With you on this one, a better death for him would have been more inline with the final battle in the Raid. Nothing comes close for a truly brutal final battle!!!!
The Official 'The Dark Knight Rises' Spoiler Discussion Thread...
- Thread starter SixTwoSix
- Start date
With you on this one, a better death for him would have been more inline with the final battle in the Raid. Nothing comes close for a truly brutal final battle!!!!
Soldato
I know - I'd love more, it was cerebral in a way other superhero films haven't been (yay for Nolan), with that aspect being used as a medium to advance the message. I'm indifferent to most of the Marvel films for this reason - they're just cartoon cutouts of people doing cool ****, but not much more than that. These three felt grounded in reality, the characters were believable.
I think the problem with this part was that Batman had defeated Bane utterly in terms of both a physical and psychological victory, but Batman is hemmed in by his 'no guns, no killing', so like with the Joker - he'd won but wasn't going to deliver the killing blow out of his moral code. It was convinient to the story that Kyle's choice to go back and help should result in a pivotal contribution and I would have prefered it be done in a slightly more interesting way, but at least she didn't deliver her canned line before she blew him away.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,249
Associate
Just watched this last night and have to say that i enjoyed it a lot.
I dont think it was as good as the The dark Knight, but Bane was a much better adversary than the joker.
The one thing that annoyed me throughout was Bane's voice, he just sounded like a bad guy from some cheesy 80's cartoon, or even falcor the luck dragon in Neverending Story!
other than that i would definitely give this film a very solid 8/10
I dont think it was as good as the The dark Knight, but Bane was a much better adversary than the joker.
The one thing that annoyed me throughout was Bane's voice, he just sounded like a bad guy from some cheesy 80's cartoon, or even falcor the luck dragon in Neverending Story!
other than that i would definitely give this film a very solid 8/10
Associate
That reminds me that Cesar Romero got the right hump when the role of The Joker was given to Jack Nicholson in the first serious Batman film. He seriously believed the part should go to himlol @ "Quick! Everyone! Flee for your LIVES. Into the STREET!" I don't know why, but I love that line. I think it is how he places such emphasis on STREET. They don't make them like that anymore
Soldato
Watched this last night, really enjoyed it, thought Bane was great.
There were a few little things which annoyed me about it but they were mostly just slight niggles that would easily be overlooked in other films... The fact they did annoy me even a little bit I suppose speaks a lot about how good this trilogy has been.
Felt a little bit of a nicey nice ending, but it was a fitting end to the trilogy, at the end of the day it is a superhero film so I guess some allowances need to be made
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
Watched this last night. Would say it was very entertaining and satisfying conclusion to the series, but not a perfectly formed experience. It was always going to be tough to follow up the second movie though.
I felt like the main themes that Nolan wanted to explore here:
- The concept of losing it all, the fear of losing it all, being overpowered and bettered
- Legacy and its implications (sins of the past, hopes for the future, when to call it a day)
- The "Rise" after the "Fall", the rebuilding of the spirit and self
- The final all-out "war" on the streets of Gotham, where the 2 main adversaries meet on the battlefield once more
I felt all these were underplayed because the movie was not long enough. Each of these themes could have been explored more deeply given more time. This leads to choppy editing, too many leaps and assumptions in the story, giving it a rushed feel at times, and a drawn-out feel at others.
I do believe that the movie would have benefited from being a 2 parter, the first focusing on the fall, and the next on the rise (maybe with Robin playing a factor?). I also can't help but wish they had incorporated more of the comics ideas, but ofc, everything could be improved in hindsight, and I still think that Nolan gave this trilogy the epic ending that it deserved.
I felt like the main themes that Nolan wanted to explore here:
- The concept of losing it all, the fear of losing it all, being overpowered and bettered
- Legacy and its implications (sins of the past, hopes for the future, when to call it a day)
- The "Rise" after the "Fall", the rebuilding of the spirit and self
- The final all-out "war" on the streets of Gotham, where the 2 main adversaries meet on the battlefield once more
I felt all these were underplayed because the movie was not long enough. Each of these themes could have been explored more deeply given more time. This leads to choppy editing, too many leaps and assumptions in the story, giving it a rushed feel at times, and a drawn-out feel at others.
I do believe that the movie would have benefited from being a 2 parter, the first focusing on the fall, and the next on the rise (maybe with Robin playing a factor?). I also can't help but wish they had incorporated more of the comics ideas, but ofc, everything could be improved in hindsight, and I still think that Nolan gave this trilogy the epic ending that it deserved.
Soldato
I completely agree, a 2-part final would've been much better. I loved it apart from certain parts did seem a little rushed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
Hmm isn't Gotham City meant to be Chicago?
With metropolis being NYC?
I know what you mean, but I think it was the presence of daylight made the film less 'gothic'.
It didn't hurt it.
Don
Gotham is a nickname for New York.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
hmm now I am confused, I thought in that universe that metropolis was nyc, gotham was chicago, and star city dc etc, and so on and so forth, all the cities having equivalents, and one main superhero per area, coming together when needed?
So the Island, the bridges, all those shots are NYC shots? Was it the same in TDK?
So the Island, the bridges, all those shots are NYC shots? Was it the same in TDK?
Soldato
its both
its a big american city, like New York or Chicago
its filmed in both and also in london and LA and a bunch of other places
its a big american city, like New York or Chicago
its filmed in both and also in london and LA and a bunch of other places
Soldato
epic epic epic!
Love every min!!
Love every min!!
Soldato
Seems I'm in the minority of people who thought this was utter garbage then?
Soldato
Yes
Associate
I wouldn't say garbage, nowhere near worthy of the hype and praise though.
As it is it was an average movie when viewed in isolation, as part of the trilogy it was the weakest of the three, coming from a director of such pedigree and with a solid cast it could and should have delivered so much more.
It was sloppy and loose, tiresome and poorly paced, it felt cobbled together and rushed almost as though it had been through three different writers or directors.
Bane was dire in every aspect, it demanded nothing of whomever played the role other than to be big, and and tom hardy wasn't big enough!
There have been complaints raised about not seeing his mouth, making dialogue hard to follow and losing any emotive qualities. All valid and true points, when I watch a movie of any genre I should not have to focus intently on one characters lines, it is not a flawed idea and can be done brilliantly.
Darth Vader in the original SW trilogy wore a complete facial piece, not a hint of emotion could really be conveyed in traditional methods and yet through tight direction of David Prowse and clever dubbing of James Earl Jones it carried more weight and intensity than than Bane could ever hope to.
I could dissect the movie further but it'd really not worth it, I love cinema, adore suspending reality for a while and losing myself in an alternate universe. I enjoyed BB and fell in love with TDK, but cannot find anything positive to say about TDKR, and 4/10 is the best I can muster, even that feels generous.
As it is it was an average movie when viewed in isolation, as part of the trilogy it was the weakest of the three, coming from a director of such pedigree and with a solid cast it could and should have delivered so much more.
It was sloppy and loose, tiresome and poorly paced, it felt cobbled together and rushed almost as though it had been through three different writers or directors.
Bane was dire in every aspect, it demanded nothing of whomever played the role other than to be big, and and tom hardy wasn't big enough!
There have been complaints raised about not seeing his mouth, making dialogue hard to follow and losing any emotive qualities. All valid and true points, when I watch a movie of any genre I should not have to focus intently on one characters lines, it is not a flawed idea and can be done brilliantly.
Darth Vader in the original SW trilogy wore a complete facial piece, not a hint of emotion could really be conveyed in traditional methods and yet through tight direction of David Prowse and clever dubbing of James Earl Jones it carried more weight and intensity than than Bane could ever hope to.
I could dissect the movie further but it'd really not worth it, I love cinema, adore suspending reality for a while and losing myself in an alternate universe. I enjoyed BB and fell in love with TDK, but cannot find anything positive to say about TDKR, and 4/10 is the best I can muster, even that feels generous.
Permabanned
brilliant film and i found it better than batman begins and dark knight.
