But in spite of essentially acknowledging here that big parts of the film either escaped your notice or haven’t stuck with you, you seem to expect your critique to be seen as valid and insightful?
To quote Lucius Fox, “Good luck.”
See, to me it’s not the plot/mechanics that sticks in my craw but mostly the motivation for the characters. This was pretty much the opposite of my criticisms against inception.
Well, I’d like to have some idea of what each of them are doing, exactly, and where they all are, and which idea is loopy and which one probable, and preferably I’d like this to go on for a finite period of time, considering that I’ve been in the theater for over two hours at that point.
But maybe that’s just me, wanting clarity and concision in my narrative arc.
Very much so, but not the Nolan Batman, as others have pointed out. The comic book Batman and BTAS have them as two distinct personalities. This is also true of Batman Beyond.
Tarrantino in Kill Bill makes the point that Clark Kent is Superman’s comment on the intellectuality of humans. I don’t really think so. Clark Kent is a real human being doing a real job with more or less real relationships in the world. Superman is his inner goodness and importantly strength in that inner goodness.
In all seriousness, I could understand this critique if it was about all the intrigue at the beginning of the film with the attack on the stock market and bringing down Wayne Enterprises, or about Bane’s motivations, but the stuff with the bomb was really cut and dry. Maybe you were tuned out at that point because you were disinterested?
See it again when it’s on DVD, you’ll see. There weren’t even multiple ideas like you’re describing. Everyone was working together to return the core to the reactor so it wouldn’t blow. When that failed, Batman flew it out of the city.
Now, talking about length of the film and concision… I have to say I agree with you there, but I think I would have cut from the first hour of the movie, not the last.
My first thought about the Dark Night Rises?
TURN IT THE FUCK DOWN!!!
My ears are still ringing.
Right. That’ll never happen.
Okay, so what was Lucius Fox working on when he got caught in a flood? The same thing Gordon was working on in trying to catch the truck? If so, then Batman had to fly the thing as soon as the flood struck, diminishing the tension on Gordon’s end, right? Tell you the truth, I can’t remember exactly how they got control of the device to fly it out at this point–which is part of my complaint:just too much goddamn plot.
Gordon had to block the remote detonator. Fox had to prep the reactor. Batman was getting control of the bomb to deliver to the reactor. 1 plan.
Sidebar, how did you like Ocean’s 11?
Me? Never saw it. Why?
I’m not pancakes3, but presumably because there are 11 different characters working together to orchestrate one heist - but most of the time they’re off working individually on their own parts of the plan that all comes together at the end; and often, each individual is not even aware of exactly what parts the other people are playing, sometimes through deliberate deception. If you had difficulty following how Fox, Gordon, and Batman (3 people) were each had their own task contributing to one plan, then it’s likely Oceans’s 11 would have confused you.
Reminds me of people who were confused and couldn’t follow the plot of Mission Impossible (the first movie with Tom Cruise). Personally, I didn’t find TDKR, Ocean’s 11, or MI difficult to follow.
The only part that nearly lost me was when the guy seemingly came out of nowhere to try to take over Wayne Enterprises for whatever reason.
The bomb was on a timer, but also had a remote detonator. Gordon had to disable the remote detonator, Fox had to prep the reactor, and Batman had to deliver the bomb to the reactor without it being detonated by remote.
Gordon did his job, so they were trying to make it hard for Batman to get the bomb. When he finally destroyed all of the vehicles preventing him from getting to it, Talia flooded the reactor chamber. Batman had to abort his plan and just fly off with the bomb instead.
Like I was saying about “spatial reference,” I want to know where the characters are in relation to one another, whether they’re trying something that’s a long shot to succeed or feasible, etc. If I’m three blocks from you and I’ve got Batman’s skillset, it’s pretty obvious that if you give me eleven minutes, I can take something away from you. But if I’m three miles away, and I have no way to locate you immediately, and I’ve got eleven miinutes, not so easy. The film was muddy on sorts of stuff like this–I don’t want to make too much about this one fairly small point, but I was confused as to where and where and why and how throughout the film, and I blame Nolan’s storytelling skills, which tend towards the showily complicated.
Saw it tonight. I was entertained, but didn’t love it. When I first saw The Dark Knight, I thought Heath Ledger’s Joker was fantastic, but had some problems with it. After re-watching, it really grew on me a lot, and I now really appreciate how the whole thing hangs together. I don’t think that’s going to happen for me with The Dark Knight Rises.
The Dark Knight is a film about a vigilante which argues against vigilantism. The Dark Knight Rises was very muddled in comparison. The Joker was a convincing portrait of a nihilist, or at least what I can imagine a true nihilist to be. In comparison, the new villains are flat and unconvincing. Talia is motivated by revenge, so her plan is to torment him by causing havoc in his city for months before destroying it, killing herself and followers in the process? Really?
Finally saw this a few nights ago and, before I make any comments, there’s one thing I’m curious about in the context of the Nolan Batman movies regarding the League of Shadows. Other than Bruce Wayne and his inner circle, are they considered to be real and known threat by everyone else (like, for example, how we view al Qaeda) or are they regarded as a myth that only crackpot conspiracy theorists believe in (similar to the nutballs who believe the Illuminati, Knights Templer, Reptilians, and/or Masons are behind everything)? Also, is the portrayal different in the comic book?
Just saw it, didn’t like it.
I saw it this last weekend and I did like it a lot more than I thought I would.
I can understand Batman purists protesting the idea of Bruce Wayne giving up being Batman, but I think the idea was not just that he stopped being Batman but he also stopped being Bruce Wayne. He moved past the tragedy and pain because the only alternative was death.
That’s actually one of my favorite parts of this trilogy. While some movies have done that “hero temporarily gives up his powers” story, most superhero tales end with the implication that being a superhero is a lifetime job because there will always be supervillains out there.. I think this trilogy was the first to tackle the idea that you can be a hero for a while, clean up the city, and then let someone else (like a DA, or the police) take over. There won’t always be major villains attacking the city.
Yeah, although I didn’t really like the idea that he became a shut-in for eight years. That’s a bit out there. Maybe if he’d made it a shorter period, like 3-4 years, I could have bought it easier.
You’re in luck! That’s about how long he went into hiding after the energy project fell through.