THE DARK KNIGHT RISES... OK, I'm excited now! :)

[verslibre]

Here we go...

The Captain America sequel will be DARKER and EDGIER!

"I can't talk too much about specifics, that's the way Marvel handles things. I can say in general that there's sort of a darker, edgier sensibility at work there that we found appealing, and that is going find its way into Captain [America] in the modern day."

Full interview with co-director Anthony Russo on Captain America: The Winter Soldier:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/captain-america-sequel-winter-soldier_n_1700220.html

[Rip Rokken]

Here we go...

The Captain America sequel will be DARKER and EDGIER!

Wonder if they'll make it Heath Ledgier?

[verslibre]

Congratulations! That is the WORST joke I've ever heard!

[Ehwmatt]

Finally saw it tonight. Maybe I'll change my mind after I sleep on things, but my first reaction is utter disappointment.

[RedWingFan]

Finally saw it tonight. Maybe I'll change my mind after I sleep on things, but my first reaction is utter disappointment.

Why? Not arguing, I haven't even seen it yet. I've heard a lot of people with the same reaction.

[Ehwmatt]

Finally saw it tonight. Maybe I'll change my mind after I sleep on things, but my first reaction is utter disappointment.

Why? Not arguing, I haven't even seen it yet. I've heard a lot of people with the same reaction.

Well, a few basic reasons spoiler-free:

1. Bane is a lame villain for a lot of reasons, such as not much fidelity to the comic book character, too physically small for the character, the voice/mask, etc. I didn't expect anyone to top Ledger's Joker, but his shadow completely eclipses this character/performance.

2. This is a Batman movie in which Batman is reduced to a mere footnote as far as screen time is concerned. I get that there are other themes in this movie, but they were bombastic and overdone at the expense of having Batman on screen. There are really barely any "wow" moments with his gadgets other than his lame new plane-tank thing.

3. The plot is basically a complete rehash of Batman Begins, complete with the basic analogous means by which the enemies plan to achieve their goal.

4. Reliance on some VERY tired action movie tropes and cliches that I thought Nolan was well above relying on. Nolan usually has a knack for making the unbelievable seem incredibly real. In this one, we have to rely on plot holes and miracles of science and biology that would make 24 and X-Men blush. It feels incredibly fake, and it cheapens the series's earlier entries' ability to make us suspend disbelief.

Look, I'm no film snob. I'm not qualified to be one. I don't know nearly enough about the intricacies of filmmaking to pretend I can critique things on some kind of artistic level. Further, I count many cheesy and campy action movies among my favorites. But Nolan set his own bar far too high with the first 2 movies, and in this one, for lack of a better description, it seems like he and brother Jonathan simply got... lazy. And as an "average" moviegoer, I know what works and what doesn't. To be sure, this movie had some entertaining parts, but for the most part, it just didn't work for me.

[The_Noble_Cause]

2. This is a Batman movie in which Batman is reduced to a mere footnote as far as screen time is concerned. I get that there are other themes in this movie, but they were bombastic and overdone at the expense of having Batman on screen. There are really barely any "wow" moments with his gadgets other than his lame new plane-tank thing.

I liked TDKNR alot, but this was my chief complaint too. DC fans I have spoken with say that Bruce Wayne is inseparable from Batman, so the Wayne screentime makes up for it, but that's BS. Aside from the early bat-pod versus the Gotham police chase, there are very few breathtaking "only in a Batman film" type moments. And that is sad. There is also an abundance of Joseph Gordon Levitt running around as a street cop doing sleuthing, which I think will hurt the re-play value. If I wanted 3 hours of Levitt, I'd watch 3rd Rock from the Sun repeats. This movie def. needed some more Batman.

[verslibre]

2. This is a Batman movie in which Batman is reduced to a mere footnote as far as screen time is concerned. I get that there are other themes in this movie, but they were bombastic and overdone at the expense of having Batman on screen. There are really barely any "wow" moments with his gadgets other than his lame new plane-tank thing.

I liked TDKNR alot, but this was my chief complaint too. DC fans I have spoken with say that Bruce Wayne is inseparable from Batman, so the Wayne screentime makes up for it, but that's BS. Aside from the early bat-pod versus the Gotham police chase, there are very few breathtaking "only in a Batman film" type moments. And that is sad. There is also an abundance of Joseph Gordon Levitt running around as a street cop doing sleuthing, which I think will hurt the re-play value. If I wanted 3 hours of Levitt, I'd watch 3rd Rock from the Sun repeats. This movie def. needed some more Batman.

Levitt's drawn raves for his role in TDKR. I admit I was puzzled when he was added to the cast, but he really impressed me. He rounds out the "Rises" part of the title, which also includes Wayne/Batman's "rise" from a purely vigilante-outlaw regard, and also Bane's status as a "dark knight" who "rose" to be Talia's sole protector in a literal den of iniquity.

Nolan had a huge challenge on his hands after the first two films, and I think he lost control of a couple things. I still think it's a great movie and parts of it carry a weighty emotional charge. On my second viewing, I didn't enjoy the movie any less, however—more, in fact. The first Bane-Batman fight is great. Bane isn't supposed to be the Hulk-sized behemoth he was when he was introduced in the "Knightfall" storyline. They did a successful job of making Tom Hardy look huge, when in reality he's a bit shorter than Christian Bale.

IMO, the movie/trilogy has a proper resolution. The first and third acts went well, it's the middle act that suffers somewhat from having footage excised here and there to trim its running time.

The franchise will be rebooted, so it's too bad we must bid adieu to such a great cast. I'm jonesin' for more of Hathaway's Catwoman.

In the meantime, the Batman: Earth One graphic novel (144 pages) that just came out is pretty awesome. And if you want to see what a Nolan-ized Penguin may have been like...you now have the opportunity!

[Ehwmatt]

2. This is a Batman movie in which Batman is reduced to a mere footnote as far as screen time is concerned. I get that there are other themes in this movie, but they were bombastic and overdone at the expense of having Batman on screen. There are really barely any "wow" moments with his gadgets other than his lame new plane-tank thing.

I liked TDKNR alot, but this was my chief complaint too. DC fans I have spoken with say that Bruce Wayne is inseparable from Batman, so the Wayne screentime makes up for it, but that's BS. Aside from the early bat-pod versus the Gotham police chase, there are very few breathtaking "only in a Batman film" type moments. And that is sad. There is also an abundance of Joseph Gordon Levitt running around as a street cop doing sleuthing, which I think will hurt the re-play value. If I wanted 3 hours of Levitt, I'd watch 3rd Rock from the Sun repeats. This movie def. needed some more Batman.

Levitt's drawn raves for his role in TDKR. I admit I was puzzled when he was added to the cast, but he really impressed me. He rounds out the "Rises" part of the title, which also includes Wayne/Batman's "rise" from a purely vigilante-outlaw regard, and also Bane's status as a "dark knight" who "rose" to be Talia's sole protector in a literal den of iniquity.

Nolan had a huge challenge on his hands after the first two films, and I think he lost control of a couple things. I still think it's a great movie and parts of it carry a weighty emotional charge. On my second viewing, I didn't enjoy the movie any less, however—more, in fact. The first Bane-Batman fight is great. Bane isn't supposed to be the Hulk-sized behemoth he was when he was introduced in the "Knightfall" storyline. They did a successful job of making Tom Hardy look huge, when in reality he's a bit shorter than Christian Bale.

IMO, the movie/trilogy has a proper resolution. The first and third acts went well, it's the middle act that suffers somewhat from having footage excised here and there to trim its running time.

The franchise will be rebooted, so it's too bad we must bid adieu to such a great cast. I'm jonesin' for more of Hathaway's Catwoman.

In the meantime, the Batman: Earth One graphic novel (144 pages) that just came out is pretty awesome. And if you want to see what a Nolan-ized Penguin may have been like...you now have the opportunity!

I PM'd this to TNC because I knew he had seen the movie (and thus wouldn't mind a spoiler or three). But others might want to read my more spoiler-laden thoughts below:


SPOILER ALERT!!!! MOUSE OVER THE BODY BELOW TO CONTINUE READING!!!!






I really can't believe Christopher Nolan did the following:

1. Relied on the UNBELIEVABLY tired "ticking time bomb taken out of the danger zone within seconds of detonation" trope we've seen in 800 million action movies and half of the 24 seasons over the years.

2. Completely regurgitated the plot from the first one. I know Bane and Talia have ties to the League of Shadows and the common goal makes sense from that perspective, but I mean really... even the MEANS to their END (destroying Gotham) was pretty much identical (a Wayne Enterprises invention that could be used for good or bad ends). Unbelievably lame.

3. Bane. I can't say enough about how much this guy sucked from top to bottom. I actually didn't have trouble understanding him for most of the movie like I've read in some of the (positive and negative) reviews, but the voice itself was just flat-out GAY! It sounds like Deckard Cain (if you've played Diablo; if not, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n1gc3CRT38) with a dildo in his ass for added gayness.

4. The entire final battle between Batman and Bane. Did crawling out of a hole in Afghanistan suddenly make Batman's punches that heavier (I know, I know, he "found himself," overcame the same hell Bane did, or whatever)? In their first battle, Bane wasn't even fazed by Batman's blows. Now all of a sudden, Batman is outmuscling him. Sorry, that stinks to high heavens. Where was the moment of ingenuity (both for Nolan and for Batman) where the physically outmatched Batman uses his wits to find and exploit Bane's weakness? Moreover, where was the drama when it appeared Bane and Talia had turned the tables and bested Batman? I wanted a second fight between Batman and Bane after Talia left, complete with Batman finally delivering a crushing blow to Bane, knocking his mask off, or whatever. Instead, the focal character of much of the movie is suddenly gone just when it seems he's gotten his obligatory "bad guy second wind," done away with by one rocket from the Batcycle courtesy of Selina Kyle. That just stunk, and the fact that there was really no decisive confrontation between Talia and Batman at the end made it stink even worser.

Overall, the lack of Batman is flat-out unconscionable. Seeing bearded Bruce Wayne on his back in a rat hole is NOT equivalent to the sheer feeling of triumph you get when Batman is on screen. Even his 2 triumphant returns didn't feel all that special. When he Batarangs the thugs on the ice and saves Gordon, there's really nothing special or exciting about it. Why not show the jubilation of those not under Bane's influence when the fiery bat signal flare is on the building? Even Bane's reaction ("IMPOSSIBLE!") felt lame as hell (especially with that voice).

Standing on its own, I'm sure this movie would have entertained the hell out of me (to an extent, save for the lack of Batman). But given its pedigree, it sorely disappointed.







SPOILER ALERT!!!! MOUSE OVER THE BODY TEXT ABOVE TO CONTINUE READING!!!!

[Gideon]

Nice review, Matt. I gave a substantial review elsewhere that remarked on similar grounds. That said, I enjoyed the film, though, and Bane was the most impressive of the three main villains for me.

[Ehwmatt]

Nice review, Matt. I gave a substantial review elsewhere that remarked on similar grounds. That said, I enjoyed the film, though, and Bane was the most impressive of the three main villains for me.

Yeah man. I'm sure I will get the Blu Ray to complete the trilogy and watch it once more at home. I won't pony up another $10.50 to see it at the theater though, and I doubt I'll be watching that Blu Ray several times over like I have Begins and Dark Knight. Post your review here.

[Gideon]

Ok.
Spoilers below, highlight to read:

I'm not going to waste time with a synopsis since everyone and their mother knows the premise of the film, so let's get straight to the review itself. Overall, I found The Dark Knight Rises to be a great movie. Flawless? At the risk of inciting the rabid, violent legion of Batman fans against me, I'm going to say no. It was entirely too long and could have benefited from removing certain sequences wholesale.

Batman/Bruce Wayne was pushed to the limits here, making his tribulations in The Dark Knight seem mild in comparison. As a result, we get to the bare bones of who the character is—here, he's funnier, braver, smarter, angrier, sadder, and tougher than he's ever been. That elevates the performance and makes an otherwise exceedingly boring, exceptionally grim character a little more dimensional. For once, I was actually mildly interested in what he did. Bale's incessant growling habit continues to shatter an otherwise spectacular atmosphere, but Bale delivered a fine performance. Was it as captivating as Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark or Michael Fassbender's Magneto? No, but not due to any real fault of the actor: the role itself is just not that meaty.

The strength of this franchise has always been rooted in its supporting cast, particularly the characters of a villainous type. Batman Begins gave us memorable villains: Tom Wilkinson's ruthless Carmine Falcone, Cillian Murphy's unexpectedly chilling Scarecrow/Dr. Crane, and an even more unexpected turn from Liam Neeson as Ra's al Ghul. Ra's was a great villain because of this: Neeson exudes classic heroism; he's tall, strong, and speaks with a warm, commanding voice. (Contrast this with Christopher Lee, who shares all the same elements but noticeably darker, appropriate for his villainous predilections.) He's fucking Aslan and Qui-Gon Jinn. And he managed to co-opt the qualities that make him a great hero actor and gave us a compelling, three-dimensional villain. Ra's casts a long shadow and, in quite a literal sense, more than a few of the characters in this film stand in it. In some ways, he's the closest thing we have to an overarching Big Bad for the trilogy, and his legacy is directly examined here.

The villains of The Dark Knight need no introduction. Suffice it to say that Ledger gave one of the finest singular performances in cinema and Aaron Eckhart... didn't. The Joker was static, unsympathetic, and lacked depth (compared to Ra's), but it is testament to the strength of the writing and the actor that Ledger turned a popular one-note baddie into something truly memorable. Meanwhile, Dent was everything the Joker wasn't. He was given all the benefits of dynamism, sympathy, and depth and still managed to be utterly forgettable and lame.

So if the Joker's fingerprints were all over the last movie, this one finds itself locked in Bane's vise grip. For the most part, I have nothing but accolades for the character of Bane, so I'll begin with sharing them. Bane is unquestionably the most badass figure in the Nolan-Batman universe and, in my opinion, possibly the single greatest badass in the whole of mainstream cinema. Thematically, he is the pinnacle of villainy that began in Begins and continued in Knight; he is a visionary, warrior, and leader cut from the Ra's al Ghul cloth while sharing the Joker's unsettling affability, refined perception, and manipulative skills. Worse, he possesses these qualities in greater abundance than either of the other villains. Put it simply, Bane is infinitely more dangerous and badass than anyone Batman has ever encountered. He is absolutely riveting and the film's strengths owe much to the character. For me, and perhaps for this generation, Bane is the new Darth Vader.

Now, with all that said, Hardy is no Ledger, no Neeson. Why? Because an actor's greatest tools are his face and his voice: in this case, both are obscured tremendously beneath a mask and post-production alterations. Simply put, Hardy offers nothing that couldn't have been given by any other actor. (As was the case with Vader.) So what makes Bane so effective? The script, sharper than ever; Nolan's directorial savvy; and the character's raw physicality.

With respect to the other characters, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway both gave excellent performances. The latter, in particular, surprised the hell out of me because the way Selina Kyle/Catwoman spoke and acted in the trailers were so jarring and hammy that I was reminded of Shawn Roberts' God-awful depiction of Albert Wesker in Resident Evil: Afterlife, replete with the same over-dramatic "purring" of lines and the too-forced smiles. But during the film, Hathaway's character turned out to be surprisingly ferocious in combat, but she won me over dramatically in a particular scene wherein Kyle attacks her treacherous employers and then instantly transforms into a shrieking, horrified damsel the moment the police arrive to bring order to the chaos she caused. It was a sudden and effective transformation.

Gordon-Levitt's John Blake reminded me of Chris Evans' Captain America, which is complimentary. He was a beacon of hope, innocence, and positive strength in what is otherwise an emo kid's ultimate 164-minute wet dream. And unlike the case with Harvey Dent, Gotham's supposed White Knight, I actually believed in his subdued performance. But then it probably helped the situation that Nolan didn't keep reminding us every five minutes how great and pure and noble Blake was while the "showing" part fell by the wayside. Nolan's smarter now and opted for some subtlety. As with Hathaway, there is a particular scene in which Gordon-Levitt cements his excellent performance and all I'll say is that it involves the taking of a life for apparently the first time.

Marion Cotillard is unremarkable as Miranda Tate. The romance between her character and Bruce is completely artificial, forced, rushed, and unsatisfying—one of the film's most blatant flaws. Naturally, there is more to her than meet's the eye, but I'm sure most of you already know just how much.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman need no introduction. Though I consider myself an ardent fan of these two tremendous actors, I have always said that there is little they actually brought to the character. Freeman was great in Begins, but the character largely ran its course in that film and was little more than a classically trained extra in The Dark Knight Rises, though Nolan desperately tried to make him relevant with the subplot about the character's reluctance to invade privacy. That situation doesn't change here. That doesn't mean Freeman is bad, it means that Freeman is constrained from giving a career-worthy performance. Whether or not that speaks to Nolan's limitations or the sheer fact that some main characters are only transiently compelling, I don't know. Caine, on the other hand, gives the strongest performance as Alfred in any of the three films. (Though it must be said that I've always preferred the late Michael Gough to Caine as Alfred.) One of my few complaints is how the relationship between Alfred and Bruce is ultimately handled here, because I've always felt that it was the most important one in any Batman film: Alfred is Batman's only constant, moreso than any love interest. Special attention should have been given to this and while Nolan finally begins to explore that, I believe the end falls short.

As far as the film itself, it features some great action sequences, cinematography, and a compelling, dire atmosphere that makes Gotham in The Dark Knight seem like Candy Land. Likewise, there is a strong supporting cast and the year's most powerful villain in Bane. On the other hand, it's too long, too clumsy ("Wayte" & Bruce's post-Bane-beatdown recovery sequences, among others), trite lines from the script (Bane: "Ah, you came back to die with your city" and Batman's hilariously hack response: "No, I came to stop you!") and a few critical mistakes with respect to Bane's supremacy, which briefly threatens to undermine the audience's awe of the masked man.

Was it better than The Avengers? It certainly had a stronger villain: Bane would hand Loki his ass, god or no (not really, but you like to think so). It certainly made me feel more dread. But ultimately, The Avengers featured a better utilized cast, stronger, cleverer, wittier writing, and didn't drag.

Was it better than The Dark Knight? We'll see.

Final score: 8/10

[parfait]

The movie was pretty dumb, but Bane made it all worthwhile. He' miles ahead of Ledger's overrated Joker.

[Gideon]

The movie was pretty dumb, but Bane made it all worthwhile. He' miles ahead of Ledger's overrated Joker.

Rewatched the 1989 version and I think I may prefer Nicholson to Ledger.

[verslibre]

The Avengers featured a better utilized cast, stronger, cleverer, wittier writing, and didn't drag.[/color]

Avengers also had moments that screamed "Joss Whedon: television director" and the deus ex machina ending (modelled after a [crappy] film that came out over ten years earlier) was a bad way to cap off what is otherwise a very enjoyable fanboy-wet-dream popcorn movie.

I love most of these movies, though. I still prefer Tobey's Spider-Man, but Andrew Garfield is a solid replacement and the reboot did bring some new Spider-stuff we didn't see in Raimi's trilogy.

[YoungJRNY]

This video is going viral. Obviously, Heath Ledger's inspiration on what he saw in his mind on how he wanted his Joker to portray.

Tom Waits interview. Go to 1:30 and enjoy the birth of Ledger's direction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSc6E4y ... r_embedded

[RedWingFan]

This video is going viral. Obviously, Heath Ledger's inspiration on what he saw in his mind on how he wanted his Joker to portray.

Tom Waits interview. Go to 1:30 and enjoy the birth of Ledger's direction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSc6E4y ... r_embedded

Wow. That sounds just like Ledger.

[verslibre]

This movie may spend a lot of focus on Superman's two identities. Not necessarily the disguise of Clark Kent and Superman, but who he would of been on Krypton VS his current life on Earth. I think that could make for a powerful message.

With that, comes uncertainty with the world and we see clips of our military fighting against Superman as if he were the threat. If this is the case, I won't be surprised to see an Earth origin-villain turned hybrid superhuman. Someone like John Corben (Metallo, who was a military hero before being operated by a Kryptonite heart, a super warrior used to specifically take on Superman) but the first flick may be TOO early for Kryptonite, MAYBE.

Mongul is more of a multiverse type villain. A Justice League dilemma, not typically a straight Superman rogue. Same category as Darkseid so to speak.

Zod is defiantly in the Kryptonian war-suite. It's been said that the Kryptonian heritage is going to be showcased like we've never seen before so it'll be cool to see some exploding fight scenes as if it were on the destruction of Krypton. Add in yellow-sun radiation which gives them their equal power-set we're in for a treat, especially with Zack Snyder's strengths: visuals.

Heard a rumor about another major villain in the movie. If it's not bullshit, it may explain who the large figure is.

[ForceInfinity]

2. This is a Batman movie in which Batman is reduced to a mere footnote as far as screen time is concerned. I get that there are other themes in this movie, but they were bombastic and overdone at the expense of having Batman on screen. There are really barely any "wow" moments with his gadgets other than his lame new plane-tank thing.

I liked TDKNR alot, but this was my chief complaint too. DC fans I have spoken with say that Bruce Wayne is inseparable from Batman, so the Wayne screentime makes up for it, but that's BS. Aside from the early bat-pod versus the Gotham police chase, there are very few breathtaking "only in a Batman film" type moments. And that is sad. There is also an abundance of Joseph Gordon Levitt running around as a street cop doing sleuthing, which I think will hurt the re-play value. If I wanted 3 hours of Levitt, I'd watch 3rd Rock from the Sun repeats. This movie def. needed some more Batman.

Levitt's drawn raves for his role in TDKR. I admit I was puzzled when he was added to the cast, but he really impressed me. He rounds out the "Rises" part of the title, which also includes Wayne/Batman's "rise" from a purely vigilante-outlaw regard, and also Bane's status as a "dark knight" who "rose" to be Talia's sole protector in a literal den of iniquity.

Nolan had a huge challenge on his hands after the first two films, and I think he lost control of a couple things. I still think it's a great movie and parts of it carry a weighty emotional charge. On my second viewing, I didn't enjoy the movie any less, however—more, in fact. The first Bane-Batman fight is great. Bane isn't supposed to be the Hulk-sized behemoth he was when he was introduced in the "Knightfall" storyline. They did a successful job of making Tom Hardy look huge, when in reality he's a bit shorter than Christian Bale.

IMO, the movie/trilogy has a proper resolution. The first and third acts went well, it's the middle act that suffers somewhat from having footage excised here and there to trim its running time.

The franchise will be rebooted, so it's too bad we must bid adieu to such a great cast. I'm jonesin' for more of Hathaway's Catwoman.

In the meantime, the Batman: Earth One graphic novel (144 pages) that just came out is pretty awesome. And if you want to see what a Nolan-ized Penguin may have been like...you now have the opportunity!

I PM'd this to TNC because I knew he had seen the movie (and thus wouldn't mind a spoiler or three). But others might want to read my more spoiler-laden thoughts below:


SPOILER ALERT!!!! MOUSE OVER THE BODY BELOW TO CONTINUE READING!!!!






I really can't believe Christopher Nolan did the following:

1. Relied on the UNBELIEVABLY tired "ticking time bomb taken out of the danger zone within seconds of detonation" trope we've seen in 800 million action movies and half of the 24 seasons over the years.

2. Completely regurgitated the plot from the first one. I know Bane and Talia have ties to the League of Shadows and the common goal makes sense from that perspective, but I mean really... even the MEANS to their END (destroying Gotham) was pretty much identical (a Wayne Enterprises invention that could be used for good or bad ends). Unbelievably lame.

3. Bane. I can't say enough about how much this guy sucked from top to bottom. I actually didn't have trouble understanding him for most of the movie like I've read in some of the (positive and negative) reviews, but the voice itself was just flat-out GAY! It sounds like Deckard Cain (if you've played Diablo; if not, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n1gc3CRT38) with a dildo in his ass for added gayness.

4. The entire final battle between Batman and Bane. Did crawling out of a hole in Afghanistan suddenly make Batman's punches that heavier (I know, I know, he "found himself," overcame the same hell Bane did, or whatever)? In their first battle, Bane wasn't even fazed by Batman's blows. Now all of a sudden, Batman is outmuscling him. Sorry, that stinks to high heavens. Where was the moment of ingenuity (both for Nolan and for Batman) where the physically outmatched Batman uses his wits to find and exploit Bane's weakness? Moreover, where was the drama when it appeared Bane and Talia had turned the tables and bested Batman? I wanted a second fight between Batman and Bane after Talia left, complete with Batman finally delivering a crushing blow to Bane, knocking his mask off, or whatever. Instead, the focal character of much of the movie is suddenly gone just when it seems he's gotten his obligatory "bad guy second wind," done away with by one rocket from the Batcycle courtesy of Selina Kyle. That just stunk, and the fact that there was really no decisive confrontation between Talia and Batman at the end made it stink even worser.

Overall, the lack of Batman is flat-out unconscionable. Seeing bearded Bruce Wayne on his back in a rat hole is NOT equivalent to the sheer feeling of triumph you get when Batman is on screen. Even his 2 triumphant returns didn't feel all that special. When he Batarangs the thugs on the ice and saves Gordon, there's really nothing special or exciting about it. Why not show the jubilation of those not under Bane's influence when the fiery bat signal flare is on the building? Even Bane's reaction ("IMPOSSIBLE!") felt lame as hell (especially with that voice).

Standing on its own, I'm sure this movie would have entertained the hell out of me (to an extent, save for the lack of Batman). But given its pedigree, it sorely disappointed.







SPOILER ALERT!!!! MOUSE OVER THE BODY TEXT ABOVE TO CONTINUE READING!!!!

I'm going to try to answer Ehwmatt's post as well as others on TDKR. Overall I'd gave the movie a 8/10, though there's probably about 15 seconds worth of edits that probably would've made the movie much better in my eyes. Most of my thoughts will be in invisitexted to protect from spoilers, so highlight at your own risk. If you're up to the risk, highlight it in order to read:


So if you recall from the comics, the Lazarus pits were used by Ras Al Ghul to maintain his immortality, and they also made an appearance in TDKR, albeit in a more biblical sense. Lazarus for those who follow the Christian faith was an individual that was brought back from the dead by Jesus Christ, or risen from the dead if you will. One could argue that when Batman/Bruce was broken and cast out into the pit, that he was for all practical purposes "dead". When he tries to climb out of the pit, he fails until he is told that he needs to find his fear and in order to escape. As he climbs, they denizens are chanting a phrase that is roughly translated as "Rise". When Bruce Wayne emerges from the pit, he is "risen" from the dead. Hence where I believe the title might've originated.

Now to a couple of the changes I would've done to existing footage (I won't get into how Bane died, because like others, it seemed rather anticlimatic), but I'll go in order:
1. Ras Al Ghul. I would've cut out the 1/4 to 1/2 second where Ras fades out of view and immediately cut to Bruce screaming "nooooo!". The idea was that I would rather it left ambiguous as to whether or not Ras Al Ghul was immortal
2. The countdown timers. I would've resequenced them (if they must be kept) in such a way so that Batman had more than 60 seconds to get minimum safe distance from Gotham. At the time the Bat was over water, I think he had 60 seconds, which meant that to get minimum safe distance would've required a speed in excess of 540 mph (which is about 2.5 times the fastest known rotary wing vehicle in level flight). Given the Bat *might* make 200mph, he would've needed a minimum of 3 to 4 minutes (biased toward 4 minutes)
3. When Alfred is in the restraunt looking for Bruce, I would have him raise his glass, but I would eliminate the scene showing Bruce alive. Leaving it ambiguous would've added a bit to it I think

Having not read the comic extensively, I didn't have a problem with Bane, especially when compared to what we were subjected to with Batman & Robin. At least here, Bane struck me as a credible threat.

There was also an odd symmetry when you think about it. During Batmans first encounter with Bane, there were fighting it out in a cramped dark sewer, which was Bane's natural element. At one point Bane said he didn't see the light until he was a man and it was blinding. In the darkness Bane clearly has the advantage. That fight more than anything else had that Empire Strikes Back kind of feel (Vader vs Luke). The fight was intense enough that when Bane cracked Batman's cowl, it drew a collective gasp from my theater screening.

Now in their second encounter, they were in quite the opposite environment...they were in broad daylight in a wide open space. Bane no longer had that advantage. Probably stretching it a bit to account for Batman did so much better (not to mention he knew to focus on that mask to debilitate him.

Again, not a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it all the same, and it sounds like I benefited from not having read the graphic novels and comics going into this movie. As a result I had no preconceived notions on how Bane should be other than hoping to god he was nowhere near as lame as the one in Batman & Robin, which thankfully I was not disappointed in that regard

[RedWingFan]

Still haven't seen it. May have to wait for a blu-ray, rented.

[No Surprize]

Watched it last night and all I can say is AWESOME! The best one yet!

[YoungJRNY]

Onto bigger and better things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4

Now THAT is what I'm talking about. The buzz has been tremendous and positively accepted. WB can barely hang onto their top secrets and tight lipped information about Man of Steel, which has crushed the 20+ million mark in views on YouTube, only out several weeks. In comparison, it took The Avengers and TDKR trailers months to achieve such status.

Dubbed to not only smash box office, summer expectations, MOS is labeled to be the must-watch movie in all of 2013. Personally, I've uncontrollably followed Man of Steel over the past few years & I believe Supes fans (and non-fans alike) will be getting what we ALL dreamed and wished of. Countdown starts NOW.

[verslibre]

You said you wanted...bigger?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85EtOalcsM

Looking forward to MoS, but this is the best trailer I've seen in a long time. But I love the genre (both of them).

[No Surprize]

You said you wanted...bigger?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85EtOalcsM

Looking forward to MoS, but this is the best trailer I've seen in a long time. But I love the genre (both of them).

Rock em, Sock em robots meet Gundam vs transformers. Think I'll pass this one up. After Battle Los Angeles I've seen enough robot based films

to last a lifetime.

[verslibre]

You said you wanted...bigger?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85EtOalcsM

Looking forward to MoS, but this is the best trailer I've seen in a long time. But I love the genre (both of them).

Rock em, Sock em robots meet Gundam vs transformers. Think I'll pass this one up. After Battle Los Angeles I've seen enough robot based films

to last a lifetime.

No, you haven't, not till you've sen Guillermo del Toro's love letter to kaiju & mechas.

'Sides, I don't remember any kaiju in those Bay flix...

[jestor92]

You said you wanted...bigger?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85EtOalcsM

Looking forward to MoS, but this is the best trailer I've seen in a long time. But I love the genre (both of them).

Looks like a Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla ripoff

[verslibre]

Like Guillermo said, he wanted to make a movie for fans (because he's a fan), but he didn't want to make a "fan movie," i.e. a low-budget campy flick.

And I'm behind it 110%. He's got my money. It's not going to be any worse than Jackson's bloated The Hobbit, the movie GdT LEFT so he could make Pacific Rim.

[No Surprize]

In the preview, a voice-over is heard with the oath of the God of Thunder as the new supreme ruler. We see a clash between Thor and the enemy army, in a world that is neither Asgard let alone the Earth. We see Chris Hemsworth wielding his hammer and Tom Hiddleston as Loki first wounded without a helmet, with long, loose hair and then imprisoned; his anger increasingly desperate and irrational. Then there's a scene later in which he is free again, but still furious.

Against the backdrop of a forest, in the middle of a clearing, among the dust, we in fact face off anthropomorphic creatures, but also a big "gorilla" krosan tusker: a rather alien fauna varies so, although not extreme in size (there are also some envoys/ambassadors of a people mysterious, with oval face and black eyes, elongated and sunken)
The rest of the images show glimpses of Asgard, with Anthony Hopkins as Odin and Natalie Portman in clothes that seem more like a princess; an Asgardian princess. In between, there are images of an epic battle on horseback, who seems to have left an epic cloak-and-dagger. The threat to the Asgardians is certainly a new alien race pale (now identified as the dark elves).

A black spaceship shaped irregularly looks like a serious threat to Asgard. More sequences show Natalie Portman then alongside Thor lying on the ground, probably overwhelmed in a clash.

Marvel’s “Thor: The Dark World” continues the big-screen adventures of Thor, the Mighty Avenger, as he battles to save Earth and all the Nine Realms from a shadowy enemy that predates the universe itself. In the aftermath of Marvel’s “Thor” and “Marvel’s The Avengers,” Thor fights to restore order across the cosmos…but an ancient race led by the vengeful Malekith returns to plunge the universe back into darkness. Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all.


The movie hits theaters on November 8th, 2013.

[Rip Rokken]

Onto bigger and better things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4

I just realized you can see Supes' chest hair peeking above the collar of his costume (look at the scene where he's gazing at Lois before taking her hand). I guess they are doing this on purpose, but I'm not sure why.

[YoungJRNY]

Onto bigger and better things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4

I just realized you can see Supes' chest hair peeking above the collar of his costume (look at the scene where he's gazing at Lois before taking her hand). I guess they are doing this on purpose, but I'm not sure why.

LOL, yeah. Some fans pointed this out and are like "dude, chest hair. The fuck?" I think its great. Just shows Clark's human side. He's also shown earlier in the trailer, on fire and has chest hair. Good to see something masculine from the Supes character in Cavill rather than that Barbie Doll in Brandon Routh. That's just badass to me, chest hair and all, lmao.