I’m going to start this review by saying that I can not remember any time in recent years when I have had as much of a lack of anticipation for a film event such as ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. This is made all the more surprising given my hype and eventual reaction to Nolan’s last Batman feature ‘The Dark Knight’. I was at points uncontrollably ecstatic for it’s release back in 2008. To the point in which I had downloaded a windows widget countdown clock months before its release which I set to its midnight opening. In the weeks leading up to its screening I was changing the channel any time a TV spot appeared, for I not only didn’t want to see any more footage until the actual film but also because the way it increased my anticipation was probably not good for my health. Of course, once it was released I was head over heels in love with it. Saw it in theaters, including IMAX, more times than I can remember, and for over a year after its release I had thought of it as my favorite film of all time.
Now, times have changed and it no longer holds that title but it is still a film I really love. So why was I not as excited for its sequel? I mean one could make a fairly strong argument that ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is one of the biggest movie events in the last few decades when you take into consideration the history of the trilogy, its financial and critical success, how it changed the way comic book adaptations are made and viewed, and how it even played a role in changing the format of the Oscars. This is the final movie in a trilogy that has cemented itself in film history for so many reasons. And yet, my anticipation was passive at best. Was it because I didn’t like what I had seen? Maybe. The trailers were never too well put together, the TV spots offered little to no insight on the story; and I was very worried that the plot and cast were just too big. From the beginning of its production I feared Nolan would try too hard to finish this series on a high note, and surpass the quality and success of its predecessor. This fear grew when all the casting began and early on-set images leaked. It seemed like this was going to be filled to the brim with too many characters and tons of action; because of this I worried that it would then lose all coherence and emotion.
So maybe that was it, maybe I just didn’t care because I felt it wasn’t going to be any good. But that is impossible right? I mean it is Nolan. You know, “In Nolan We Trust” as some fan-boys would say. So what was it? Was I just shielding myself from possible disappointment? Did I want it to so badly be good that I couldn’t risk hyping myself up to impossible expectations?
Either way you may be reading and wondering why the hell I’m even saying all this, but I just want to set up the mind set I had going into ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, one that does not match that of most who wanted to see it, and one which may or may not have had an influence on my final decision on its quality.
Now that I’ve actually seen it I will just come right out and say that on many levels I think it is better than ‘The Dark Knight’…now before I receive any hate or people questioning my sanity, let me explain.
After ‘The Dark Knight’ hit theaters I began wondering what I would personally want from a third and final film if Nolan decided to do one. The thing that always came to mind was I desperately wanted something a bit more ‘intimate’. I didn’t just want another flashy action-superhero flick. I wanted something that tackled serious and dark themes like ‘The Dark Knight’, but also one that would result in getting to really know who Batman was behind the mask. In the end that is what Nolan did here, giving us a much more detailed look at the character while still providing a spectacle on a grand scale that rivals its predecessor. I walked away not only thoroughly entertained, but also feeling like I learned more about what it means to be a hero, not just one behind a mask, than any of the films before it.
‘The Dark Knight Rises’ takes place many years after the events of the last film. With Harvey Dent gone the city has cracked down hard on organized crime. It is a time of ‘peace’ as one character put it. Even Batman, wanted for the murder of Dent, has little to do and Bruce Wayne has become a bit of a recluse. Being Batman was the only thing he had, the only life he knew, and with the city not needing their “Dark Knight” Wayne’s life is rather empty. But his ‘retirement’ was never going to last, and he finds himself needing to become Batman once again as a new threat makes its presence known. This one in the form of Bane (Tom Hardy), a muscular and ruthless mercenary, who is building an army to unleash some secret assault of Gotham.
Along the way Batman makes allegiances with some new characters. First, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a masked thief who doesn’t really seem to know which side she is on. And Officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who seems to know more about the masked vigilante than most other people. But even with the help of them, and a few old friends (Commissioner Gordon, Lucius Fox), Bane is too much for the aged and physically deteriorated Batman. This allows the brooding masked villain to unleash his rein of terror over the city, taking down the government, police force and wealthy in one quick swing of his fist and giving the “power to the people”.
I should warn everyone that this was not as fast paced, climatic or kinetic as ‘The Dark Knight’. Actually the first hour or so is incredibly slow. Also, it is not at times as funny, with really unique and shocking moments like the ‘pencil trick’ scene either. Still, the way it unfolds at a slow and meticulous pace, building to an explosive final act, resulted in a much more rewarding experience than the previous two films. The sort in which you don’t truly know how you feel until halfway through, as things start to come together, and you really realize how much you are enjoying what has played out. This has a lot to do with the way Nolan ties in the events of the two previous films. Both of which on their own had little to no connection outside of a few characters. But in his conclusion to the trilogy Nolan intertwines narratives, characters and themes from those films as he builds the story here making the trilogy feel like a whole.
At the same time he allows Bruce Wayne to take center stage. Where as in ‘The Dark Knight’ he just seemed to play the ‘good guy’ in a film about the Joker, here he actually must face emotional and physical struggles unlike anything he has ever faced before. In retirement he is lost, missing the love of his life, and unsure as to what to do with himself. When he becomes Batman again he faces a foe too powerful, physically and emotionally, to defeat. Now he must truly stare darkness and death in the face, embrace fear once again and rise from the lowest point we have ever seen this character reach in a feature length adaptation. We finally get to see him go through a struggle that makes him worthy of the cowl he wears.
Along with his development, the new characters around him receive more focus than other supporting roles have in the previous two films. Their relationships might not have been perfect, but Nolan took time to develop them and the story, which is why it is often slow and overall so long. But this is a good thing. For once their motivations, fears and what makes them who they are is presented to us. Because of this, all the eventual action and the grim and always present feeling of inescapable doom are made all the more threatening and powerful. This time around Gotham was truly on its last leg. Not by a nut-job in make-up whose mind was set on nothing but random acts of chaos; but rather a man and his army that turned the city on its head; and instead of the characters just being involved with the action and main plot, we actually see them feeling the effects of it on emotional and psychological levels. This was something I felt was missing from ‘The Dark Knight’. I never really thought anything or anyone was truly in danger in that film. The Joker, although at times terrifying, never really made me feel like he could be the end of Gotham. That isn’t the case here and when watching the film one might think evil could win the day. Plus, until the final moments of ‘The Dark Knight’ I didn’t feel like Batman, or the audience, learned anything about the importance of his character. However here throughout we truly understand why Gotham needs a hero.
I think that is important when considering the structure of the trilogy. The beginning (‘Batman Begins’) was a great origin story, providing a basis for Bruce’s rise to becoming Batman. The middle (‘The Dark Knight’) was the climax of the story, action packed and chaotic, facing a threat that was a direct result of his presence. The ending (‘The Dark Knight Rises’) is more focused on the full effects of everything that came before it, what it has done to the character of Batman, what his presence truly means to the city, and what his final sacrifice must be…which I can not get into without spoiling the ending, but I must say it is the most emotional and powerful conclusion to any superhero adaptation to date.
On a technical level it is about as good as one would expect from Christopher Nolan. The action and set pieces are at times fantastic. A few of the fight scenes, including one with Batman vs. Bane in his underground bunker, are as intense as they are thrilling. The cinematography, though nothing to write home about, is also very good but I can not fully comment on it until I see it in IMAX. I did have an issue with the score. It wasn’t as exciting as it was in the previous films, though I think it fit the tone of the story so it really didn’t bother me.
Performance wise I think we got the best out of Christian Bale and Michael Caine since the trilogy started. As Bruce’s demons reemerge in his life without Batman, and when he is struggling to save Gotham, Bale does a great job in portraying the inner turmoil and physical pain Wayne is put through. As for Michael Caine, I think he deserves some sort of award recognition. Honestly. His performance was so heart breaking. He makes Alfred so lovable, with his feelings for Wayne so potent, that when he has to watch Wayne struggle to move on in retirement or suffer the beatings of another thug you genuinely feel how much he cares.
Anne Hathaway was surprisingly perfect as Catwoman, though they never really call her that. She brought just the right amount of sexuality, humor and ass kicking ability to the role. Her character is also pretty well developed. We don’t get much back story but we understand her points of view and the motivations for many of her actions. Joseph Gordon Levitt, who played a bigger part than I expected, also gave a great performance. For a character that had no basis in Batman mythology he ended up being a rather well fleshed out and likable individual, which makes the ending all the better.
Tom Hardy as Bane was perfect casting in my opinion. The character was more threatening, punishing and thorough than the Joker, and Hardy’s performance and physical presence got that across nicely. Most of his face was covered but he did enough with his eyes to sell his determination and emotions. As for the character, he was just the right sort of villain to orchestrate the biggest threat Gotham has ever known.
Finally, I couldn’t end without saying that the film isn’t without its many, many flaws. Is it bloated? Hell yes. Nolan crams a whole lot of story and a ton of characters together at once and often they don’t get enough time to fully develop. Is it a mess? God yes. I wouldn’t say it has any more or less plot holes than ‘The Dark Knight’, but they are there, which doesn’t help in a story that is at times completely convoluted. One of the most jarring issue I personally had was early on in the film when so much of the exposition was done through not so subtle dialogue. This can all be blamed on the fact that Nolan wanted to tie so much of the previous films in with a plot worthy of an ‘epic conclusion’ and it doesn’t always work.
Still, even with all its flaws I just have to say that sometimes when you overreach as Nolan did, even if at times you fail and it gets messy, the result is still often worthy of a lot of praise which is the case here. As bloated as it was the result is still a coherent and at times deeply emotional story which, as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, was all that mattered to me.
So in the end I personally do feel on many levels it achieves so much more than the previous films, bringing the story back to something more attuned to ‘Batman Begins’ character wise but with the same spectacle and scale that we loved from ‘The Dark Knight’. It isn’t a masterpiece and is far from perfect, but it is an entertaining and smart conclusion to a brilliant trilogy that I couldn’t recommend more.
Through the Shattered Lens 
They didn’t even try with that movie poster, did they? You know, the most hyped movie event of the year, so how are we gonna sell this one? Eh, recycle the previous film poster, tweak it just a little, nobody will care.
“I should warn everyone that this was not as fast paced, climatic or kinetic as ‘The Dark Knight’.”
Are you kidding me? The previous “Dark Knight” film was for the most part the cinematic equivalent of watching a documentary on glaciers (hey, they DID have Morgan Freeman handy!). “TDK” was extremely overrated, not especially memorable–not a bad film, just too long and not as brilliant as so many people make it out to be.
I haven’t seen “The Dark Knight Rises”, but it really annoys me that Catwoman appears in this one–and NOBODY calls her Catwoman! Increasingly, the Batman movies have been afraid to be known as Batman movies. The last two now haven’t even had the word “Batman” in the title. And now we have Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, and NOBODY calls her Catwoman? What the HELL is up with Miss Hathaway’s outfit? Again: SOMEBODY IS NOT TRYING! When Tim Burton’s “Batman Returns” brought Catwoman back into the scene, the outfit worn by Michelle Pfeiffer did the unthinkable: it instantly became more iconic than the one worn in turn by Lee Merriweather, Julie Newmar and Eartha Kitt in the “Batman” TV serial of the 1960s, and who could possibly forget THAT scene where Catwoman turns the tables and places herself seductively atop a helpless Batman (Michael Keaton)? Tim Burton (and of course, MIchelle Pfeiffer) really knew how to have fun with it all. It’s almost as if “Batman” and “Catwoman” have become dirty words to Christopher Nolan. Much like Tony Scott’s “The Hunger” was a vampire movie that didn’t really want to be a vampire movie, “The Dark Knight” came across as being somewhat uneasy about being a Batman movie, and from what I’ve read about “TDKR”, it seems as if the trend continues.
Again with the casting of Catwoman…oops, I mean “Selina Kyle”: this was a wonderful opportunity to cast an “unknown” in the role and (most likely) create a new female star (especially when she is not being asked to “carry” a bulk of the film). A lot cheaper than Miss Hathaway, and you would get a fresh face and an actress who might be willing to take some chances with the character and leave behind something truly memorable.
It’s also a bit of a worry that the film features Morgan Freeman, but he wasn’t mentioned in the above review. He did nothing in “TDK”. Why bring him back for “TDKR” when it’s obvious that he’s done nothing again? Because you’d better believe that if an actor the calibre of Morgan Freeman did something in a film, his name would be everywhere.
Also, why do superhero movies have to be so downright gothic these days? Is it an attempt to make them appear menacing? Where has the colour gone?
Leon, if you’ve seen this on the big screen, I’m not sure if IMAX will make a difference to your perception of the film’s cinematography. Not that I’ve ever bothered with IMAX, but then again, they don’t run 70mm prints at IMAX. I’m also guessing that you saw “TDKR” in digital format–speaking for myself, I’d much prefer 35mm (actually, I’d even take 16mm over digital).
I can’t say I’m at all excited about “The Dark Knight Rises”. I’m not even excited about the latest “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie. You know, when you can’t get me excited with at least one of those films, you know that Hollywood ain’t what it used to be. Just as I predicted ten years ago (not that it was an especially daring forecast), the whole superhero movie thing has reached a point of overkill.
LikeLike
“not a bad film, just too long and not as brilliant as so many people make it out to be.” Not as brilliant as so many people make it out to be? That would be their opinion my friend. I’m sorry but complaining about casting such as “why bring as actor back” like Morgan Freeman is completely asinine. They bring actors such as that back because they are still a part of the story. Just because they are great actors doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be cast if their roles aren’t “important”. What I’m not even sure what to say about the randomness of half of the other stuff you mentioned in your comment, like taking the time to complain about digital film. My suggestion to you, don’t see this film. If is clear that you have already set yourself up not to like it.
LikeLike
I won’t go into most of what you posted since they are you’re opinion, but I will like to point out that Nolan uses film stock as much as possible when directing his films. He’s one of the last few holdouts when it comes to switching over to full digital filming. It helps that Nolan has continued to turn to cinematographer Wally Pfister who rarely, if ever, will use digital. TDRK used 35mm film stock with some digital filming for some of the more effects-laden sequences. The IMAX 70mm used for the film is tried and true film stock. I’m not even sure there’s an IMAX camera that doesn’t use film stock and is fully digital. Plus, when did digital filmmaking become such a bad word. I’m guessing because Tarantino has railed against digital filmmaking when he himself has used it in post like everyone from the lowest budgeted indie film to the biggest budget event film.
I still have to see the film, but I will say that the “why are superhero films so downright gothic” is a tad curious since outside of Nolan’s trilogy (and one can say they’re not even gothic but more in the realm of arthouse cinema that just happen to have huge budgets), most superhero films of late tend to be of the fun variety (all the Marvel produced films could rarely be called gothic, dark or somber). I think you may be mistaking the stylistic and narrative choice of filmmakers to ape Nolan’s gritty and realistic portrayal of the superhero genre as gothic. If any, gothic superhero filmmaking died the moment Tim Burton left the previous Batman franchise and Schumacher took over and went all psychedelic.
As for the superhero genre reaching a point of overkill…again this sounds more like an opinion rather than fact. Even the underwhelming Amazing Spider-Man has been praised by some as great and the box-office numbers and the general public agrees. Now, you may not agree with others on that topic, but Hollywood (hell any film studio whether in Hollywood, Bollywood, Europe, etc…) will continue to crank out these films as long as they make money and the public keeps asking for them. The moment we reach overkill on this particular genre is when the general public (the one’s I call the normies, not the film fanatics, film elitists and those in-between) stop watching them. The film history is littered with genres that some would say were milked to death but then Hollywood is a business first and foremost.
One last thing…if you’re still railing on how Nolan decided to tackle the Batman mythology in a realistic (at least as real as a man dressing up as bat taking on criminals) way then why even spend so much time and energy on hating a film series you find no redeeming quality in? Not a dig, but just an observation that has always puzzled me when it comes to people who spend so much time, energy and volume on something they really don’t like or even plan to have an open-mind on and give a chance.
LikeLike
Arleigh:
I believe that you are talking about “how films are made”, a subject that you seem to have done some research upon. I’m simply talking about how they are presented to Joe Public at the cinema. For example, you could utilise a host of digital technology in a film and release it on 35mm, or you could shoot it on film and then release it as a 2K or 4K Digital. Some movie places show pictures exclusively in digital these days–my preference is to find the few that still show pictures on a celluloid format, although with the more recent releases from Hollywood and elsewhere, this is being rather difficult.
I invite you to compare the superhero movies of yesteryear to those of today–even though you may think that today’s superhero flicks are incredibly psychedelic, comparitively speaking, they are somewhat muted and dull. Yes, there have been exceptions, but for the most part, not just visually, but thematically, there is this weird trend to make everything “darker” and “more morbid” and less about “escapism”. They’re even doing this to the latest Superman film. As for Burton, even though Gotham was indeed gothic in his films, there was a helluva lot of colour and goofy set pieces elsewhere in the film (I’m thinking about his first one here) compared to what is being offered these days.
“Schumacher went all psychedelic”…really? Compared to what?
You said, Arleigh:
“One last thing…if you’re still railing on how Nolan decided to tackle the Batman mythology in a realistic (at least as real as a man dressing up as bat taking on criminals)…”
Well, there’s the smoking gun right there. “At least as real as a man dressing up like a bat”…well, then why bother to make so many concessions to “realism”? If your premise for a story is a man dressed as a gigantic horny bat fighting oddball supervillains and reducing entire metropolitan street corners to rubble, why the hell bother pandering to these numbskulls who totally miss the point of comics (fun, escapism, adventure, imagination) in the first place, by demanding “wee-liz-um”? Your whole premise is an escapist one whenever you tackle a Batman film, so just go along with it, let loose and if people want it to be 99 percent realistic, tell ’em to go watch “Citizen Kane” where they can have 100 percent realism. Otherwise, if you make so many concessions to this mindless plea for “realism”, you end up doing really dumb shit, like making a 164 minute movie where Anne Hathaway (ANNE HATHAWAY?) plays Catwoman, when it ought to somebody who resembles a totally oversexed Sybil Danning in her prime, and you can’t even call her Catwoman, because that would be just too “unrealistic”.
(I know that some people might regard my above comment as blatantly sexist, or at least an objectification of women, but the fact is that the Catwoman character is intended to be wholly sensual and sexual in nature, a walking, talking, purring, perverted comic book fantasy–again, it’s more evidence of people sort of losing the idea of why we love comic book movies in the first place and being all “politically correct” for the sake of being taken “seriously”).
This is why so many people loathe “Twilight”–it’s a vampire film that doesn’t really want to be an all-out vampire film–it tries to be “real-ish”. What bothers me may not bother you, as you’ve noted. But as I’ve said, when people make absurd statements about how Nolan has reinvented the wheel and the whole superhero genre…come on, that’s more hyperbolic than anything I’ve said to the contrary.
As for comic book movies reaching overkill…well, just remember, for every “hit” there are a fair few misses. You don’t need to tell me how “supply and demand” works, Arleigh. Yes, certain “brands” are still big business, but are they (the films) any good, simply because they are popular? Can the public be trusted to be so discerning? What happens when public demand becomes so great, that Hollywood starts churning out absolute crap in the superhero diet? And don’t tell me that they haven’t already (hence “overkill” has been reached).
LikeLike
Pingback: Quick Review: The Dark Knight Rises (dir. by Christopher Nolan) | Through the Shattered Lens
Duke, you write on a level that’s just amazing, like a student at the NYC Film Academy. My jaw drops at how in depth you go in covering all the bases and your love for film shows in every paragraph. Damn, I really have to improve. 🙂
This was a great review, an honest interpretation of what you saw and how it made you feel. I’m not sure I agree with all of it – (I thought the cinematography was good, for example), but you’ve added enough points to prove your case in your arguments, and that’s always cool.
LikeLike
Thanks! I got like no sleep last night writing this. It is weird, sometimes I need a day or two to get my thoughts out, and then there are cases like this one in which I have to get a review done and my thoughts out or my mind might explode.
LikeLike
Leon:
It’s an opinion, and one to which I am most entitled to express. Just as others are free to express theirs, but opinions must be backed up with a little bit of intelligent reasoning, and I’ve yet to read one review about the latest movie “The Dark Knight Rises” that doesn’t read like every other review out there (Christy Lemire excepted). And given that 99.9999 percent of film viewers went positively batshit (pun intended) over this film even before it was released, and are still celebrating the so-called cinematic genius of “The Dark Knight” four years later, I figure that a little bit of commentary to the contrary of the status quo isn’t a bad thing (in fact, it’s quite healthy).
I’m simply realistic enough to tell you, and I make no apologies whatsover for saying this, that if Heath Ledger did not pass away many months before this film was released, it wouldn’t have achieved anywhere near the level of box office that it did, and the public’s morbid fasincation with Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker in the film was, like it or not, a big factor in people going overboard in praising the movie (and for overpraising Ledger’s performance–I mean, an Oscar, really?). And the whole “Dark Knight” phenomenon has retrospectively caused people to hail “Batman Begins” as genius work (when for the three years after its release, it was “just a pretty good superhero film”), and has rippled forward to create great (inexplicable) fascination around Nolan’s ensuing works, namely “Inception” (rivals “Slumdog Millionaire” and “TDK” as the most overrated film of the past ten years) and “The Dark Knight Rises”.
The Morgan Freeman question is not an asinine one. What I’m saying is, why go out of your way to put Morgan Freeman–as welcome as he is–in a film when you’ve not given him anything to do? The Lucius Fox character barely rated a mention in your (rather extensive and highly detailed) review, therefore, I wonder if he was that important to the film. Don’t crucify the reader–it was your review and you hardly mentioned him, so I’m only interpreting from your review. Instead of calling the question asinine, you’d be better answering the question. It’s a perfectly valid question, because when you put a name like “Morgan Freeman” in the credits, it’d be neat if he had a little more than a bit part that anybody else could’ve played in his sleep (I for one was very disappointed with how little Morgan had to do in “TDK”).
As for “setting myself up not to like it”: untrue, untrue, untrue. I had my reservations about “The Dark Knight” before going to see it at the cinema, and to be honest, I would’ve given it a big fat miss, but a friend of mine was extremely eager to see it (as in REALLY eager to see it before it left the cinemas, you have absolutely no idea, but he CANNOT go to the movies by himself–not sure why, but anyway…), so I say “Yeah, okay, sure”. My impression was that it was a pretty so-so affair…and, oh, you know what? The friend who went with me, the one who would’ve had a fit if he’d missed it at the movies, was also a bit underwhelmed (although we both still liked it for the most part). Neither one of us left the cinema hailing it as one of the best films ever, put it that way.
To use a contrary example, I wasn’t expecting myself to like “Australia” (in fact it had the potential to be sheer torture, I thought, and was doing my best to avoid it), and that was another film that a friend wanted to see on the big screen, but she wanted some company, so I said “Sure, why not?” In the end, was it all that it was hyped to be? Certainly not, but it was an OK movie for the most part–a bit overlong, and I could’ve done without Nicole Kidman–but I was happy to give it a pass.
The moral to the story being that I’m happy to give pretty much any movie a chance, but if I find The Greatest Movie of The Millenium to be a tad dry, I’m not going to cheat myself into liking something just to keep up with the Joneses–and on that note, I have absolutely no problem whatsover in also believing that a large number of people, for whatever reason, lie to themselves when assessing a movie. That’s not to say that you, Leon, fall into this category, but I bet that millions of others have done, and it’s the sort of thing not just restricted to Batman movies, either.
LikeLike
Mark V:
“overpraising Ledger’s performance”, you see, right there I lose any interest to debate or discuss the film with you, but I will. You started your reply saying it was your opinion and you are entitled to it… then a few sentences later turn around and say the praise others gave the film and Ledgers performance, praise which is nothing but other’s opinions, was too much and/or wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but if that opinion is “every one else is wrong” well I’m sorry but that is a level or arrogance I have grown to despise over the years as I’ve discussed and reviewed films more and more.
Again, questioning why a big actor was cast for a smaller role IS in fact asinine. Firstly, he is involved in the story, but the situations he is in would require going into even more detail of the plot, something I always tend to avoid doing. It is rare for any review, for any film, to go out of their way to mention every single character, especially in a film with so many characters, and it isn’t necessary at all. But that was not the issue I had with your questioning his casting. What I took issue in is why the hell would you be so against casting a ‘big actor’ for a small role? It happens ALL the time, throughout the history of cinema. Big actors are not “only ever allowed!” to be cast in lead/important roles. Why you would even bring that up as a criticism of the film to begin, when it is CLEARLY a non-issue, is why mentioned it was a stupid thing to bring up. Of all the problems one could find in this film, to dig as deep as to bring up casting does in fact make me believe without a doubt you are setting yourself up to hate this film. You hadn’t even seen it yet, and you were already finding issues with it, ones that aren’t even real issues.
And then again, your arrogance shines through as you end by saying people “lie to themselves when assessing a movie”. I’m sorry but I try to be nice on this site, and love hearing other peoples opinions, but if your going to come into my or anyone’s review, tell us to respect your opinion, but then not only turn around and say other people’s opinions are wrong and that people are “delusional” and “lie to themselves” over films, then I ask you nicely to never post a reply to anything I review here in the future because I only like discussing film with people with respect for others.
LikeLike
Pingback: My Take On ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ Hate | Through the Shattered Lens
Hey, great review as always, Duke. It has made me rather optimistic in the film (which I still haven’t watched >__>).
I recently re-watched The Dark Knight and it’s still as entertaining as ever. My issues are in the same arena as yours and it makes me happy to think Nolan goes back to a more meaty perspective in regards to the internal struggle of Bruce/Batman. As that felt like a mere sideshow in the spectacle that was TDK. It does sound like he turns it to 11 once again, but hey, that is what made The Dark Knight such a fun ride in the first place!
Happy viewing and all that fluffy stuff.
LikeLike
Very good review of a truly excellent movie – as compared to what else passes for entertainment these days or to anything else either. I’m not sure how people can argue so vociferously about something they haven’t seen (no, wait – I have a brother who’s a lawyer, so I do).
Maybe this film has the critics it needs, but not those it deserves?
LikeLike
Pingback: LeonTh3Duke’s Favorite Films of 2012 | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Scenes That I Love: Michael Caine in The Dark Knight Rises | Through the Shattered Lens
Pingback: Scenes That I Love: Michael Caine says, “I Won’t Bury You” in The Dark Knight Rises | Through the Shattered Lens