the performances, I think pretty much everyone is dead on. I'm not that familiar with every interpretation of every character in the comics, but I did feel that Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway really got into the swing of things. Bane might not be as interesting as the Joker, but I loved the way Hardy made him very eloquent in his speech and utterly brutal in his fighting. History will probably remember him as being a little trapped in Heath Ledger's shadow, but if he had played Bane before Ledger was the Joker, hsitory would probably be a little more complimentary. As for Anne Hathaway, I think she was let down by the script dragging her character back to a few standardised tropes, and she does very well, but when it relaxes is when she really gets to stretch her legs. Her Selina Kyle is definately my kind of girl, so long as she doesn't take my watch.

I know Nolan takes a lot of flak for not being able to do humour very well, but I think humour would really ruin it. The actors play the humour best when the themes are relaxed, and they clearly have a lot of fun with those scenes. There is one returning character who gets the best line in the film, and his self-satisfied smirk at being able to deliver a joke is what makes the delivery so good. I won't spoil it, but you'll know it when you see and hear it. Personally, I think it would have been a mistake to make this an overly-funny film. It would have taken away from the themes, and probably would have been seen as imitating THE AVENGERS, even if they had similar production windows. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but there are a few lines that make you crack a smile.

Overall, I think the film works quite well. it fits in with the rest of the trilogy, and is probably the natural extension of the story. There are a few flaws, but by the end, it's very well executed. It ties everything off in such a way that Nolan and Bale can leave the series, but the films can continue in the same universe and allow for a new director and a new style. The big question are whether or not the studios will be willing to keep going, and if so, who they will get to replace Nolan. If talk is to be believed, Nolan will still be involved in the production, so if the studios do decide to continue with the Nolanverse, he'll at least be able to guide the boat a little bit.

Nice summary Prison Monkey! You wrote the wiki! Awesome! A real web wonder, you are. :)

I wrote most of the wiki outline. It's been edited and refined a few dozen times since then, but most of it is all me. While the outline itself recounts the events of the film, it's by no means chronological, mostly because Wikipedia's policies on polt outlines only allow for a maximum of 700 words.

Spoiler:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I wrote most of the wiki outline. It's been edited and refined a few dozen times since then, but most of it is all me. While the outline itself recounts the events of the film, it's by no means chronological, mostly because Wikipedia's policies on polt outlines only allow for a maximum of 700 words.

Spoiler:

Thanks, do you mind spoiling the ending here, with spoiler tags of course, or link to the wiki. I'm serious, I really do like to know the story before I see the film if possible, at least for these kind of films, as opposed to Agatha Christie mystery films.

Okay, the short version:

Spoiler:

Why I think this is a problem:

Spoiler: