Escape to the Movies: The Dark Knight Rises

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Seen it yesterday. It's a great movie. I agree with Bob that it's not as good as the previous two but I think it's because of the villain. I couldn't take Bane very seriously. He's good, but not as good as Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker. But the movie feels a lot more mature than previous two for some reason.

The biggest flaw for me is the fact that they never even mentioned The Joker. Every other character from previous two movies was there. Just mentioning The Joker would have been enough to make this feel like a real continuation of the previous movie. Instead, it is the continuation of Batman Begins. And it makes The Dark Knight, which is the best one in the trilogy, seem kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I did not appreciate that.

Great but flawed, terrific ending though. And definitely the best trilogy ever made. Especially since I thought that some asshole spoiled the ending for me. Turns out it was just a successful troll. That alone made the movie great for me because the ending is exactly what I didn't expect it to be.

Also, in my opinion it's better than The Avengers. Avengers is an adrenaline pumping joy ride, but ultimately it didn't leave me fulfilled with anything meaningful. As awesome as it is, it is just a popcorn sci-fi action flick. I prefer a more serious movie. I prefer Batman over any Marvel character anyway, and I love what Nolan did with this universe and how he ended it.

 

[faefrost]

Right-wing columnist claims Batman is "my kind of hero"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/batman-is-my-kind-of-hero/story-e6frfifx-1226435126399

Isn't this version of the story based on the Frank Miller version from the 90s?

It actually more began with the dynamic created between Batman and Superman with the John Byrne Superman reboot in the 1980's. Miller just picked up from that. Basically Batman essentially is a Conservative Republican. He is an entrepreneur and a business owner. His entire underlying philosophy is one of personal responsibility and personal initiative. Pure self reliance.

Whereas Superman is the text book "east coast intelligentsia liberal democrat". He is a member of the left leaning news media. The entire underlying philosophy is that he is this supremely powerful entity that is there to save and protect us, and do for us.

At their core Batman and Superman are the opposing sides of the argument of self reliance vs protection from above.

Of course all of this just makes the comments by the Conservative talk radio nitwits, about how TDKR was going to be used to support Obama because the main villain was "Bane" which sounds like "Bain" to be so much more absurd, bizarre and ill informed.

DC actually has a long history of actually giving some real world political views to their main characters and playing off them to drive some really good stories. Going back to the truly classic Brave and the Bold Green Lantern/Green Arrow stories from the 70's. With Hal Jorden being the more right wing military pilot and Oliver Queen being the more 60's liberal radical (think OWS by todays standards) with a bit of Libertarian ism thrown in.

 

[atomicmrpelly]

Woah people are being heavily critical of this movie!

It's like Bob said, it wasn't first class, but it was pretty good! Yes it was overlong, but that made it feel epic! And yes there were some character issues, but they weren't nearly as glaring as people are making out! I thought Bane was a very effective villain, I was surprised that they didn't go with a more well known Batman villain but then if you were going to do that you'd have the joker wouldn't you?! And I'm really surprised that everyone is calling the plot twist predictable, I didn't see it coming! Is that because I haven't read the comics or because I didn't pay attention in the last 2 movies?!

 

[walrusaurus]

Freeze would have been the more obvious choice. As he is both vastly more identifiable as a batman villan than Bane, and his story is more tailor made to the Nolan ethos. Considering that they ended up making Banes motivations very similar to freezes anyways, i feel like freeze would have been a much better fit for the film.

The biggest issue i had with bane, he was never explored the way that Joker was. Even though the joker didn't really have any concrete motivation for why he was the way that he was, by the end of the movie we had understood the charecter. Bane on the other hand we are explictly told why he's doing what he does, and it just feels hollow and insincere. I think a big part of it has to do with the ridiculous mask. No disrespect to Tom Hardy, but he is not a good enough actor to sell the character with nothing more than his eyes and physicality. He never gave a sense of depth or even menace. He was kind of just, there.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

Well at least they tried.

I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

Well at least they tried.

I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

Mmmmm we judged it based on the issues the film had and general fiction of the batman universe. It was more or less good but still flawed.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

The Dark Knight Rises

MovieBob gives us a spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Watch Video

Unsuprised. Trilogies almost never end well

Well at least they tried.

I was worried that it would stack up poorly against Avengers, b.

Fucking called it. I and have been saying for a long time that its going to be a disappointment that doesn't live up to the previous two movies. I figured it would be good, jut not a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy.

What are you all talking about? Especially you MovieBob.

DKR was easily better than the Avenger's and Batman Begins. Easily.

The Avenger's was just a lot of flashy fun, powered by a hoaky and poorly written script that got overlooked by charming performances and fan pleasing one-liners. It was a good time at the movies though.

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

Also, Tom Hardy was brilliant as Bane. He took a lame villain and made it smart, interesting, dynamic, and very scary.

And sure, the hand to hand combat leaves much to be desired, but at least Nolan did his best to improve on it.

While Dark Knight was an excellent film and crime drama, Dark Knight Rises felt like a really good Batman movie to me, if that makes any sense.

All in all it was face paced, interesting, dramatic, well acted and directed, with a bombastic soundtrack, and a quotable, yet not silly script.

Also Bob, there wasn't two "risings" in the film. One was a return based on circumstance, and one was a battle for a man to accept his internal fears of his own mortality so he could finally sacrifice everything for good.

Man, Bob you really gotta look a little deeper into movies instead of just judging them based on your odd pop-culture standards.

Mmmmm we judged it based on the issues the film had and general fiction of the batman universe. It was more or less good but still flawed.

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.[/quote]

This is going to be TLR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

This is going to be TLR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><[/quote]

Yeah sorry I stopped after "4 types of Entertainment watches"

Sorry, but there is only 1 type. You.

People get what they get out of what they watch, sometimes they want lulz, sometimes they want something more.

Humanity and our perception of art in entertainment is to varied to be classified.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yeah it was flawed.

And Batman Universe? Christopher Nolan established his own batman universe, so I think it is better to judge the movies within their own fiction, but that's just me.

This is going to be TLR....... move along.... move along.... LOL

There are 4 types of entertainment watchers, those in it for the lulz and thus the lowest common denominator, those who want something a bit more, those who want quality and fan boys.

I really do not care for reinventions that dilute aesthetics, history, settings and or characters much, its rather grating to my nerves as the original content tends to be less asinine and pretentious.

What Noland did is the age old hackz at reinvention through hollwoodization, I mean the real world through the eyes of the drug crazed anorexics that then adapt fiction to the big screen is getting old.

With all the potential they had on using a near perfect representation of Two Face they really screwed up Bane big time, they should have just went with a whole new character as I really hate most film reinvention, Noland did a good job on everything but the villains(tho the Joker dose stand out as a perfect alternate Joker) IMO tho I guess its no worse than every other Batman flick.

With that said Nolands films are solid films possibly even great action films (such as that goes) but something is missing to make them really great Batman films. Even so Burton's films are no better but there's a "something something" to them I like more.

I would really like to see Batman film fiction(And Superman and Xmen and Wolverine and Green Arrow, and Green Hornet) handled better without all the needless reinvention.

Green Lantern gets the doobie prize for running long and truncated fiction, tho even with all the stuff they skipped it came off a better ..er... realization of the fiction tho Wolverine came damn close it just had sucky content.

And while I am at it Last Airbender suffered from 2 grievous issues, first off its never good to over time condense stories but that was not the main problem, they basically took out the Asian culture,mannerisms and as much aesthetics as they could without making it something completely different. Thus it made the already iffy bland acting , flat and dumb as there is no character to the characters.

Gaaaaahhh... I am le blowhard ><

Yeah sorry I stopped after "4 types of Entertainment watches"

Sorry, but there is only 1 type. You.

People get what they get out of what they watch, sometimes they want lulz, sometimes they want something more.

Humanity and our perception of art in entertainment is to varied to be classified.[/quote]

Oh most of you don't care about quality depth anymore, its rather sad.
LOL

I did put in TLR, even I don't what the frak I was going on about

 

[John P. Hackworth]

Well, they had to make something to end the trilogy, and now they have.

I agree with Movie Bob.

 

[gphjr14]

This was a B+ at best and what really killed it for me was Bane as a villain was underwhelming and the climatic fight between him and Batman, even more so. It's worth seeing but feel they could've gotten a better plot out of another villain. Say The Penguin, The Riddler, or Black Mask.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

I especially liked the bit where Batman picked up a glowing science-fiction atom bomb in his cheesy science-fiction helicopter. Man that was so deep, I was like, "this totally symbolizes Batman picking up a MacGuffin with a convenient helicopter that Morgan Freeman made for some reason."

...seriously, no, this film is 3 and a half stars at best. Avengers was crisp, colourful, fun, but it was straightforward. The Dark Knight Rises was contrived - but worst of all, it was haphazardly paced; it was waaay too big for one movie. If it was two films glued together, I would have been all over it. But it wasn't. It swapped out peaceful Gotham for post-apocalyptic Gotham over the course of maybe ten minutes. It's... bafflingly awful.

The film was not bad. It was really well-made. But it really did feel like it took the same step backwards that The Dark Knight took backwards. Dark Knight was a suspenseful, realistic crime drama which explored the depths of human depravity and insanity, and how far you have to push a man before they go over whatever the "edge" is. Rises is about a man in a mask blowing up a city with a glowing bomb and then Batman comes and shoots him with missiles out of his crazy helicopter thing. Which I definitely appreciate! Don't get me wrong! But how anyone can call this deep - how anyone can argue this has "substance" - is beyond me. It has good dialog and it's acted well. It's directed and staged and filmed perfectly. But as far as the story goes... just no.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

DKR may not have been the smoothest and deepest movie in the world, but it had substance.

I especially liked the bit where Batman picked up a glowing science-fiction atom bomb in his cheesy science-fiction helicopter. Man that was so deep, I was like, "this totally symbolizes Batman picking up a MacGuffin with a convenient helicopter that Morgan Freeman made for some reason."

...seriously, no, this film is 3 and a half stars at best. Avengers was crisp, colourful, fun, but it was straightforward. The Dark Knight Rises was contrived - but worst of all, it was haphazardly paced; it was waaay too big for one movie. If it was two films glued together, I would have been all over it. But it wasn't. It swapped out peaceful Gotham for post-apocalyptic Gotham over the course of maybe ten minutes. It's... bafflingly awful.

The film was not bad. It was really well-made. But it really did feel like it took the same step backwards that The Dark Knight took backwards. Dark Knight was a suspenseful, realistic crime drama which explored the depths of human depravity and insanity, and how far you have to push a man before they go over whatever the "edge" is. Rises is about a man in a mask blowing up a city with a glowing bomb and then Batman comes and shoots him with missiles out of his crazy helicopter thing. Which I definitely appreciate! Don't get me wrong! But how anyone can call this deep - how anyone can argue this has "substance" - is beyond me. It has good dialog and it's acted well. It's directed and staged and filmed perfectly. But as far as the story goes... just no.

Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

<quote=myself>but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

 

[Milanezi]

I haven't seen the movie yet, it arrives only next Friday here in let-down land (Brazil), I've got tickets to saturday, not Friday so I MIGHT, just MIGHT, escape the horde of teenager lunatics that insist on making jokes throughout the whole movie.
Well, what the frak is going on here MovieBob??? ...

I finally saw the movie, on Saturday, and... And I wish I hadn't written anything from my old post (the one I just quoted), after watching the movie, not only do I agree with MovieBob, I also think he was pretty nice towards the movie. It's not that the movie was bad, but it was mediocre, had an unforgiving plot hole, and well, the great revelation by the end of the movie, and I'm not talking about the plot-twist, it's the hero-related one, rendered useless the whole trilogy, since this Batman "universe" will never continue because Nolan refused to do so. And then there is the BIG OFFENSE, Mr. Nolan could have had the decency of altering a minor scene in the movie where "scarecrow" shows up, I mean, as MovieBob said,that scene doesn't even FIT Crane's character, it was made for the Joker, now okay, no problem, the actor is dead, so change the scene, or delete it, or simply change the lines and get a common thug to do what Crane does, because the Scarecrow would NEVER act like that, that scene was "Hannibal: Origins" (or whatever it was called) all over again, a modus operandi that makes no sense to the given character. I WANT to enjoy the movie, because it is a Batman movie, but thing is, knowing that there isn't going to be a 4th movie (only the reboot, now I say, THANK GOD for it), I see myself bending over to watch Tim Burton's series, because Nolan managed to ruin his whole trilogy with one movie. It's clear to me, Ledger died, Nolan didn't want to make the 3rd movie anymore because of that, but he had to because of contract, and what we got is a movie that you'll forget about a few hours after leaving the theatre.

 

[Milanezi]

Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

<quote=myself>but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

I do agree, the realism was good because Nolan had created a perfect balance between "real" and "ridiculous comic book stuff". Now, Marvel managed to pull out a movie based on the outrageous, it took all liberties it could in terms of dismissing reality in exchange for the colorful comic book world. Indeed, one can't compare the Batman series to the others, but as you said, Nolan spread this last movie too thin and it became pretentious, Nolan slipped and his realism betrayed the sense of comic book amazement, turning the movie sorta... dumb I guess? Like a kid wanting to play as an adult, it's cute, it's entertaining, but not as much as the kid that plays like a kid (Avengers).

 

[Milanezi]

Just saw the movie, I agree with all that Bob but unlike Bob I don't find good actors playing out to a crap script makes up for the script being crap, which it is, I couldn't help but feeling most the movie being a boring build up the never got any pay off and this film needs a lot more Batman, Bob wasn't exaggerating when he said Joseph Gordon-Levitt character is the main protagonist of the movie especially during the second half when we get no Batman until the big save the day moment.

SPOILERS, really I'm replying to someone who saw the movie, everyone else don't read:

I didn't feel a lack of Batman, but I did feel a lack of character in everyone, the twist with Talia just turned a good-enough Bane into a hulking mess. People have to remember Bane from Batman & Robin, he sucked because he was a puppet, and again we have a Bane who's a puppet being used by Talia. And what the heck was that all about Bruce wayne coming back from the prison? That place looks like either Asia or Middle East, yet Bruce Wayne just pops up inside a city (under siege), completely clean and ready to battle... Okay, I can forgive most of that, but there's no way he would be able to enter Gotham in time...

 

[lord.jeff]

Spoiler

Just saw the movie, I agree with all that Bob but unlike Bob I don't find good actors playing out to a crap script makes up for the script being crap, which it is, I couldn't help but feeling most the movie being a boring build up the never got any pay off and this film needs a lot more Batman, Bob wasn't exaggerating when he said Joseph Gordon-Levitt character is the main protagonist of the movie especially during the second half when we get no Batman until the big save the day moment.

SPOILERS, really I'm replying to someone who saw the movie, everyone else don't read:

I didn't feel a lack of Batman, but I did feel a lack of character in everyone, the twist with Talia just turned a good-enough Bane into a hulking mess. People have to remember Bane from Batman & Robin, he sucked because he was a puppet, and again we have a Bane who's a puppet being used by Talia. And what the heck was that all about Bruce wayne coming back from the prison? That place looks like either Asia or Middle East, yet Bruce Wayne just pops up inside a city (under siege), completely clean and ready to battle... Okay, I can forgive most of that, but there's no way he would be able to enter Gotham in time...

Spoiler

The reason I feel like a lack of Batman is because of everything that happens during the pit, it feels to me like it was just written so they could have Batman out of the way for a few months, but the whole pit thing was the worst part of the movie for many reason and the main reason I dislike the movie so. As for Bane and Talia, Bane was okay for me his twist at the end sucked but I enjoyed him enough through the rest of the movie so it can be forgiven but my main issue was with Talia here importance up to her big reveal seems forced and her romance with Bruce even more so, that kiss and everything that followed came out of left field for me.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Did you not read what I said?

There is a difference between depth and substance...

Dark Knight Rises had a bit of both and Avenger's had none of either.

I loved The Avenger's, i just don't pretend that it was anything more than an awesome popcorn flick.

Avengers was an awesome popcorn flick, but Rises was a pretentious popcorn flick.

It thought it had depth and substance but it lacked enough to warrant. You know what DID have depth and substance? Arkham City. That was a better Batman story than Rises could ever hope to be, and I say this as someone who absolutely loves the "grit" and realism of the Nolan interpretation. Rises spread it self too thin over too much, and it ended up as a jumbled - yet enjoyable - mess.

Avengers was pure spectacle, start to finish. No doubt. Rises was much of the same, but also tried to provide some kind of meaning along with it. It failed at the last part. Is a film better for attempting to tell a compelling story and failing than not at all? ...maybe. All I know is, for me, that's worth making the film down on. Actually, I'm surprised you quoted me originally at all, or bought up Avengers. "Did you read what I just said" indeed...

<quote=myself>but then I remembered that these films have basically been in a separate plane of existence compared to other blockbuster superhero films around it. Would you ever compare Begins to Spider-Man?

I honestly believe drawing such comparisons just are not fair because they're incomparable.

You haven't really added much to your counter argument.

Once again this has become a battle of opinions.

And to that I must say I respect yours.

For me substance lies in a decently compelling script, and that's all I'm going to say about that.

Good day.