The Dark Ray Knight Rises (2012)

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

A fitting finale to the greatest superhero franchise and vastly superior to both its predecessors. If this film proves anything, it's that a great superhero film should be more than good guy fights bad guy. Sorry Marvelites, but this is the new gold standard of comic book movies. It was everything the Dark Knight was, but on a grander scale.

The story is driven by the plot-equivalent of Dr Evil's unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism, but after all this is a comic book film and any suggestion to the contrary is unfounded.

Truth be said, I wasn't blown away by any individual aspect of this film, and I accept that the Avengers may have been the more entertaining movie, but that would be a bit like saying WWE is more entertaining than Mefistofele. Some may say that I shouldn't be looking for "substance" in such films. To those I retort: "Sod-off and write your own review". What impressed me was that it wasn't a sequel in name only, and everything felt closely tied with the preceding films, completing the circle, so to speak.

On a final note, it is somewhat unfortunate the franchise will be rebooted after this, as some other members of Batman's rogues gallery may have benefited from the more seriously-toned approch. I was especially looking forward to Batman locking horns with the villain known as RUSH, the loopy right-wing shock jock who bores innocent civilians to death with incredulous stories of liberal conspiracies.

Poll forthcoming.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Guest

[TransMonk]

I'm actually looking forward to this one...but I'll wait a few weeks to let the hype die before seeing it.

I loved The Dark Knight and the few reviews I've seen of this one say that it's better than TDK.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Gonna rewatch Batman Begins tonight, and Dark Knight tomorrow and probably see Rises over the weekend.

Begins didn't do much for me the first time around, but I really liked the second movie a lot, so I'm looking forward to giving it another shot.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Holmes bits aside, Begins wears a rewatching quite well. Neeson was a great casting choice for the mentor-gone-inverted.

Having a free morning tomorrow after dropping YoungerPooper at day care, and taking note of the numerous morning showings of TDKR in my area, I may just beat the crowds.

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

Not spoiling anything, but Begins is more relevant to its plot than The Dark Knight.

Also recommend you watch in IMAX if possible.

[Edgy MD]

The Second Spitter wrote: On a final note, it is somewhat unfortunate the franchise will be rebooted after this, as some other members of Batman's rogues gallery may have benefited from the more seriously-toned approch. I was especially looking forward to Batman locking horns with the villain known as RUSH, the loopy right-wing shock jock who bores innocent civilians to death with incredulous stories of liberal conspiracies.

How about some KGBEAST action?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I split the discussion of the shootings this morning in Colorado into a new thread in the Non Baseball Forum.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I've only seen one Batman movie - it was the one with George Clooney and Ahh-nold - and really it put me off Batman movies for life. I can't even keep up with all the different versions of Batman out there now.

[nymr83]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I've only seen one Batman movie - it was the one with George Clooney and Ahh-nold - and really it put me off Batman movies for life. I can't even keep up with all the different versions of Batman out there now.

dont let that horrible movie turn you off to batman! batman begins and the dark knight were both excellent films, and ik cant wait to see this one too!

[Edgy MD]

Batman Begins kinda really turned me off.

I was a fan of what Frank Miller was originally doing with his Batman books, in Dark Knight Returns and Year One. But beyond that, he seemed to turn into his own corrupted disciple and move beyond realistically depicting and confronting the violence to seriously fetishizing it. It seemed the Nolan films were going in that direction and I bailed. Just seems too culturally unhealthy to keep consuming that.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

You bailed just before the one that turns any violence-(and civil-liberties-trampling-) fetishizing from the first flick on its head, thanks to the Joker... who for most of the movie sounds like the guy with the most perspective. (Not to mention that brain-searing Heath Ledger performance, some nice work in the margins from Aaron Eckhart and Oldman, and some fantastic set pieces.)

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure what you mean by "on it's head."

I don't want to jump to conclusions about what I haven't seen, but I have to say news that the theater shooter styled himself on the Joker was, well, the least surprising thing in the world.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm done with Batman movies.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I like the 1960s version with Adam West. Oooooh, that Batmobile!

I've watched the new ones on DVD and didn't like them all that much. Too violent for my tastes. But my son likes them.

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

I never understand why they insist on rebooting. Change actors, fine, I get all that, but do you really have to keep going back to origin stories? Particularly with Batman/Spiderman that even the general public knows well. .

There was no "insistence" for a reboot in this case. Nolan/Goyer/Bale don't want to make anymore Batman films, the studio was not confident that it could replicate their results with other directors/producers. The studio wants to create a Batman universe conducive to other DC characters existing in it. Rebooting is more about maintaining freedom of interpretation and not being bound by another directors/producers ideas.

Superman Returns is a glowing authority on how trying to produce a sequel to a long-established franchise with different actors/producers quickly turns into a dog's breakfast. The previous Batman franchise is also a testament to this. Also The Incredible Hulk did not contain an origin story when it was rebooted.

There are thousands upon thousands of cool comics/stories with these guys

Most comic book stories (from mainstream Marvel/DC) have the following plot development: mystery --> red herring --> another red herring --> yet another red herring --> deus ex machina resolution. In other words, very poor drama that translates even worse on the silver screen. And it's kinda ironic that you would advocate interpreting more comic stories to film on the premise of avoiding reboots/origin stories, considering comic books are subject to more reboots and retrospective origin stories than any other form of media.

Most of the "thousands of stories" you speak of rely on back-stories and details that only comic book aficionados are privy to or are forgotten by the average movie goer the moment the credits role on the previous film. This is the problem the Star Trek movie franchise endured in the TNG era. The task of simultaneously pleasing casual viewers and hardcore Trekkies became impossible to reconcile.

Just go the the Dr Who/James Bond route the story isn't anchored to one actor.

Bond received a reboot in 2006. The previous Bond franchise had the same small group of people at the helm for most of its existence. It was literally inherited. The same producers maintained creative control over the Bond character, irrespective of directors and actors. When their influence waned and ideas dried up, it received a reboot.

Dr Who is not a film franchise. It was also partially rebooted in 2005

[Guest themetfairy]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I like the 1960s version with Adam West. Oooooh, that Batmobile!

I'm with ya friend

[Ceetar]

The Second Spitter wrote: The task of simultaneously pleasing casual viewers and hardcore Trekkies became impossible to reconcile.

difficult? yes. impossible? no. It would certainly take some work, but you could pick a random spiderman story arc and introduce the backstory involved as well, on some basis. You might need to streamline, sure, but you don't need to do the spider bit me! wow! look! i can lift heavy things and hold onto walls! bit every time. And with a little bit of forethought you can introduce some of the backstory in previous movies. (Say you're signing up for 3-4 movies in advance or whatever)

The same with Batman. I'm not suggesting they respect the current universe, but the entire Batman universe. You don't have to pretend it's the same storyline, but we don't need to go back to Batman Begins origin stories either. You could start the next movie mid-batmobile chase of the Riddler with Robin on the other end of the phone directing him and no one would really be lost in what's going on.

The next Superman movie doesn't need an hour on Krypton, and growing up in Smallville (unless it's a Smallville type movie) You can start with him already knowing Lois Lane and working at the Planet.

I want to see less re-development of characters and more ambitious storylines is all.

Just go the the Dr Who/James Bond route the story isn't anchored to one actor. Bond received a reboot in 2006. The previous Bond franchise had the same small group of people at the helm for most of its existence. It was literally inherited. The same producers maintained creative control over the Bond character, irrespective of directors and actors. When their influence waned and ideas dried up, it received a reboot. Dr Who is not a film franchise. It was also partially rebooted in 2005

Right, but that's my point with Bond. Sure, Batman doesn't have a small people at the helm, but I'm trying to say to respect some sort of 'creative commons' world where everyone knows who Batman, Superman, etc. Do we really need another individuals interpretation of what those characters are? Wasn't some of the critique of Spider-Man in the other thread (I haven't seen it yet) that Peter Parker wasn't a nerdy enough social-misfit?

Dr. Who obviously is different but it's fresh in my mind. Plus one season isn't that much longer in run time than a 3-4 movie arc. But they manage to pick a new Doctor and/or a companion and just go with it. People complain, sure, but they still do doctor and companion stuff and they get over it and keep watching.

I'm curious how the new Bourne movie is going to be.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: The Second Spitter wrote: The task of simultaneously pleasing casual viewers and hardcore Trekkies became impossible to reconcile. difficult? yes. impossible? no. It would certainly take some work, but you could pick a random spiderman story arc and introduce the backstory involved as well, on some basis. You might need to streamline, sure, but you don't need to do the spider bit me! wow! look! i can lift heavy things and hold onto walls! bit every time. And with a little bit of forethought you can introduce some of the backstory in previous movies. (Say you're signing up for 3-4 movies in advance or whatever) The same with Batman. I'm not suggesting they respect the current universe, but the entire Batman universe. You don't have to pretend it's the same storyline, but we don't need to go back to Batman Begins origin stories either. You could start the next movie mid-batmobile chase of the Riddler with Robin on the other end of the phone directing him and no one would really be lost in what's going on.

I'm with you in general on origin retellings-- the new Spider-Man flick feels warmed-over mostly because of its begin-again philosophy-- but Batman's origin is the exception, I'd argue. Like, say, the Biblical Jesus years between birth and 33, there's a lot of room for exploration because of all the space between Crime Alley and "Year One;" Batman writers have mined this area for interesting one-shots and extended story arcs.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Guest

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: The task of simultaneously pleasing casual viewers and hardcore Trekkies became impossible to reconcile. difficult? yes. impossible? no. It would certainly take some work, but you could pick a random spiderman story arc and introduce the backstory involved as well, on some basis. You might need to streamline, sure, but you don't need to do the spider bit me! wow! look! i can lift heavy things and hold onto walls! bit every time. And with a little bit of forethought you can introduce some of the backstory in previous movies. (Say you're signing up for 3-4 movies in advance or whatever)

My comments were specifically in relation to the Star Trek franchise circa early 2000's.

Ceetar wrote: Right, but that's my point with Bond. Sure, Batman doesn't have a small people at the helm, but I'm trying to say to respect some sort of 'creative commons' world where everyone knows who Batman, Superman, etc. Do we really need another individuals interpretation of what those characters are? Wasn't some of the critique of Spider-Man in the other thread (I haven't seen it yet) that Peter Parker wasn't a nerdy enough social-misfit?

It's less a question of what we want but rather a question of a new director's willingness to express his individual tastes.

Oh, my sis went to an early screening of the new Bourne movie and said it was shithouse.

[Ceetar]

The Second Spitter wrote: Oh, my sis went to an early screening of the new Bourne movie and said it was shithouse.

boo.

but then, the books aren't as good as the originals either (not that the two stories are related in anything but name and origin)

[nymr83]

I'm ok with the idea of a Bond reboot after 25 movies, there's nothing wrong with telling a new origin story 50 years later, Rebooting batman and spiderman after 3 movies seems excessive and lame though. They could have told a "Lizard" story without a reboot and they can keep telling more Batman stories without showing us how his parents died again and re-introducing Alfred, Gordon, etc.

[Vic Sage]

A beautiful, epic, melancholy movie. Overlong perhaps, but I didn't mind. While the story stands on its own, it is primarily derived and motivated by the 2 films that precede it, so a fuller understanding and appreciation of it requires viewing of the first 2.

* The film rewrites Bane into an interesting character, which is a minor miracle in and of itself.
* Hathaway totally nails catwoman's "whore with a heart of gold" cliched core and makes her endearing, smart, tough, and believably amoral.
* Christian Bale is the total package as bruce wayne AND Batman -- driven, maybe just this side of nuts, but a man of principle ("fetishizing violence"? please.); he's a man who puts on a suit of armor, not a suit of armor with a man inside.
* Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman give their usual stolid support.
* It sets the scene for Robin really nicely, for any subsequent films -- a reboot could still start right there.
* I didn't care for Marion Cotillard, or the plot twist she is asked to play; it felt forced and imposed on the narrative. But the big reveal did cause an audible gasp and sense of satisfaction in the story getting back to to its comic book roots, so i didn't really mind.

Best of all, the central metaphor of the film, that the dark knight "rises", is a repeated motif depicted with poetic grace. *** SPOILERS *** Rising from his self-imposed retirement and disgrace, rising in the new "bat" copter, rising, after being battered and literally and metaphorically broken by Bane, from a literal hole in the Earth, inspiring the people of Gotham to rise and oppose Bane, rising in the "Bat" to fly the bomb out over the bay *** SPOILERS END *** its all done with a sad beauty that feels unexpected but inevitable, as only the best kind of storytelling can.

i give it ****, putting it on par with the first 2, and making this trilogy the absolute definitive movie adaptation of this character, nobody else need apply.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: ("fetishizing violence"? please.); he's a man who puts on a suit of armor, not a suit of armor with a man inside.

I'm not sure what you mean there, but I certainly wasn't speaking of Batman the character, but rather Batman, the franchise, in the wake of Frank Miller.

[Vic Sage]

i thought you were describing the Nolan films, too, and i am rejecting that characterization. If you weren't, then you weren't.

[Edgy MD]

Well, yes, I am, but the films --- or at least first film, the only one I've seen --- not specifically the character. (I've certainly absorbed plenty from the trailers for the subsequent films.)

The Schumacher films, well, they fetishize everything.

[Vic Sage]

well, when you put nipples on the rubber bat suits, you know there are other issues being worked out.

[Guest El Segundo Escupidor]

Poll's up, ladies.

Spoilers ahoy!

[Benjamin Grimm]

I gave it four out of five.

In the first two movies, I was able to tell (from a few shots) that Chicago was playing the part of Gotham City, but in this movie it was very obviously New York. I was surprised that they allowed such recognizable New York landmarks like the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. to be seen on screen. (It was kind of like the 1970's Superman movie, where Metropolis had the Statue of Liberty and the New York skyline.)

Weird that they did this. (They also added some bridges across the Hudson River from downtown [crossout:3tfmz9jz]Manhattan[/crossout:3tfmz9jz] Gotham.)

And why was Bane doing a weak Sean Connery imitation throughout the film?

[Vic Sage]

Bane was played by Tom Hardy, an English actor, so he comes by the accent honestly.
But I think his accent is no more nor less shocking than Liam Neeson's as Rhas Al Ghul. It's a classic Hollywood trope to have the most vicious villains speaking in a cultured, urbane, often [crossout:35zl8e63]English[/crossout:35zl8e63] European accent.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Neeson's an Irish dude with an Irish accent.