I looked at the alfred thing the other way. that he said what he said to get Bruce to get over Rachel and move on. I think Alfred doesn't want him to be batman anymore, but deep down he also knows that batman is needed again.
I saw the movie for a second time in a different theater and could understand Bane much better. the first theater i went to was a new one where they had the bass turned way up. i couldn't understand anyone on that plane cause the engines and music were rumbling too much.
but the 2nd viewing at the other theater the bass was at a normal level.
1) Throughout TDK, Bruce was trying to look for a replacement for Batman. He found one in Harvey. Even went as far as to support his campaign in order to get Harvey to replace him. He wanted to find a replacement for Batman in order to be able to quit and to live a normal life with Rachel. Then the Joker comes in, corrupts Harvey, and brings him down to his level. He also tries corrupting Batman but fails at it. What Bruce learns from this is that there is no replacement for him. Despite how good a man can be, he can easily be corrupted by a higher class of criminals (a.k.a. supervillains) including Harvey. That is the reason why Harvey was corrupted and Batman wasn't. The reason Joker failed to corrupt Batman is because Bruce is "more than just a man" (going back to BB). With Harvey's fall, Bruce realized that he HAS to be Batman forever (no pun intended) and that there is no escape from this responsibility. Batman is the only force out there that can deal with types of criminals like the Joker and the life he wanted to have by quitting as Batman and having a family with his loved one (Rachel) was just an illusion. It's one of the most brilliant character arcs ever done with Batman IMO. TDKR was supposed to deal with those things. We should have seen a Bruce without illusions who is forced to cope with the reality that he has to be Batman forever and that there's no escape from that. But what does Nolan say? "F*ck that! Let's pretend like all that character development in TDK never happened! We'll just have him quit right after that night for no good reason whatsoever!" So him quitting pretty much destroyed the whole POINT of TDK. Gordon also says at the end of TDK "We must hunt him. Because he can take it." Well apparently, he can't take it since he quit right after that night and then shut himself in his home for 8 years. Up until the ending, TDKR dealt with Bruce having to realize that Batman is who he truly is and who he has to be forever despite him already realizing that at the end of TDK. And by the end of TDKR, he even quits being Batman and passes on the mantle to a rookie cop he barely knows that doesn't even have 1/8 of the skills required to be Batman. All this completely undercuts TDK and makes it not needed.
2) The ending (as well as some of the dialogue when Bruce is talking to Blake) contradicts everything from Batman Begins including the symbol aspect. In BB, Bruce Wayne wanted Batman to be a symbol in the sense that he will inspire people to stand up against corruption in a city that had more or less given up. He wanted to inspire hope. That's it. In TDK, we see how far certain individuals have gone and have taken what Batman said too literally. People were dressing up like Batman and had gotten themselves in to loads of trouble. Batman become pissed at those impostors because they were hurting themselves and what they were doing was NOT what the message he inspired. He wanted to inspire hope. Not for people to run around in masks and fight crime just because he could. He realized after the death of Harvey Dent that no one would be able to fully take his place. So long as a person knows how to get to you, you are weak. Look at Harvey. All of that is torn apart with TDKR. Now, Bruce believes than ANYONE can be Batman as long as they have a mask and good intentions. REALLY? Why in the world was he getting mad at the impostors from the 2nd movie? They had good intentions after all. To stop crime. We went from inspiring hope in a city filled with corruption to "YOU CAN BE BATMAN TOO IF YOU ARE GOOD!" Great way to kill the message.
And now I'm going to address some of the stuff I think you'll bring up to defend this movie since I heard other people bring them up:
1) "Batman wasn't needed during the 8 year gap because the Dent Act cleaned up the streets." Wrong. First, an act can't realistically just clean up the streets. There are always ways around acts like these. They're about as effective as a bill that illegalizes prostitution and the marijuana industry - meaning they're not too effective since people still have easy access to both those things without getting caught. Second, the act doesn't put an end to all crime. Just to organized crime, which means there are still TONS of criminals out there to be caught. Unorganized crime can sometimes be even more chaotic than organized crime because there is no one to hold Gotham's criminals by a "leash" and tell them where and when to act. They would need Batman more than ever if organized crime falls. Third, TDKR states Bruce quit being Batman right after he got home that night Harvey died. The act probably wasn't passed until much later so Batman was STILL needed for a while. And finally, Bruce became Batman so that he can prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. As long as there are SOME criminals left in Gotham, even if they've been reduced to a low number, he wouldn't give up the fight until Gotham is FULLY safe. And like I said before, Gotham being fully safe is unrealistically possible. Even NYC and Detroit, despite it being a lot safer than in the 80's, still has some pretty high crime rates.
2)"Bruce's spirit was broken at the end of TDK because he lost Rachel and the whole city was after him." Wrong again. Rachel's death would do the exact opposite of making him quit - it would make him keep going. Rachel was one of the obstacles that prevented him from fully accepting that there is no escape from Batman (in his mind). Rachel's death simply removed that obstacle and made him accept that reality. And the whole point of TDK is that Batman can HANDLE anything you throw at him, including being chased by the whole city and fighting the likes of Joker. Saying his spirit was broken because the city hates him completely contradicts that.
3) "Bruce passes on the legacy of Batman at the end to someone that he trusts and knows can carry it." The problem with that is that he barely even knows Blake and Blake is just a rookie cop. Keep in mind that rookie cops don't even have 1/4 of the skills required to be a professional cop and a professional cop doesn't even have 1/4 of the skills required to be Batman. Which means Blake doesn't even have 1/8 of the skills required to be Batman. I don't buy for a second that Bruce would pass on the legacy of Batman for at least a few more years and even if he did, I don't buy for a second that he would pass it on to a guy he barely knows with very little experience and even IF he did, I don't buy he wouldn't stay behind and train him.
Also, the ending to TDKR can be interpreted as being very anti-Batman. The reason why I say it's anti-Batman is because if you think about it, the message isn't that different from the usual stuff a lot of the Batman haters always say to discredit the character. "Any guy can become Batman! It's no big deal! All you need is to do a bit of push-ups and have access to technology! He's just James Bond in a Bat costume!"
1. It's not that Bruce must always be Batman, but rather there must always be a Batman. In Harvey, Bruce saw someone who could replace Batman... Which ended up failing. In Blake he saw someone who could take the reigns of Batman, not replace Batman but rather replace Bruce. Furthermore, as you mentioned Batman is incorruptible because he is "more than just a man" and Blake become, or at least on the path toward becoming, this same thing.
2. It does not contradict the symbol aspect. As for the copycats, it's as simple as they are using guns. Batman does not use guns. And yes, it was about inspiring hope not about inspiring people to become vigilantes. But that isn't contradicted by making Blake his protege. Yes, it doesn't make a ton of sense considering Blake has no training. But it's a movie, in this case logic took a back seat for storytelling.
1. Once again it's a movie. This act somehow cuts crime dramatically, in fact Blake makes a quip about how detectives will be soon hunting down overdue library books. Basically, organized crime is gone and normal crime has been cut down to almost nothing. Also, that night was the "last confirmed sighting" of Batman so he could have been out on the streets fo a bit after TDK. This is reinforced by Alfred stating that Batman hasn't been in the Batcave in awhile which would require him to have been in it some time between TDK and TDKR as it was created sometime after TDK.
2. Bruce's spirit is crushed because there is nothing left for him. Once he hung up the cape and cowl he had no life waiting for him and he didn't make the effort to create one.
3. Yeah, as I mentioned earlier this is just logic taking a back seat so they could craft an emotional ending. Happens all the time in movies.
First, let me say that I agree with Batman living past Bruce but Bruce is only 39 in this movie. It's way too early for him to retire as Batman. He can definitely keep going for a few more years. From the way I see it (and I think most Bat fans will agree with me on this), the time for the legacy of Batman to be passed on to another person is either when the current carrier of the Batman persona is too old to continue (Batman Beyond) or is too injured to continue (Knightfall). It's too early for the title of Batman to be passed yet. Bruce doesn't really have a good reason to quit being Batman. Second, he barely even knows Blake and passed on the mantle of Batman without even giving him the proper training. Even if this was the right time to pass on the cape and cowl, Bruce wouldn't give it to some rookie cop he just met. He would first have to get to know him and then train him. There is no way he would just leave like that. He only trusted Dick with the title of Batman years after getting to know him and providing him with the proper training. At this point, there is literally no difference between Blake and Harvey other than the fact that Blake will fight the criminals of Gotham dressed as a Bat. What will he do if a "freak" like the Joker came to Gotham again and lacks the skills that make him "more than just a man"? I don't see why the trilogy couldn't have ended with Bruce taking in Blake and preparing him to take over as Batman. It would have been a better ending and would have still delivered the message that Batman must exist beyond Bruce without contradicting anything from the last 2 films.
Well, there's not much to say here. I already talked about my problem with him just leaving Blake the mantle. However, I don't buy into the whole "it makes no sense but accept it because it's a movie" thing. BB and TDK had great storytelling without logic taking a back seat (to an extent). I would expect more from a guy like Nolan and that's part of the reason why I'm dissapointed with him. I know that he can do better than this.
Organized crime =/= crime being cut down to almost nothing. That's why Batman was still needed. I admit you have a point with the time when Bruce quit. Maybe he did keep on going for a few more weeks/months but the possibility that he quit right after that night is still likely. In fact, it's very likely since the movie implies he got that injury in his leg during that fall in TDK (which makes no sense since we saw him running but whatever) and that that was one of the reasons he quit (which doesn't make sense, again, because he could have just used that leg brace but whatever). So I admit that I may in fact be wrong but we can't make that assumption. In this case, we don't know which one of us is wrong since it could be interpreted either way. We can only agree to disagree.
That's not what I was talking about. I was addressing the people that said his spirit was crushed by Rachel and Harvey's deaths and by the fact that the whole city hated him, which is completely false. I'm going to admit that I loved that about the movie. The idea that his life has no meaning without Batman. The issue that I take with that though is that I don't believe Gotham should have been safe after TDK not just because of the "freak" thing we discussed earlier but also because there is still crime around despite organized crime falling. I don't buy that crime overall would be reduced just because organized crime fell. As I said before, unorganized crime can sometimes be even more chaotic than organized crime, which is why I still think Batman was needed even after the Dent Act. But maybe that's just me. Plus, if him having no purpose in life without Batman has made him lock himself up in his mansion for 8 years, I don't see why he quit at the end if he's that obsessed. Gotham still needs Batman after all those events (hence the bat signal) and Blake...well, it goes back to what I said earlier. It would make more sense for him to take Blake in and train him until he's ready while continuing to be Batman till that moment comes. It would be been less contradicting, would have still had a Bruce obsessed with Batman like in the beginning of the movie, and the message that Batman continues after Bruce would have still been there.
Who said an ending can't be both logical and emotional? Especially in a trilogy as intelligent as this one .
I know I might sound like I hate the movie. But I actually enjoyed it and think it's a good movie. I don't think it works as a sequel and as a Batman film but it's definitely worth a watch as a film. I'll bring up some stuff that I really liked. I loved Catwoman. Best portrayal of Catwoman in live-action and best performance in the whole film. Minus the fact that he was smaller and was missing his Venom drug (which they could have easily replace with some sort of steroid for this realistic universe), I loved Bane up till the third act where he was reduced to just a more talkative version of the Bane from Batman & Robin. I thought the No Man's Land was handled really well. And outside of the fact that he quits being Batman for 8 years, that he quits at the end, and that he intentionally fires at Talia and kills her (which is what really hurt it as a Batman movie IMO), I thought this was the best version of Batman done in live-action. This film shows Batman's detective and tactical skills better than any other Batman movie so far and there are even moments where he gets away with stuff that don't make a lot of logical sense just because "he's The Goddamn Batman". I loved that. It's a shame those things I'm complaining about are there in the movie. This would have been superior to even TDK if they weren't in there IMO.
Last edited by spidermanrocks on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 03:08 AM
I don't view it as a contradiction so much as an evolution of theme & purpose. In desperation at the end of TDK, Batman & Gordon construct an elaborate lie to keep all those criminals in jail so the Joker couldn't win, with Bats sacrificing his reputation and taking the fall to see it happen; the feeling that 'sometimes the truth isn't good enough', and you have to do what's best for the common good. They just come to realize by TDKR that it's nearly impossible to keep something buried forever - the metaphor embodied in Bane's army gathering in the sewers, to eventually erupt out of the pavement - and what's needed is complete sacrifice of everything (by Bruce) to finally redeem the city he swore to save.
Seeing it the second time, some of my nagging nitpicks got smoothed out, looking at it as a whole. I'm certainly not going along with that list of 60 complaints, put up some pages back.
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
The complete sacrifice thing would have kinda worked if it was an actual sacrifice. But seeing as how he is still alive by the end and just leaves his Batman persona that doesn't even have 1/10 of the skills required to be Batman, I don't buy it at all.
I found Bruce to be completely selfish in this film. He learns nothing by the end. First he quits for 8 years despite the fact that the city still needed him (see previous posts of mine to why Gotham still needed him; I don't feel like going over through all of that again). One of the main reasons to why he returns to his Batman persona is because Catwoman stole something that belongs to him. Though one of the other reasons was Gordon asking him to come back while being in the hospital, Bruce was STILL making excuses in that scene not to come back at first. His mommy's necklace being stolen immediately motivates him to get back into the batcave after 8 years but it takes hesitation and a bit of convincing from his hospitalized old ally (Gordon) for him to put on the suit again. Then at the end, even though he realizes the world always needs a Batman, he decides to run away from that responsibility yet again by faking his death, moving to Europe, and giving his responsibilities to a man barely capable of handling them (at the moment). I don't buy the "He passed on the mantle" excuse at all. The man is 39 years old in the movie. He can continue to be Batman for a few more years, at least until Blake gets the full set of skills required to be Batman. And even if he couldn't be Batman after saving Gotham (which btw, there is ZERO evidence to suggest that; there's no evidence to prove he didn't escape that explosion without any injuries to his body since he looks perfectly fine at the end; his leg injury (that he somehow had from the start of the film because...?) isn't a good argument either because he could have just put on that completely illogical/deux ex machina leg brace which fixed everything), you can't expect me to buy he wouldn't have at least stayed behind to train Blake. The closest thing people have to a legitimate excuse for the ending is logic taking a backseat for an emotional ending. That would be an OK excuse but seeing as how the last 2 films were very dramatic and emotional without logic taking a back seat (at least to the extent possible in movies), I don't buy that.
I also want to point out the fact that Bruce in the Nolanverse had only been Batman for ONE year from the day he was born up until the day he will die an old man. BB and TDK took place in Bruce's first year as Batman and he is only Batman in Rises for a few days before Bane breaks him and for a few days after he returns to Gotham, which don't add much to his overall time as Batman. No one else has a problem with that? One year, people. Just...a...single...year...
He must of still been doing some stuff as batman for a bit after TDK cause the bat cave has been rebuilt with the new stuff, and they did state that "when they said the night of Dent dying was the last Confirmed sighting of batman", so he could of still been around for a few years after that.
So you would expect 3 batman movies to span more than 3 years??
IMO BB was 1 year TDK was a year later? (not sure if they touched on this in the movie or not?) and TDKR was 8 years after that and lasted about a year on screen. so that is 3 years unless i'm wrong about TDK which if i am then it would still be at least 2 years, which is fine.
I can't believe you used the word 'selfish' to describe Bruce Wayne; you watched a completely different film than I did. I suppose you thought Superman was being selfish in the classic Kingdom Come storyline, where he isolated himself in his fortress for ten years after society seemingly rejected his stance on heroics (and he was depressed over the death of Lois, due to the Joker.) Did you think Bruce Wayne was being selfish in the beginning of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, being retired for ten years when he was still physically capable?
Bruce let himself be the fall guy for Harvey's Dent's crimes, and by keeping him clean the Dent act got passed and huge numbers of criminals were forcibly kept in jail. Plus he was broken somewhat in body & spirit (due to Rachel's death) and came to see Batman may not be needed for Gotham any more; until the arrival of Bane and his plan to devastate the city.
No one elected Bruce to become Batman; it was something he chose for himself. So you can't say he selfishly shirked his duty by walking away for as long as he did. He didn't blame Selina Kyle for her help in losing his fortune, or for helping him get busted and broken by Bane; he understood why she did it and forgave her, feeling there was more to her. Not the actions of a selfish man; nor was coming back to Gotham after being isolated in that prison for months, or arranging for so much of his private fortune & property to go to charities after his 'death.'
And what difference does it make how many years he spent as Batman in a film trilogy? Films aren't comics, where Bruce can be battling the same foes and staying the same age for endless decades.
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
I didn't say he's selfish because he retired. I said he is selfish because he learned nothing. Let's say for the sake of argument that him retiring for 8 years is fine, despite the fact that it completely goes against TDK's ending. Even IF that was fine, by the end of the film I would expect him to realize that Gotham still needs Batman and that he can't retire ever again (except when he can't physically keep going a.k.a. when he is an old man, NOT freakin' 39 years old). But he doesn't. After he saves everyone, he continues to run away from the mantle just like he did during the 8 year gap. That is the difference between this and The Dark Knight Returns. He did return as Batman in TDK Returns but when he came back, he came back for good. He didn't leave again. He did fake his death but that was to prepare an army for a bigger plan he had in the future. TDK Rises' Bruce just faked his death to run to Europe with a hot chick and gave the mantle of the Bat to a guy with barely any experience (and it's safe to assume he won't train him either; so Blake is completely on his own). Huge difference, dude. Plus, his spirit was actually broken in TDK Returns due to Jason's death. He had no legitimate reason to quit in the Nolan franchise. Plus, Bruce's spirit wasn't broken to the point where he didn't leave his house and didn't interact with anyone for years.
Haven't read Kingdom Come and not a big fan of Superman so I can't comment on that. I did hear good things about Kingdom Come. Might read it someday.
Rachel's death didn't break his spirit at all. In fact, it did quite the opposite. Rachel was an obstacle in Batman's way (note that I said Batman; not Bruce). He was under the illusion that he could one day quit being Batman and be with her. Her death, as well as his realization at the end of TDK when he saw Harvey "fall" (metaphorically speaking), broke that illusion. Going by TDK, this movie should have had a Batman without any illusions.
There are several problems with the Dent Act and the whole idea of Gotham being clean for 8 years.
1) Realistically speaking, there is no act that can just put an end to crime like that. The act is a complete deus ex machina device. It wouldn't be a problem in a superhero movie but since the Nolan franchise is so realistic and has taken pride on how much it is like the real world, that act does not work.
2) Apparently, they formed the Dent Act, had it voted on, and passed the night right after Dent died since that was the last time Bruce went out as Batman. I'm sure you get my point. Bruce had no way of knowing the Dent Act would have been made and passed so it makes no sense for him to retire just after that night. You can argue that that night was the last *confirmed* sighting of Batman and not his real last night but A) it couldn't have been the last confirmed sighting because even if the police doesn't see/interact with him, criminals would (while they're getting their asses kicked) unless those sightings don't count as confirmed or unless they didn't see him at all which is again unlikely and B) wouldn't that contradict what you said earlier about Bruce's spirit being broken by Rachel's death? If her death really broke his spirit, then it doesn't make sense for him to keep going for another week or so and then quit. He would have quit right after that night. It goes back to when I said he has no legitimate excuse to quit.
3) The Dent Act doesn't put an end to crime. It puts an end to *organized* crime. Which means there was still crime left in Gotham (unorganized crime). Unorganized crime can sometimes be even more chaotic than organized crime due to there being no "big boss" to hold criminals by the leash, especially in a city with as many criminals as Gotham. If anything, the fall of organized crime would mean Gotham needs Batman now more than ever.
4) Organized crime falling is completely irrelevant to Batman's necessity. TDK set up the idea that organized crime was going to fall anyways and that Gotham's criminals will be replaced by a higher class of criminals like the Joker - the freaks (supervillains). Going by that foreshadowing, guys like Riddler, Black Mask, Mad Hatter, etc. would have stepped into Gotham after TDK's events. I know some people will argue that this isn't in TDK but since TDK is heavily influenced by Long Halloween, I'm going to go by the opinion that the film does try to do that. Some people may also argue that the whole idea with the freaks was stopped by Batman at the end of TDK but the Joker said "You've changed this forever, there is no going back" so I doubt that too.
5) Bruce became Batman because he felt guilt over his parent's death and didn't want that to happen to anyone ever again. Even if organized crime falls, he wouldn't quit being Batman and would continue the fight as long as there are criminals.
That logic can then be applied to any superhero that quits other than Spider-Man. "No one said [insert superhero] has to be the one to do this in the first place because it's not his/her responsibility to begin with. There's no problem with he/she quitting and giving his/her mantle to someone not experienced for the job."
I don't think films should be 100% like the comics either. No, Bruce doesn't have to spend decades being Batman but I would want him to be Batman for at least more than 1 year. One year is not enough time regardless of whether it is a comic book or a movie. They could have easily done the 8 year gap without him quitting to begin with. That would have made the movie better IMO. When Bruce does come back as Batman (before Bane breaks him), it didn't really feel that he was gone to begin with. It only felt like that after he returned to Gotham.
Just saw it yesterday, it's been the premier night in italy, official release is scheduled for the 29th august.
Saw it twice, two projections back to back (yeah i'm nuts)
My personal review, all IMHO and questionable but anyway:
1. The whole secret identity thing, pushed by Bruce talking about the mask, isn't that secret at all. Except for Fox, I am sure other members of the WE Board Council knew the tumbler, the infantry suit, and the Bat, not to mention, member of the US Army who commission weapons and veichles to WE AS (WAYNE ENTERPRISES APPLIED SCIENCE)section. Now after 3 years of having Batman in Gotham how hard is to realize that a member of Wayne Enterprises must be him or anyway closely connected to the dark knight? With a simple warrant and further investigations GCPD would've found out eventually the truth. How many people can afford that type of equipment in Gotham City for their own personal crusade against crime? Secret identity....not at all
2. Bane's death. A grenade launcher projectile in the chest, that's it. The mane who broke the bat, killed by Catwoman? That was really disappointing to me.
3. The Joker missing. I understand how much respect is for the never forgotten Heath Ledger, but there are plenty of great actors who can pull out a Joker performance, I believe seeing him evading from Arkham thanks to Bane's take over of the city would have left open the possibilities for future films and plots, not to mention the reaction of the Joker to Bane's plot.
4. Continuity: Sometimes is implied it's been few years since Batman showed up sometimes looks like it's just a year since he took up the mantle, that could've been explained clearier.
1. Bane. I'm not a Tom Hardy fan at all, but damn, I was impressed. His physical presence, the mannerism, how he moves, he's deeply in character, I dunno if as much as Heath Ledger or Bale, but I'd say very close.His lines, the tone of his voice, the expression of his eyes during the scenes, I had chills every time. I won't be surprised from an Academy Award nominee for the guy.
2. The Bat. Well portrayed, and didn't very entertaining, loved the way Fox introduced it: Guess what, it does come in black lol.
3. The Batman/Bruce Wayne struggle: This man has gone from the hope of a normal life to a recluse one, the cost of obtaining peace in Gotham and make it safier than it ever was. In his last battle as the dark knight, Wayne lost his childhood love, an ally and respectable let's say friend as Harvey Dent, forced to kill him to save Gordon's son, and has almost gone over the edge cause of the Joker's mind pressure and tricks into making him a killer. We see a man also that unlike in the comics, has payed physically more than ever the price of his crusade. The medical check he does in the hospital show us injuries that after 8 years still haven't healed yet, and despite his comeback from The Pit, I do believe his retirement was a forced one also cause of impossibility of keeping up, his mind maybe could but not the body. A single man fighting each night of the year, for years against villains, taking, punches, kicks, falls from heights, gunshots, and general damage, few hours of sleep and high levels of paranoia and agony, this can't go on forever. He realize that after the loss to Bane, and realize this had to end at one point, cause Alfred was right. He wasn't Batman anymore, he took back his mantle to save the city, wasn't for Bane, he would've stayed retired.
4. John Blake. Having a Nightwing/Robin mix in the movie, without really mentioning it until the end. Well Played, Mr. Nolan(BANE VOICE). The character grows through the movie and I do believe it could be great for a franchise reboot or continuining, Nightwing would do good on the big screen. Also, Alfred still owns part of Wayne Manor, so John will have his aid and guidance and presence at his side, as far as training goes, well Bruce isn't dead, I'm sure he could arrange a way to train him and make him almost as good as he was in his prime. It would be great to see Blake growing to wannabe to estabilished new Gotham hero in a second trilogy, with a possible short comeback for Wayne cause of some tough villain showin up.
5. Selina Kyle: She's Bruce's counterpart in terms of social class, and character history, she became what she is to survive and get more than she ever had, while he became what he his cause of wanting revenge over his parents death. She kills without hesitation, while Bruce struggles to avoid killing his enemies, and we see how she's trying to go from thief to hero or better say anti-hero. In the end she came back to save him, and doin' so helped save Gotham. Anne Hathaway pulled this off good, I'd give her a 7.5-8 out of 10
6. The final climax: Simply epic, we see a modern day warfare becoming a huge royal rumble slugfest with the hero and the villain fighting in the middle of the two sides, explosions, air chases, ground chases, a gigantic fire-made Bat-Signal, a nuclear detonation, and a hero's ultimate (fake) sacrifice.
watched it last night and was excited to see it ..... but terrible i came away from it FRUSTRATED!
a LOT of things were great about it ..... the acting, scenarios, effects and the main storyline was excellent!
but a LOT of things were wrong with it too ..... notably the style of editing they used! now they use it in the previous movies to great effect, but some of the cuts were quite frankly AMATEURISH! especially the cut for the cops being rescued from the tunnel, it simply cuts from the explostion to create the hole in the barracade, to them halfway out already which made it very disconcerting to me! ..... to the fact that the reveal of "the bat" was RUINED by a mid-cut as it came out of the shadows (surprising because the same scenario with the tumbler in BB) ..... but the worst one was the reveal of john blake's "other" name ..... barely felt like a big thing, and could have easily been missed by viewers! add selina kyles entrance on the batpod at the end, she just APPEARS there (and i literally THREW my arms out in frustration at that) and who was that other woman with selina? NO BACK STORY for either her, selina or john blake!
there's also a big problem with key scenes not being DRAMATIC ENOUGH! the plane rescue at the beginning just didn't have enough in it, and at the end i asked myself "is that it?" and the whole "bat break" scene at the end of their fight just fell flat ..... like batman did on the cold hard floor LOL also the THREE month "kayfabe" wait, from when bane takes over gotham and the end in winter? was that a "end of the world" take perhaps?
oh and there's the whole IMAX thing ..... the screen formatting was used to GREAT effect in TRON LEGACY, but used sparingly ..... but the timings in TDKR was almost random and felt like too much of the movie was done like this!
another problem was the multiple story threads ..... perhaps to the writers maybe ..... maybe ..... and that leads to this one ..... like BREAKING DAWN did and TRANSFORMERS DARK OF THE MOON should have been, maybe the third and most epic of the trilogy could have been made into TWO parts? to give the above mentioned characters some sort of backstory, and to spread out the story (maybe have bruce getting dumped in the uzbekh prison the end of part one? as we got a tremendous one for bane .....
not bad as in terrible, but trying to fit in such an epic story into even a tad shy of three hours, might have been too much for the creators ..... and the thing to finally break the batmans back!
BUT NOT ONCE AND FOR ALL .....
__________________ Arm yourself because no-one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you
Are you willing to die?
Last edited by jenzie on Jan 8th, 2013 at 12:33 AM