Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
In the same world that put the Dark Knight at a staggering 94% on RT, above the Avenger's 92%. TDK also had the most recognizable villain of Batman/comics with the best casting. It didn't hurt them that it was one of said actor's last movies. TDKR is not on the same level as the TDK in terms of story and appeal.
Did I say it was? However, the notion that it is not well received is complete bull shit. Which was what I was refuting.
BB and TDK were both superior to TDKR imo. Though I still think TDKR is a good movie (though not as good as the first 2), I think it lacks a lot as a sequel and as a Batman movie.
Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was fantastic btw. Easily the best part of the movie as well as the best portrayal of Catwoman in live-action.
Originally posted by spidermanrocks
BB and TDK were both superior to TDKR imo. Though I still think TDKR is a good movie (though not as good as the first 2), I think it lacks a lot as a sequel and as a Batman movie.Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was fantastic btw. Easily the best part of the movie as well as the best portrayal of Catwoman in live-action.
You thought BB and TDK were great Batman movies? Really?
Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly don't agree. I mean, I don't consider any of the three to be great Batman movies, but if you want to consider one of them up there, I don't see how you can't count the other two...
There are three specific things in TDKR that make it a bad Batman movie IMO:
1) Bruce retiring as Batman for 8 years and then locking himself up in his home for no good reason whatsoever despite crime still being active in Gotham, even though it was reduced by the Dent Act. Not only do I not see Batman doing that but it also completely contradicts the ending of TDK, where Bruce realizes that he is the only one capable of being Gotham's hero, that he has to be Batman forever and that there's no escape from that responsibility.
2) Batman intentionally kills someone in TDKR (won't spoil who). As I said many times before, Batman not killing intentionally and not using guns is what makes him Batman. Ra's al Ghul and Two-Face's deaths were different. Two-Face's death was a complete accident. Batman was just trying to grab the boy from him and then Harvey lost his balance and pulled Batman with him all the way down. And while I admit the scene with the train could have been handled better, I don't consider Batman to be a murderer for that because first, chances are he couldn't have saved Ra's to begin with (we never saw him able to carry an adult while gliding or swinging with his grappling gun; it's safe to assume he couldn't have saved Ra's no matter what) and second, it is not direct killing.
3) The ending. That ending completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman and also contradicts a lot of the important messages behind BB and TDK.
Really good review from Cinemassacre. Pretty much how I feel about the movie.
http://cinemassacre.com/2012/07/21/dark-knight-rises-review/
Originally posted by spidermanrocks
There are three specific things in TDKR that make it a bad Batman movie IMO:
1) Bruce retiring as Batman for 8 years and then locking himself up in his home for no good reason whatsoever despite crime still being active in Gotham, even though it was reduced by the Dent Act. Not only do I not see Batman doing that but it also completely contradicts the ending of TDK, where Bruce realizes that he is the only one capable of being Gotham's hero, that he has to be Batman forever and that there's no escape from that responsibility.2) Batman intentionally kills someone in TDKR (won't spoil who). As I said many times before, Batman not killing intentionally and not using guns is what makes him Batman. Ra's al Ghul and Two-Face's deaths were different. Two-Face's death was a complete accident. Batman was just trying to grab the boy from him and then Harvey lost his balance and pulled Batman with him all the way down. And while I admit the scene with the train could have been handled better, I don't consider Batman to be a murderer for that because first, chances are he couldn't have saved Ra's to begin with (we never saw him able to carry an adult while gliding or swinging with his grappling gun; it's safe to assume he couldn't have saved Ra's no matter what) and second, it is not direct killing.
3) The ending. That ending completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman and also contradicts a lot of the important messages behind BB and TDK.
1. I don't agree. I mean, I can see your interpretation being what it is, but I don't believe that there was no good reason.
2. We've been through this before 😛, and yes, while it did seem inconsistent, I'm not going to knock you feeling the way you feel, given Nolan's intention to have Batman being a non-killer.
3. I don't agree at all. I actually felt like it was the natural progression of the character, and I was very happy with it.