Come anticipate "The Dark Knight Rises" with *BATSPOILERS*

like i opened my mouth and then thought "no, you fool"

haha yeah some people were yelling out shit throughout my showing and at that point someone went "WAH WAAAAAAH"

more like wah waaah waaaaah but you get it

that was far and away the worst scene

"well now that you've been murdered by thugs and can't support your family you're finally a brave man"

I thought that was pretty much trumpeted from the start of the scene. Here's this guy who's been called on to act in the hour of need and refused and he's finally got it together to do something. So in a traditionally moralistic film he's inevitably going to die in the battle scene.
I think I was actually waiting for the moment he was shown to be killed.

What was he anyway, assistant police commissioner?

might hope for something not so traditionally moralistic though.
Really like some kind of 50s movie in that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdYlaD6e84w

Wish Bane had rapped now instead.

This was probably the best - flaws and all - of the superhero trilogies by quite a distance. Simply because its trying on some level, however confusedly thought out to try and work out some of the politics and the adolescent guff behind this stuff, with some action and explosions -- but not too much, first plus, as I don't care for boring ballearic action in action movies at this point. Agreed with the whole 'where do you hear speeches in blockbusters at all' angle to this! Somehow the whole Must.Show.My.work. that makes these films nearly three hours long are worked up with a kineticism that means they often don't flag (this one probably did more than the others at times but overall I did't feel it), even if Bane isn't on the level of the Joker - but when was it ever going to be like that? The Joker in the last film felt like a very happy accident -- the stars aligned on some level.

And if this sounds like 'this was good...for a blockbuster' then that's probably true...but I also feel like its not that big of a deal that this thinks about anything. Probably on the fence as usual - worse than its supporters/better than its detractors think it is.

So yeah, how anti- light/action/ and the like, has a flavour to it. Gotta disagree that the films have to take place in the dark as long as there is some half-hearted justification for it, which is provided by a last round finale of Wayne coming out in the light and with the people -- letting them pretty much fight out and save themselves from the guy with the bomb so that they can do something about the rich at some point in the future, probably by the means of the ballot box (a far harder problem that not even Wayne can see from his mansion) -- which for a lot of the time they kind of do: Batman didn't stop Coitllard pushing the trigger. This falls in line with everyone knowing who the Bat was (almost means he wasn't needed), and his whole motivations/adolescent emotions being confronted by Alfred, his priviledge being questioned by Catwoman (as others here put it). His whole heroism is not all that, but by trying in his confused way he becomes something to aspire to: he tried, and the worst thing a person can do is not to try. And life is a box of chocolates, etc.

Hathaway was great (can't believe I forgot of her existence) but a shame Coitllard didn't have enough screen time, given the reveal.

Great discussion though. And all I was coming here to do was to report how I sat next to someone that shed a tear as the Bat went to his (near) death. That was fkn hilarious!! And you know I also don't think that Bane died (?) They didn't show his shattered body and Homer took a few shots of canon of his stomach in that one ep and it took him a few goes of that to become a risk-of-death scenario.

loads of people thought Harvey Dent didn't die. Nolan just seems to bungle those scenes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzhISE-r5ps

kinda wish they had sort of borrowed more from this version of bane, or maybe i just wish uma thurman had been in this movie

So yeah, how anti- light/action/ and the like, has a flavour to it. Gotta disagree that the films have to take place in the dark as long as there is some half-hearted justification for it, which is provided by a last round finale of Wayne coming out in the light and with the people -- letting them pretty much fight out and save themselves from the guy with the bomb so that they can do something about the rich at some point in the future, probably by the means of the ballot box (a far harder problem that not even Wayne can see from his mansion) -- which for a lot of the time they kind of do: Batman didn't stop Coitllard pushing the trigger. This falls in line with everyone knowing who the Bat was (almost means he wasn't needed), and his whole motivations/adolescent emotions being confronted by Alfred, his priviledge being questioned by Catwoman (as others here put it). His whole heroism is not all that, but by trying in his confused way he becomes something to aspire to: he tried, and the worst thing a person can do is not to try. And life is a box of chocolates, etc.

Yeah, I dig this basically - and let's not forget that Batman's ultimate choice in this thing is to retire. He may do that for personal reasons (he deserves to have a life, Alfred was right, etc.) but it seems more likely he does it because his quest is either complete or he's come to recognize the danger posed by vigilantism, after the Joker situation and then the lawlessness of the Bane Era, or something. It's not spelled out 100% and there are holes in it, but it seems weird to say the movies are a one-sided celebration of rich guys beating up on poor people when the rich guy's final choice is to stop doing that. (Also, I mean - - - is there a take on Batman that doesn't involve a rich guy taking the law into his own hands and fighting street crime hand to hand?)

- i don't think the movie's 'politics' are particularly well-thought-out or intentional but having it be about batman & a million cops saving the rich people from the rag-tag revolutionaries was lame, the whole rush limbaugh thing is kinda funny when the movie is kinda 'romney', i mean let's not even mention how it's about an incredibly rich guy with a chip on his shoulder who goes into broken-down neighbourhoods and beats up poor people

^^^

- feel like nolan just broke down this time and admitted that gotham is new york, but his idea of the city is really weird and doesnt feel real or even comic-book-real at all

this too, and i was fine with it - just rewatched batman begins the other night and i forgot how lame gotham was in that movie. kinda funny how he went from 'futuristic' to 'w/e, new york' in 3 films

Uma Thurman making me appreciate Anna Hathaway all the more.

Yeah, I dig this basically - and let's not forget that Batman's ultimate choice in this thing is to retire. He may do that for personal reasons (he deserves to have a life, Alfred was right, etc.) but it seems more likely he does it because his quest is either complete or he's come to recognize the danger posed by vigilantism, after the Joker situation and then the lawlessness of the Bane Era, or something. It's not spelled out 100% and there are holes in it, but it seems weird to say the movies are a one-sided celebration of rich guys beating up on poor people when the rich guy's final choice is to stop doing that. (Also, I mean - - - is there a take on Batman that doesn't involve a rich guy taking the law into his own hands and fighting street crime hand to hand?)

― Doctor Casino, Saturday, July 28, 2012 10:13 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lot less meaningful when he already did that at the end of the last movie imo

Gotta disagree that the films have to take place in the dark as long as there is some half-hearted justification for it, which is provided by a last round finale of Wayne coming out in the light and with the people -- letting them pretty much fight out and save themselves from the guy with the bomb so that they can do something about the rich at some point in the future, probably by the means of the ballot box (a far harder problem that not even Wayne can see from his mansion)

actually he comes out in the light and fights alongside the cops, and i dont see how this lets them "do something about the rich at some point in the future"??

also... way too much harvey dent stuff, i don't know why they kept hammering at that when in the end it didn't really affect the plot at all, even the whole dubious "bane reads a confession letter to the football stadium" thing was sort of a dead-end.

Cops aren't people? Or at least people pay their salaries.

I don't see the whole he is a rich guy beating the poor either. He is defending the city he loves (and the people in it) against people who want to destroy it, who barely disguise it it as a fight against corruption.

well the movie distinctly set up bane's posse as "the people" vs "rich people and the cops," so in that (admittedly hazy and poorly-conceived) dichotomy, batman is on the side of the powers that be, not the people

The politics of the films aren't all too clear (suits the makers I guess). There seems to be a taste for nihilism with a distate for what it ultimately could lead to: a state of complete and utter anarchy.

Anarchy is beaten off -- violence and a 'final' confrontation are kept at bay so what you have are elections and laws and order. Corruption is for bankers etc. only.

xp = not really: Bane says that one person in the stadium has the finger on the trigger and could lead the people to take control of their own lives. But they are terrorised, frightened to lock their homes (one of them is that cop, Gordon's deputy). And it was the terrorists who had control of the bomb at all times.

Batman is not wholly on the side of the people because he doesn't play by the laws they make; he plays the means to an end card. But in the end he feels he is helping them by protecting them, believing them to be essentially good and will make the right decisions.

If only someone would explore the internal conflict between Bruce Wayne and Batman.

i don't think the politics are thought-through enough beyond some general hand-waving, tbh. there's no real "takeaway" imho

i dont think movies need political "takeaways" or even need to be "thought-through" in terms of politics. that's kinda the whole advantage of making a movie rather than, you know, writing political philosophy.

neither do i?

i was rebutting this sentiment:

Gotta disagree that the films have to take place in the dark as long as there is some half-hearted justification for it, which is provided by a last round finale of Wayne coming out in the light and with the people -- letting them pretty much fight out and save themselves from the guy with the bomb so that they can do something about the rich at some point in the future, probably by the means of the ballot box (a far harder problem that not even Wayne can see from his mansion)

which seemed to imply that it DID

Sorry! I misread you.

well the movie distinctly set up bane's posse as "the people" vs "rich people and the cops," so in that (admittedly hazy and poorly-conceived) dichotomy, batman is on the side of the powers that be, not the people

― funny-skrillex-bee_132455836669.gif (s1ocki), Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:03 PM Bookmark

Yeah, except that it's the movie that sets up Bane's posse as "the people," it's Bane, the supervillain, who makes all these statements about the PEE-POLL but nobody seems remotely interested and his revolution just amounts to his thugs messing with people. The movie doesn't make any effort to show people signing up en masse for Bane's gang or anything like that; the lessons Gotham learned in the second movie have apparently stayed learned, which I guess is why Batman feels it's time for him to ride off into the atomic sunset once the super-criminals are taken down.

That's still politically dicey, I agree, since it suggests that we should put our faith in those who ask for extralegal power "temporarily" to "take down the big threats." But I don't think the movie sides with "capital" against "people," it sides with civil institutions against vigilantes. The open question is to what extent it includes Batman as one of the vigilantes being sided against. I appreciate that Nolan even bothers to make that a gray area, and the grayness a central theme. Compare to, uh, every other superhero movie ever, not to mention every "cop takes law into his own hands" type movie, and he looks way way more serious about opening the political questions than anybody in the room.

should be a NOT in my first sentence there

Yeah, except that it's the movie that sets up Bane's posse as "the people," it's Bane, the supervillain, who makes all these statements about the PEE-POLL but nobody seems remotely interested and his revolution just amounts to his thugs messing with people. The movie doesn't make any effort to show people signing up en masse for Bane's gang or anything like that; the lessons Gotham learned in the second movie have apparently stayed learned, which I guess is why Batman feels it's time for him to ride off into the atomic sunset once the super-criminals are taken down.

honestly i think this is more about the nolans not thinking this through than it is a statement about the people of gotham, the movie seemed very squeamish about showing what an anarchic regime lorded over by a supervillain and his army of thugs would be like beyond some show trials

Ha! Well I was countering the message that Bruce is on the side of the rich or what have you. Or that this needed to take place at night.

Don't really care for specific messages from films -- but the politics is part of it, as any kid of art. Nolan is playing with it, so..

xp = i think he showed enough, no? Show trials and lawlessness. Lets 'think this one through'??

i think the larger problem is, though, that bane's whole... THING... was just way too vague. was he a high-minded moralist a la ras? a master of chaos who just wants to watch the world burn a la joker? without that, his confrontation with batman didn't have much oomph.

and his whole plan to blow up gotham... but wait a couple months so batman could watch it on tv... was pretty lame.

at first i thought the implication was that the citizens of gotham would turn against each other and descend into civil war/anarchy but that didnt really happen?

bane's whole... THING... was just way too vague

yeah that's exactly my problem with the movie. made the whole thing almost inert.

also his rage for batman was kinda misplaced considering batman killed the guy who exiled him from his lady love??

i mean i know he was just being a good bf but

nah he was totally in the friend zone

lol

Talia was the main villain, avenging her father's death.

Is that ok?

define ok

I enjoyed this, but LORD there was a lot of stupid going on. Bloated and two movies stapled back to back and a lot of unneccessary shit.

I think the Magic Bomb annoyed me the worst and made me and several others in the theater laugh at implausible movie bollocks like I hadnt since Prometheus.

Hathaway surprisingly good. Enjoyed that they worked in far more TDKR and Knightfall than I thought they would. When JGL quits being a cop and goes on about a shackling system, I half-expected him to become Azrael.

It's really hard to analyze this movie and its motives/messages, because it is thematically incoherent. Everything seems retrofitted post-fact, like they storyboarded the whole thing and introduced three or four major new characters, including one set up to carry on the franchise, then thought, hmm, I guess we should put some themes into this while at the same time. But it rarely gets deep, no doubt because they got distracted wasting all that time investigating the stock market machinations and sidelining Batman and stuff.

So many things still bug me. Like Levitt wasting all his time trying to evacuate a mostly empty school bus of a dozen kids. Like, why? Was everyone else trying to squeeze through that one tunnel? Me thinks his efforts and energies could have been better served.

Modine close-up death scene was super lame. Did the dude really deserve his own fancy crane shot?

Basically, this movie combines the worst traits of the first one with the worst traits of the second, but doesn't really add enough good to balance it out.

So many things still bug me. Like Levitt wasting all his time trying to evacuate a mostly empty school bus of a dozen kids. Like, why? Was everyone else trying to squeeze through that one tunnel? Me thinks his efforts and energies could have been better served.

this reminded me of the "two boats" stuff in dark knight, just way too much ~meaningful~ shit going on when the movie should have just been focused on ending already

ehh but i think that one had sufficient thematic relevance to earn its place; so much of the context of the joker & batman was about the people being inherently good, or inherently corruptible, & it was a litmus test of that, as well as a conveniently kinda big-city-in-panic set piece. also it didn't seem to drag on the pace, to me.

Also, in final open street police confrontation, it was nice that the armored cops let the unarmored cops lead the infantry charge towards the guys with assault rifles.

I get the emotional/dramatic point they're going for, but 300-style mass fistfight clashes in the street don't make sense when every single person there is packing a firearm.

Another plot bit that I got what they were trying to achieve but that made no sense is just Bane showing up on TV to read Gordon's letter.

Or Gordon racing thru the city to "get in front of a camera" as if webcams built into laptops and cell phone that can record/stream video don't exist.

ya i didn't quite get how the cops didn't immediately all get mowed down

ehh but i think that one had sufficient thematic relevance to earn its place; so much of the context of the joker & batman was about the people being inherently good, or inherently corruptible, & it was a litmus test of that, as well as a conveniently kinda big-city-in-panic set piece. also it didn't seem to drag on the pace, to me.

― , Blogger (schlump), Saturday, July 28, 2012 1:18 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

im just appalled at how many movies are hitting the 2.5hr-3hr mark lately, and they imo never ever earn it

i mean i watched back to the future again last weekend and it fit in SO much plot in 1h45, it was like a miracle

And yet people bitched about the length of "Tree of Life," when that movie is like an hour shorter than this one, and so much richer. And better to look at.

xp
yeah that's true. idk these long comic book movies feel like weird exceptions to considerations of length, to me; i have to really psyche myself up to get around to watching something long ordinarily, particularly at home. but going to see a long-ass comic book movie at a cinema seems different, because i'm not restless, there, & because they're frequently distracting/absorbing, &c (or w/the second flick have sufficient momentum/explosions to distract you from where they're upto).

otm re: back to the future!