The Dark Knight Rises

[albionalex]

As a stand-alone film it's excellent but as the last in the trilogy it's slightly disappointing. The film kinda stalls in the middle and some of the events are very predictable but overall it's very good. It doesn't top The Dark Knight but it gets close.

 

[Acker79]

First of all, this is a film best watched knowing as little as possible about what's in store so maybe don't read this if you're a big fan of these films.

First of all Dark Knight Rises, like most Nolan films...

I won't go into too much more detail other than these observations:
1. Hardy is great as Bane but...

heh.

 

[Meade's Ball]

As an all-too-regular disliker of the mainstream, you will be unsurprised to hear or read that i was a bit underwhelmed by this rise from the flames by our favourite bat. I enjoyed the first of the trilogy, and the second was ok thanks to the Joker, but this was lengthy, inaudible, and attemptedly weighty without any great or sensible heart. The pluses were Hathaway as Catwoman, in spite of her weakening near the end and having no real origins of anything felinically related, and the batbike with its sideways-travelling wheels. Michael Caine crying was an hilarious few moments of film. I quite enjoyed Joseph Gordon-Levitt too as the cop with a pattern-reading power of his own. And a sneaky few glimpses of Cillian Murphy were pleasing too. But overall, i found it a disgrace to release a film in which large chunks of the dialogue could simply not be heard. Shocking. The dubbing over of Bane to partly repair seems mistimed to his facial movements, and even then only every now and again, when his voice is more highly-pitched, can his words be heard. How can anyone know of the evil and venom of a mutterer? He's largely the hulking android Krang, the nefarious brain in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but without the brain to persuade or characterise his movements. It was a film, i thought, without the hugest amount of action, so to muffle the speech of it, which was surely meant to offer a tad of meaning to this over-doomladen piece, was terrible. I'll see it again, but with subtitles, and see if it's more bearable and i begin to care about anyone.
It was loud and pounding, and certainly a spectacle, but for me lacked the darkness and depth and cohesion that Batman Begins had sewn into its adventure. Directors seem to think that by being given a larger budget that one has to spend it all by making something longer and bigger. When really, you need all the elements to slyly fit together and want people wanting a little more at the end even if everything is meant to be tied up and closed off. More time gives license for more error. I hope Nolan doesn't go on to make a 3 hour adventure that bores in slices by believing that bigger is better. It's not. Tidier is better, even if you're creating a perfect little mess. This was overlong and lacked a real sparkle to it.

 

[Acker79]

1. Hardy is great as Bane but, as said above, his dialogue along with Bale as Batman and a times the mumbling Commissioner Gordon are hard to hear.

On the whole I didn't have any trouble with understanding him. I do think there is always a slight disconnect when you can't see lips moving, but I didn't have a problem with making ou any of the words.

5. The ending is good but I would have preferred something a little more ambiguous. It's perhaps a little to explained and rounded off for all the characters. It's certainly no Inception in the way it leaves you. I wonder how much the studio had to do with this especially one particular element involving a supporting character.

I thought the film was quite unambiguous, too, but it turns out there are a lot of people who think it isn't so clear cut.

 

[Northstander]

Just got in, hardy as Bain is a badass mo fo!!! Hathaway - FIT!! The film as a whole I thought is the best of the three, Bain at time you have difficulty understanding but is the best character throughout, can't go into great detail without ruining the experience! Must see movie!!!

 

[Ninja Elephant]

@Meades's_Ball I think you smacked the ball out of the park with that summarisation. Absolutely spot on. A lot of the film was very good, but some of it was absolute nonsense. Bane was very intimidating and his voice added to it but when it came to understanding the bits and bobs of sounds he was uttering, I quickly gave up caring and assumed he was being scary. Batman's voice is just pathetic and unneccessary.

I thought the ending was tosh. Complete tosh and spoilt the overall effect for me, I thought it was a grand spectacle. Predictable at times, inaudible and unfollowable at others but generally I thought it was very good, but for the ending.

Not as good as The Amazing Spider-Man.

 

[Silk]

@Meades's_Ball I think you smacked the ball out of the park with that summarisation. Absolutely spot on. A lot of the film was very good, but some of it was absolute nonsense. Bane was very intimidating and his voice added to it but when it came to understanding the bits and bobs of sounds he was uttering, I quickly gave up caring and assumed he was being scary. Batman's voice is just pathetic and unneccessary.

I thought the ending was tosh. Complete tosh and spoilt the overall effect for me, I thought it was a grand spectacle. Predictable at times, inaudible and unfollowable at others but generally I thought it was very good, but for the ending.

Not as good as The Amazing Spider-Man.

Just come back from watching it and I agree. Good, but Spiderman better.

 

[Mellotron]

Thought it very good. Yes Batmans voice is daft but he obviously can't use his own, and a high pitched squeak would be even more stupid.

Probably only about Nolan's 4th or 5th best film, but that's up against some of the best films of all time.

 

[Weststander]

I didn't like the Michael Keaton (just don't like his acting persona) era Batman films, but came across Batman Begins and I love that film.

I suspect the latest film will be similarly great.

 

[Black Dalek]

I watched it at the Duke of Yorks and thought the sound was poor as I also had difficulty understanding Bain, but on reading these threads it was obviously the same at other picture houses. Great film thow.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Is anyone else as exited and chomping at the bit to see this film as me. Apart from the Hobbit its my only must see film of the year. The trailers look amazing and most of the reviews sound just as promising. Plus the added bonus of Anne Hathaway in a skintight catsuit, Oooh I'm getting moist at the though of it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv6VM7XdorY&sns=em

Moist?are you female

 

[WeAreTheAlbion]

Great film, and its Bane not Bain.

 

[Don Quixote]

Why so serious?

 

[Acker79]

Saw it again today, and enjoyed it even more.

 

[WhingForPresident]

Amazing film.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I enjoyed it. You do have to pay attention as the plot is fairly labyrinthine which I rather like. In contrast to another poster I loved the ending. Still each to their own. If you are a fan of the other two Nolan bat flicks then you will not be disappointed.

 

[leigull]

As ever Meades Ball has it spot on for me. Was a spectacle for sure, but lacked the darkness of the the second film. Bane was just irritating at times due to the struggle in hearing him properly. The whole film just didn't feel like it flowed properly. And I didn't really understand why they kept the bomb going for 5 months at the end? Why didn't they detonate it sooner? Will have to see it again I think.

 

[Acker79]

As ever Meades Ball has it spot on for me. Was a spectacle for sure, but lacked the darkness of the the second film. Bane was just irritating at times due to the struggle in hearing him properly. The whole film just didn't feel like it flowed properly. And I didn't really understand why they kept the bomb going for 5 months at the end? Why didn't they detonate it sooner? Will have to see it again I think.

It took five months for the core to degrade to the point that it would become unstable and explode. It wasn't something they could control (other than removing it from its base in that bunker under the river - the base stabilised it and prevented the degradation - which is why they initially try to get it back there).

 

[leigull]

It took five months for the core to degrade to the point that it would become unstable and explode. It wasn't something they could control (other than removing it from its base in that bunker under the river - the base stabilised it and prevented the degradation - which is why they initially try to get it back there).

Ta, I just thought they would have been able to 'unsettle' it enough to detonate it themselves, rather than waiting for it to degrade itself!

 

[mistahclarke]

Ta, I just thought they would have been able to 'unsettle' it enough to detonate it themselves, rather than waiting for it to degrade itself!

they had a remote the whole time. They just loved the anarchy and freedom.