What exactly is wrong with the Dark Knight Rises?
- Thread starter DragonSJG
- Start date
Aside from a couple of stilted performances (see above), it had the misfortune of having to follow The Dark Knight.
The hate is way overblown. Cat woman feels like a slight unnecessary add, there are some continuity issues, and there's clearly something lost with the Joker being entirely absent.... but otherwise it's a phenomenal film. Not quite as good as Dark Knight or SM2, but beyond that it's better than any other superhero movie, IMO.
This was how I felt. There are some moments in it I quite like but overall I think it's just alright though not terrible.
Having watched it last week, let me assure you, it's a very good movie.
And I was lukewarm when it released!
It actually perfectly fits the current climate.
And I was lukewarm when it released!
It actually perfectly fits the current climate.
the finest acting.
Robin.
And because it had to follow up BB and TDK
First thing that comes to mind for me is that I have no idea about the timeline of the movie. There are big parts of the movie where I'm not sure if they are supposed to be taking place over hours, or like 6 months. They kinda show Gotham having collapsed into anarchy, but you never really feel it, or get an actual sense of what life is like for the people remaining there. There's also the moment where it goes from the middle of the day to pitch black of night in the short time it takes to enter a tunnel.
Plus I really liked a lot of stuff about Bane, but in the end he just gets punched and it seems he was irrelevant.
Also the ending kinda sucked all round, the Robin thing was kinda forced, and you can't blame anyone for this, but you really feel the absence of The Joker.
Edit: and just a load of plot contrivances and stuff that doesn't make much sense.
Edit2: I don't hate it though, it has some elements I like.
Plus I really liked a lot of stuff about Bane, but in the end he just gets punched and it seems he was irrelevant.
Also the ending kinda sucked all round, the Robin thing was kinda forced, and you can't blame anyone for this, but you really feel the absence of The Joker.
Edit: and just a load of plot contrivances and stuff that doesn't make much sense.
Edit2: I don't hate it though, it has some elements I like.
I mean, Nolan's plotlines are always convoluted, but in this movie he takes it to a whole nother level.
Joker's elaborate schemes in Dark Knight seem plausible by comparison.
But that's a lot of his filmography.
They're fun, well directed, well produced movies, but you can't think too much about what's going on or you start to see the cracks.
Joker's elaborate schemes in Dark Knight seem plausible by comparison.
But that's a lot of his filmography.
They're fun, well directed, well produced movies, but you can't think too much about what's going on or you start to see the cracks.
It had to follow the dark knight
I thought it was a solid movie but everyone was still on the dark knight x Joker wave
I thought it was a solid movie but everyone was still on the dark knight x Joker wave
Nothing's wrong with it. This place has bizarre hate for the movie. It did very well critically and commercially and I haven't heard any complaints outside of the ERA/GAF bubble.
Following a 10/10 movie with a 9/10 is still damn good.
Following a 10/10 movie with a 9/10 is still damn good.
Okay, since the rest of the thread is going to pretend this trashfire of a finale is "fine," I'll have to state the truth. TDKR is kind of terrible. None of it makes any damn sense, it's a completely ridiculous way to follow up the ending of TDK, and even forgiving the derailment of losing Heath Ledger and thus not being able to use the Joker, it's a trainwreck for most of its runtime. It could not be more obvious that Jonathan Nolan wrote Begins and TDK, and Goyer wrote TDKR as Nolan transitioned to Person of Interest. TDKR has all the hallmarks of Goyer's sloppy, terrible plotting and inability to make pieces fit together or characters behave as human beings.
Let's just take the basic premise of the story:
1. So the scheme hatched to blame Batman at the end of TDK...worked. Perfectly. So instead of focusing on the hunt for the Dark Knight alluded to in the final moments of the last film, you're just gonna...jump over that? Or it didn't happen at all? Bruce just went home and never went out again? For 8 years, Gotham has had low crime and a civic hero in Harvey Dent. The only person who has a problem with this seems to be Jim Gordon. Why is this a problem? Blame the basically fictional urban legend, get better life for everyone in the city. Sure, Bane shows up but why does Batman have to, you know, dress as Batman? Just put on tactical gear and fight him under a different name, like Deathstroke or something. Who's gonna know?
2. Wait, eight years? Why is there an eight year time jump from TDK to TDKR? Nobody looks almost a decade older. Bruce has crippling knee problems eight years later from being Batman for like 10 months?
3. Why does the orphan kid ask Joseph Gordon Levitt if Batman is coming back? If crime is so much better why would anyone want Batman back? What's he going to solve? For that matter why does an 8 year old kid even know who Batman is or care? The events of TDK took place about the time this kid was born.
4. Whoops, the 8 year time skip was so JGL's character could have seen Batman as a kid and recognized his "orphan eyes" (wtf?) but now be an adult cop who can take up the mantle of the bat at the end. Goyer disrupted the entire flow of the story for this, for some reason. The 8 year skip makes zero sense in any other context.
And that's just the starting point of the plot. That doesn't get into Bane's complete lack of endgame, Talia's non-plan, the notion that Bruce Wayne would abandon his psychosis to go hang out in cafes, healing back injuries with well-placed punches, who painted the flaming batsymbol on the bridge, the clumsy way of getting Alfred out of town (maybe he painted it on his way out), the awful action choreography, Catwoman's inclusion purely as a replacement Rachel to give Bruce an arbitrary "happy" ending, and the general empty-headedness of the entire film in comparison to its predecessors.
In the long history of trilogies blowing it in the third film, TDKR is an all time champion. It's one of the biggest drops in quality from one sequel to the next in the history of film, and that would be true even if TDK wasn't as good as it is. Is it the worst superhero film ever? Of course not, it's not even the worst Batman film ever, but it's a distinctly bad effort in a trilogy whose first two entries are top of the genre work.
I don't feel that's true of any of his other films as much as it is TDKR.
Is this open spoilers? I'll spoiler just in case.
I personally like it, but I understand the criticisms.
Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway were perfect for their roles, even if I wished they had stuck to a bi-racial Bane but I understand the economic story need to tie everything back to Ra's.
The first two films, while obvious comic fantasy, were still very grounded in reality. They tried to explain the technology and why things were happening. Rises expects the viewer to suspend disbelief a wild amount, especially with things like all of the cops being magically trapped in the sewers for weeks with no way out (despite there being manholes, like, everywhere). It just kind of ran off into weird territory in those respects.
And of course the ending is controversial but I figured that was going to be more or less the direction the trilogy would take. Bruce Wayne, in those films, from the start never wanted to be Batman forever. It was always going to end with him either dying or absconding from life as he did before becoming Batman.
Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway were perfect for their roles, even if I wished they had stuck to a bi-racial Bane but I understand the economic story need to tie everything back to Ra's.
The first two films, while obvious comic fantasy, were still very grounded in reality. They tried to explain the technology and why things were happening. Rises expects the viewer to suspend disbelief a wild amount, especially with things like all of the cops being magically trapped in the sewers for weeks with no way out (despite there being manholes, like, everywhere). It just kind of ran off into weird territory in those respects.
And of course the ending is controversial but I figured that was going to be more or less the direction the trilogy would take. Bruce Wayne, in those films, from the start never wanted to be Batman forever. It was always going to end with him either dying or absconding from life as he did before becoming Batman.
All of Nolan's Batman movies have a terrible third act. And on top of that, TKDR is third act in the trilogy so it's extra bad.
1) too long. should've been two movies.
2) shouldve cut batwoman. too many stories, a la Spiderman 3.
2) shouldve cut batwoman. too many stories, a la Spiderman 3.
No more dead cops was just a little tease of what was to come.
I also like how the dent act being built on a lie was this great affront to justice...... no one cares......
Stuff like Bruce presumably painting a bat symbol made of gasoline waiting to be lit up for dramatic effect, or every cop in Gotham getting funneled into the sewers were just some things so distractingly stupid that it hurt the stuff around it. Dark Knight was also a tough act to follow.
Posts like these are why I find it hard to take the criticism of the film seriously as they either outright ignore the film, bring up Cinemasins level of "criticism," or straight up refuse to accept the plot/premise of the film.
1. Yes, get over it. That's the premise. Gordon used Batman as a scapegoat to enact wide sweeping police reforms that "cleaned" up Gotham. As a result, Bruce had to hang up his cloak. As for why Bruce has to dress up as Batman to fight Bane, what kind of question is that? First, it's a Batman movie. Second, it even makes sense on a character level. Bruce didn't want to hang up the cloak. He was forced to. He's been itching at the chance to get back out there as Batman. He wants to die, he's tired of living. Bane was an excuse to fulfill that death wish, to go out as Batman. If you can't understand why mentally damaged Bruce Wayne would prefer to dress up as Batman as opposed to some new creation then you don't understand the character.
2. Again, cinemasins critique here. That is the premise. Get over it. Also, you're overselling how much someone should age in 8 years. Look at Bale now and look at Bale back when the film came out, has he aged drastically?
3. You're asking why a kid would be enamored by the idea of a masked vigilante that beat up criminals and evaded capture by police despite the largest manhunt in Gotham history? A masked vigilante that likely spawned plenty of theories as to whether the police were telling the truth about that night? That's like asking why Jack the Ripper is still talked about today. Again, just a cinemasins critique that ultimately is you not wanting to accept the premise.
4. Teenagers are kids, you know? It's perfectly likely that Robin was about 15 or 16 when Bruce showed up at his orphanage, ad on 8 years and he's 24. You know, around the same age Bruce took up the Bat mantle.
Additional responses: What is the matter with Bane's "endgame?" The whole point is that they were there to blow up Gotham, what was wrong with his plan? How does Talia not have a plan? Everything went according to plan until Bruce reappeared. I don't really need to continue because the rest of your points are critiques.
TDKR does have problems, but none of the ones you've brought up.
The story is god awful with endless holes & irrational character decisions.
It's a fun movie though. I enjoyed Bane.
It's a fun movie though. I enjoyed Bane.
