Before it got lost in all of the bullshit arguing.

Here.

I will concede that we are probably both incorrect. If Wayne had a truely broken vertebrae that was dislocated and protruding, that is never going to be fixed in a cave. That is spinal cord severing or injuring territory, and Batman would need a Batchair.

Despite what the "doctor" said, it had to have been a disk injury, perhaps a herniation, or at worst a compression fractured vertebrae. Remember, the "doctor" was obviously not very competent, otherwise Bane wouldn't have been so ****ed up.

And I can't believe that we're having this conversation....I'm out to go regain some semblance of manliness.

Meh. Like I posted before, it isn't any more egregious than any of the other financial implications of any of the other movies. If you could let that stuff go, you could let this go. No biggie.


I think Bane's voice could have maybe been done better. Subtitles would have been pretty sweet. But I thought Bane's voice was pretty well done. It was really chilling. He is such a brutal fighter and so goddamn relentless. And then he has a high, very British voice. Cool, IMO.

That's where I am. The stuff people are picking apart isn't all that much different from the other films. It was much larger in scope than either one of the other two.

It's funny that people are more upset with the implausability of the Stock Exchange scene than they are Batman escaping a nuclear blast.

Suspension of disbelief is always funny with the Superhero genre.

Fusion bombs aren't conventional nuclear blasts, nor were we supposed to believe he was on the Bat that blew up.

Or the fact that in the previous movie, there was a guy walking around with half a face. :)

It's always the little things (comparatively) that people go ape shit over.

That's not true. We absolutely were to believe that, as we were given no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

We learn that he wasn't on it in the closing montage, but prior to that Luscious Fox scene in the montage the audience has no reason to suspect that Bruce lived.

Right. So at the end, it's given to us that he wasn't on it, thus explaining it just fine.

The demise of the main villain isn't a little thing.

It was poorly scripted.

I do think Banes death should have been a little more epic. Him getting blindsided like that was kind of cheap.

Who said there was a twist?

Was the Arab swordsman's death in the first Indiana Jones movie cheap because it happened in a surprising and quick way? This was the same type of unexpected and abrupt ending for a bad guy. And Bane wasn't the main villain as it turned out. Talia was.

The Arab swordsman was on screen for 10 seconds. His death was a joke, and it was ad libbed.

And I don't care what you say, Bane was the main villain. He was the antagonist.

Agreed. Talia was the one pulling the strings, but Bane was the only baddie throughout 90 percent of the film.

His death was immaterial; his defeat was what mattered.

Batman defeated him. And I disagree with the idea that the way it was done wasn't 'batmanish' enough. Wayne learned in prison that Bane's mask kept the pain at bay. He made a clear, concerted effort to attack that mask. In so doing, he got Bane to 'fight like a younger man' himself, as Bane mocked Batman for doing in the prior fight.

I liked the way that scene played out. And I liked the unexpected and ignominious way he was dispatched once it was clear he was no more than a pawn in the whole thing.

He was taken from an unbeateable genius super-thug to a defeated sidekick in the span of 5 minutes; then unceremoniously blown to hell by another sidekick. I liked how Nolan was casually dismissive of him at that point.

How he died was ultimately irrelevant after he was decisively handled up to it.

I agree. Once Batman started going at that mask, he suddenly wasn't so invincible anymore.

The way Bane died was just half-assed IMO.

Would have been more kickass if Batman ripped it (Bane's mask) off and beat the crap out of him.

Instead, Catbitch blew him away with the bike. (lame)

Eh, to each their own.

Batman ripping a mask off a villain he clearly already defeated doesn't do much for me. Instead you got the 'trust' element that has been mentioned, as well as just a casual bludgeoning of an emasculated bad guy and an unquestioned jarring feeling when the dude took a damn missile to the ribs.

I thought it was badass in its own right.

Absolutely. Batman had proven his point and was taken out by a betrayal. Selina rewarding his trust was a great way to turn the tide. It also was yet another great illustration of how Catwoman and Batman are very different depite both being basically heroic.

LMAO I think it's hilarious when people blast "movie-snobs" when they are the ones being judgmental. Like whatever you like. Attacking people who like "There Will be Blood", get ready for it... MAKES YOU A MOVIE SNOB. You just have different standards.

And heaven forbid people expect more from films than "entertainment". I'm sorry if you don't think the art of film is capable of meaningful expression beyond basic escapism, but mocking people for their tastes just makes you look ignorant.

Maybe I'm on my own boat here, but honestly, why do people try to use the most underused words they can think of when reviewing a film? Trying to sound like a cunning linguist? Did they pick out a word from the Synonym section on Dictionary.com and say "Oh well it means the same thing so it must be the right word!" It's a pet peeve of mine to see people try to flex their brainpower when honestly who really uses that word in a day to day world?

What the **** are you talking about?

LMAO Its not like he used big words there. :D


Kidding. I have no idea where that came from.

There's a staggering amount of irony in this statement.

Bane's death was less satisfying than Kirk's in Star Trek, where he simply fell down a mountain because a bridge collapsed. That's saying quite a bit.

The dude should have been lured into a trap and eventually succumbed to Batman's superior intelligence. That is Batman. Shit, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the biggest meathead EVER, and even he took out a ****ing Predator via a triumph of cunning over clod.

What? It's ironic that I am able to view film as art? You're the one mocking people's taste while calling them a snob. I have no problem with film as entertainment or escapism and for the record, I love the Nolan Batman Trilogy. I just think they can be more. I'm not even a huge fan of your example, "There Will be Blood", but it's silly to claim someone is a snob when you are the one being exclusionary.

you know that scene was an ad lib by Harrison? He was supposed to have a long battle with the guy, but after several takes in extremely hot weather, Ford was joking around when he pulled the gun and shot him.

Nolan had a problem in that Bane needed to die. But Batman doesn't kill people. Someone else HAD to do the deed. By showing Batman having defeated him, and letting Hotty McLeatherpants blow him up, he solved the dilemma.

No, I was responding to Reaper being a condescending shitheel.

Either you didn't read his post or you're just a hypocrite.

It's easy to be a shitheel when treading through this thread. :D

If it appeared I was specifically defending Reaper, I wasn't. Your post, while in response to Reaper, was a general attack on those you deem to be movie snobs that revealed you as something of one yourself. It's something I see all the time and it tends to bother me.

:( Et tu, Soze?

LMAO I wouldn't insult you by "defending" you in a movie criticism fight. Plus, I figured you'd take the "condescending shitheel" label as a point of pride. ;)

Finally saw this tonight. I really enjoyed it. I liked it far better than the last one, although I still think the first one is the best.

One question - and bite me if asked and answered, but it's late and I don't feel like digging through hundreds of posts. Was the guy who ended up being Robin supposed to be the same kid who was on the roof with Rachel at the end of the first movie?

Don't think so. I thought they may go that way, too. But on one viewing I don't think they ever connected the two.

BTW, interesting order. (Begins, DKR, DK)

I can see how Begins is a better stand alone film, much like Fellowship was the best stand alone film in the LOTR, IMO. I just enjoyed DK so much more. REALLY surprised (and interested) that you liked DKR more than DK. Why?

Seemed like they were hinting at that, but I wasn't sure. Frankly, I had a hell of a time hearing it - my hearing kind of sucks anyway, but I had more trouble than usual following the dialogue in many of the scenes (I couldn't hear half of what Bane said).

I won't see it again in the theater, but I look forward to picking it up on blu-ray so I can watch it with the friggin subtitles turned on.

Well, I really don't want to touch off another another pissing contest with the Ledgerites, but I didn't care for his portrayal of the Joker. I also found the plot to be ridiculously convoluted, I thought the whole Two Face thing was absurd (especially the burned away face with the pristine eyeball sticking out), and I hated the ending, although not quite so much now that I've seen the next movie. Oh, and Maggie Gyllenhaal with her droopy skull face and banana titties should be wearing a ****ing burka.

All of these things were absent from this movie, and I appreciated it much more.

Ha. I can see all of that. I am a huge fan of Ledger's performance, but I'm not one of those people who think that's the end all Joker. I look forward to one day seeing someone else bring a new approach to that character since he's my favorite comic book villain.

Also, I totally agree on the plot being convoluted. I still liked it, but I think a lot of people see that movie with rose-colored glasses. More hard to believe than that Two-Face thing for me was the absolute omniscience and infallibility of the Joker. For someone who's entire outlook is based around chaos, nothing went wrong for him until the last ten minutes of the movie.

I prefer DK to DKR, I think, but I've only seen this one once.

It also seems like between DK and DKR, Bale remembered how to act again. He did a much better job this time around.

Honestly, I think he just had a lot more to do. Ledger and Eckhart had such powerful roles in the movie, the less dynamic Batman/Bruce Wayne got pushed to the side a bit. This movie really got back to Batman with Bane being a little bit more single-minded.

I wasn't satisfied with Batman's "defeat" of Bane.
Not after that epic ass-whoopin he took.

A frequent problem in movies. I try to suspend disbelief at all times in watching these kinds of movies, but I'm repeatedly taken out of the scene with the brief thought of "how the HELL could they have known to be here at this exact time and catch them doing this". Sometimes it gets explained later, even only a few seconds later, and when that happens I'm happy, but more often than not it's just "bad guys can be everywhere at once, just roll with it."

Heh. You realize Two Face is a recurring Batman character for over 50 years?

Or did you just not like the way he was portrayed...

I've never been a big comic book guy, so I really don't care how long he was a recurring character.

And no, I didn't care for the way he was portrayed. I realize there's a certain suspension of disbelief at work here, but the whole protruding eye thing was dumb.

Well, that's kinda how he's supposed to be. :shrug:

It's kinda like criticizing Return of the King for all the multiple endings. That's how the story goes.

That's nice. And I still don't care. They could have simply made half his face disfigured and that would have been fine. I get the concept. But completely burned away? Dumb. With a pristine flame-reerunant eyeball and optic nerve? Even dumber.

I think that's the order I put them in as well.

It's close between Begins and Rises, but as much as I loved Liam Neeson in the first one, Scarecrow just sucked the hind tit. I liked the story in Begins better, but I just like Rises a little bit more as a movie.

Ledger's performance has been deified because he became Teflon after his death. For almost any credible performance you can find people willing to give it good, even great reviews. The difference between a good job and a great job is that nobody is going to give a great job negative treatment. I still don't think that Ledger did a legitimately great job; but nobody was going to give a corpse negative treatment. There was no counter-point so it just became gospel that Ledger's performance was superlative.

It was good. It was very good, in fact. But it doesn't make up for the presence of Gyllenhall and the fact that the story as it relates to Batman is static. Batman beats ass at the beginning, Batman beats ass at the end. He's the same guy throughout.

It's the change in Bruce Wayne as Batman that makes me like the first and third installments more. You combine that with villains that are almost (if not quite) as compelling as the Joker and I think you have just a little more meat on the bones than there is in TDK.

"Don't do much for me"

See that part? That would be where I establish that others may not share my belief. You're free to watch foreign films and indy documentaries all you want; it's no skin off my ass. My bone of contention was with people that will do so and castigate others for not doing the same.

Movie snobs can still lick my taint.

I really liked the dynamic between Batman and Catwoman, too.

And I loved the fact that they got to ride off into the sunset together. Dude deserved a happy ending and got it.

Although I really don't see that relationship lasting. :D

But the comic character has a nominally believable back-story.

A crime boss tossed some acid in his face. If you see it coming and get your eyes closed, you're going to be horribly disfigured where the acid burned you, but your eye will remain just fine.

In TDK, it's a freaking facial barbecue that goes down tot he bones in parts on his face. I'd say it's a hell of a lot less believable that his eye and ability to work that half of his face at all remains intact.

I see Frazod's point there (but it takes me back to my previous one; for these movies I just have a very hard time caring; there's just too much stuff that's farfetched for me to nit-pick).

I just wasn't a fan of Harvey Dent period in the TDK. His character was ****ing annoying throughout the entire movie.

The only thing I really disliked about it was that Two-Face only existed in Nolan's Batman universe for like one day. I was hoping he wasn't really dead at the end of TDK. I don't know what purpose he would have served in "Rises" though. But Two-Face is one of my favorite villains, because Batman/Bruce actually cares about him.

Thank you. Excellent post.

I've been trying to come up with the right way to word my feelings about this in a post. You did it. Exactly.

Seconded.

I think, for some, that's why it was unsatisfying.

The only thing I didn't like about it was that you didn't see the splattered chunks of his corpse clearly. Perhaps on the director's cut blu-ray.

It blew a hole in a pile of cars. Bane would have been a red mist.

I want to see the red mist.

I also think it would have been cool if Miranda had lived long enough to see the bomb expode out to sea. Her last thought should not have been satisfaction (I feel the same way about Khan in Star Trek II).

I'm just vindictive that way. :D

A few things I don't like about the movie:

Bane's death

Steelers players cameo's (don't care if it was Heniz Field, that was cheesy)

A little girl was able to escape from the pit of hell, but Batman couldn't (at first)???

meh.

meh.

you totally missed the point.

Completely ROFL

In my mind Bruce Wayne had already become a recluse a while before Batman disappeared, but now that I think about it, did the film say that Batman hadn't been seen since the night Dent died?

yes. It was believed that Batman killed Dent and was on the run.

Ok, thank you. Then yeah, I will believe that BW went reclusive a while later so that it didn't look so strange. He could always say he lost his faith in humanity after Dent was "murdered" and disappear. Still in my mind BTW.

It could also be said that Bruce was still mourning Rachel.

Nah. They didn't go missing at the same time. It talked about Bruce Wayne pushing the fusion reactor for like 3 years. Then they figured out it could be weaponized and that's when he becomes a recluse.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/62406369@N05/7708077298/" title="Bat Joffrey by Jawshco, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7255/7708077298_f82dd52479.jpg" width="264" height="480" alt="Bat Joffrey"></a>

I watched BB the other day, and when I saw that ugly ****ers face I knew right away it had to be that turd Geoffrey from Game of Thrones. Ugliest ****ing face on an actor that isn't named Mickey Rourke.

Agreed. When SOIAF booke described Joffery's foppy "wormy lipped,"appearance, I thought they nailed the casting when they chose little Jackie Gleason. That kid looks perfect for the role.

I thought the movie was pretty entertaining outside of the whole batman needing help eating his waffels and wiping his own ass before miraculously turning into an unstoppable force minutes later thang. That was lame.

I think batman was just a depressed ass that needed his bed made. Apparently never took care of his injuries either

My only problem with that was the knee. He needed a cane, but a fancy brace made him able to kick rocks apart? I know we suspend a lot of disbelief in regards to the tech in these movies, but C'MON.

saw this mentioned elsewhere, and it's spot on.

Bane sounds like Winnie The Pooh.

Batman does not get a happy ending,
it worked for the movies
I liked it but really the Batman needed a death, Bruce wayne can live on,
wonder if him an Selina are pulling off hiests for fun


and no ****ing Robin sequels, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown, Carrie Kelly but would not mind seeing Damian Wayne try it
out geek that

the whole talia thing threw me, cause I thought he wasn;t following continuity, shit the lifted lined from miller's daek nknight returns, and the no man;s land arcs, felt like an idiot,

but he ****ed her
we will see Damian Wayne

[QUOTE=Cassel's Reckoning;8775911]I didn't even come up with that, I'm hardly trying to be critical. But it hits home pretty hard.

What Batman did didn't feel like a Batman solution. It felt like generic action hero bullshit.

Lazy, sloppy, unsatisfying.[/Q

I disagree, he planned for his death, and laid down framework for his legacy to continue on,
and he must have also planed for his life
when he ended up with Selina in the cafe , for Alfred to see.
also nasty dick move to make alfred think he was dead
so since Talia is dead ans those fraudulent claims must have been figured out
who owns wayne corp?

that's goat cheese, he needs to have a list of ex names
attached to his posts
oncehis history is revealed then I can understand what he is doing, thanks luv