The Dark Knight Rises - seen thread *SPOILERS WITHIN* See Mod Warning in first post

seraphimvc wrote: »

guys, ill just take it from imbd: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/faq a good read there if you have any other 'common' questions.

John Blake discovered as a child when Bruce came for a charity donation to the orphanage Blake resided in. Upon seeing Bruce, Blake worked out he had severe suppressed emotions that would give him a motive to become The Batman who appeared years later. He challenges Bruce with his suspicions of his alter ego when visiting. Though Bruce does not confirm his theory, he doesn't deny it either giving Blake the evidence that Bruce really is The Batman.

In short, He wasn't 100% sure when he first visited him.


Regarding some hate posts earlier in the thread, I found it funny about the 'plot holes' people are talking about. A lot of things are just there and even explained very quickly and precisely. Sometimes i understand why movies nowadays spoon feed the viewers everything. every fcking thing.

This is a super hero movie and is loosely based on the KnightSaga and Nolan is a very practical director that did some amazing job for everything in the film. If people wanna whine about it please do it in smart way eg. starting from the physics in the film, or lets say specific medical knowledge of getting recover from that spine injury in such a short period of time and in such condition is closing to 0.00000000001%. Batman's strong body+ mind of steel made everything happens, a superhero, alot comical relief, fighting = pow pow pow, cheesey scenes/ending, bam, done. How can anyone not enjoy this film is beyond me.

gonna cook up my review tomorrow.

Re: The explanation of Blake knowing - fair enough. It's a clunkly, exposition heavy explanation that sounds stupid to me but considering the amount of stuff that they had to get through in the film I guess that all the time they could give it. It would have been cool if we could have seen scenes of Blake actually deducing Batman's identity though, rather than just being told about it.

nix wrote: »

Seen it twice now and only plot hole i cant fill is how does Blake know Bruce is Batman?

Well he said he figured it out as a kid. I can see why it's annoying that that's all there was to it but I've seen and heard worse excuses! When I saw Blake, it was fairly obvious that he was going to be "Robin" and be the next one to take over the mantle. I didn't think of him as Dick Grayson, though, I assumed he was more of the Tim Drake character from the comics (especially with the whole Blake rhyming with Drake thing.. world's greatest detective right here, folks ). Also, Tim Drake is the only Robin from the comics who figured it out on his own and was always thought to be a better detective than Dick or Jason. Again, there is a bit of a nod toward this when Comissioner Gordon makes him detective in the movie.

Anyway, getting back to the actual movie, I'm extremely happy. I knew this movie would never reach the heights of TDK but I think given that Nolan never intended on making a third movie and was forced to come up with as engaging a villain as Heath Ledger's joker, he didn't do half bad. Bane (IMO) was terrifying. The first fight scene, no music, just the sound of Batman's destruction, was chilling. Really fantastic. I think they captured elements of Knightfall, No Man's Land and The Dark Knight Returns perfectly. Yeah there were plot holes and some cheesy dialogue. But as realistic as Nolan has tried to make these movies, you're still watching a film about a man who trained as a ninja, dresses up as a bat and fights people who have half their face blown off or wear a special mask that aleviates pain and apparently gives him super strength!

The only things I could complain about in this movie were, firstly, the fact that at times (I stress "at times", I was very happy for the majority of the movie) I didn't feel like I was really on the edge of my seat, biting my nails etc. When it first turned to winter, I felt that the movie was turning a bit hollow and starting to lack in intensity. Maybe that was the point, though? All hope is lost and Gotham is a shell of the great city it was. Just an opinion.. Secondly, I wasn't happy with Bane's downfall. Fair enough, having Catwoman intervene at an appropriate time to help Batman, but giving her the final shot? I thought that was disappointing. That was Batman's fight and should have been Batman's victory. Overall, though, not complaining. This movie was an excellent end to a phenomenal trilogy.

Sorry for the long, rambling post!

A whopper of a movie, easily 8/10.

Yes there are minor plot holes and inconsistencies but with the story Nolan had to tell, he did it as close to perfection as anyone could do it. The David Statue is a perfect sculpture but even that has little chips in it.

The way I see it, people who don't like this movie are akin to hipsters. With the amount of tripe forced down our throats, you should embrace what is, and it is, a near perfect film.

folan wrote: »

kinda in the vein of :

or what? The film just didnt hold up to the quality of 1&2 to me.

However, considering the amount of tripe out there, you are right, i should embrase the film for being near perfect. Apologies for getting my experience of the film wrong.

Explain to me how and why you found this movie inferior to The Dark Knight?

Some people went into this movie determined not to like it.

jpm4 wrote: »

Re: The explanation of Blake knowing - fair enough. It's a clunkly, exposition heavy explanation that sounds stupid to me but considering the amount of stuff that they had to get through in the film I guess that all the time they could give it. It would have been cool if we could have seen scenes of Blake actually deducing Batman's identity though, rather than just being told about it.

Nolan's movies have always been like that if you think about, he doesnt like to make everything crystal clear. Personally i think is acceptable and I like it actually, love some brain exercise lol. Mind you I am not an easy viewer to be pleased, I was whining so hard on Prometious lol

Grimebox wrote: »

Forgot about revenge but I still think that's utterly weak motivation to destroy an entire city. What was her fathers motivation? Didn't work for me whatsoever. Its hard to care for batman's struggle when the "bad guys" are so one-dimensional.

Gotham was corrupt and a world example of it.
Ras explained in batman begins that the league exists to create balance when too much power resides in the hands of very few and went through their history (burning london, sacking rome, etc)

folan wrote: »

saw this last night, was very very disappointed.

Plot wasnt strong. Im not sure of plot holes etc, but when it comes down to it, the first 2 films in the franchise were much stronger in that i believed them. this one just caught me as not quite. it felt more like a comic book movie than the first 2, if you get me.

and the score was terrible, imo. I can remember cringing in places when it got as steryotypical and predictable as possible.

JGL was brilliant, the high point of the film for me. An ever improving actor.

In your case of high expectation on the plot i guess you should have a look of the KnightFall and KnightEnd, may be after reading them you will change your mind.

I thought the score is brilliant.......Hen zimmer is in this again made me feel like now nolan+zimmer is like sakaguchi+nobuo (if you are a Final Fantasy series fans you'd know haha).

Of course it is predictable if you wanna put it that way, we all know batman is gonna save gotham in the end of day! Is about how nolan delivered it. And he handled it too well.

This movie is stuck in my brain now like Inception did.......

I've just been thinking that it was a shame they didn't bring back Ramirez in some capacity. That would have been a simple and effective subplot having her deal with the guilt of her actions in TDK.

Could have had her instead of shoehorning in a couple of new characters that the film didn't really need.

Grimebox wrote: »

All that said, I actually don't like super hero films. Batman was an exception because of how "real" it felt. This was a disappointing return to form for comic book films.

You don't like super-hero films? Sound to me like you were always going to be disappointed by this then. I'm actually surprised that you liked the other 2 Batman films consdiering the central premise of both - an ordinary guy, with almost super-human athletic abilities decideds to don a high-tech costume and wage a one man war on crime only to come up against a host of equally outlandish villains? Gritty realism or not, this is the very essence of many super hero movies just with the various elemenst toned down or amped up. There are plenty of unrealistic situations from both BB and TDK (a guy gettting pulled along by a train through a major city, another guy walking around with half his face burnt off etc). As for the comment about two gusy duking it ot whilst wearing costumes, both previous films also had that to a certain extent (more so TDK but there was ninjas and the Scarecrow in BB).