Nolan Batman #3: The Dark Knight Rises

The movie came out this weekend in Japan and I saw it in IMAX. As an IMAX movie, it is VERY impressive. I really enjoyed the movie, but not as much as The Dark Knight and not as much as The Amazing Spider-Man (Avengers does not come out for another two weeks in Japan).

Tom Hardy as Bane is for the most part character wise, very true to his comic counter part. He is strong and cerebral. He had so much commanded presence to the point that if I had a choice between getting my neck broken by him or killing myself, I'd fucking kill myself. That's how scary Bane was. Hardy got the eye expression and the body language down like perfect. Funny you can call this movie The Warrior vs The Fighter in a way. I already knew Tom Hardy was perfect for Bane based on his roles in both The Warrior and Bronson in the way that Christian Bale was perfect for Bruce Wayne based on his excellent performance in American Psycho (I say his best movie tied with The Fighter).

But I don't like how the movie was inconsistent with Bruce's physical conditions and didn't really handicap him enough. I have had knee problems since I was 8 and I also have ACL problems and being explosive in a fight will be more difficult.

But I hope in a new Batman film, they will use villains NEVER USED before in live action such as Hush, Hugo Strange, Black Mask, Deathstroke, and hell, maybe even The Velintroquist and Scarface.

I believe his bodily issues were more of a lack of consistency when co-opting two different sources, "The Dark Knight Returns" and the "Bane arc". But even then, Bruce just used these wiry things ,like he used in the Returns comic , to make it better to fight. But even then there should have been a little bit harder to fight than how he did, but that wasn't my problem.

Would I say this film was as great as TDK? Maybe, but the film should have been divided into two separate parts so it could have had some breathing room to actually tell its story. There were parts that they should have elaborated more and perhaps develop Joseph Gordon Levitt into the Robin/Nightwing in the second part.

The issue was Nolan made this his final film where he had to tell everything he wanted to in the span of that time space. The first two films had one main villain that set the tone , but another lesser villain that tied into the subplot. It was clean and uncluttered. By having two extra protagonists (Catwoman and Robin suffered from a lack of focus and development) and a few more villains, the film's development suffered and thus the story suffered.

Too much **** crammed into one space equals the Airbender effect and frankly , this either needed more time, or it needed to be divided into two films of the same length.

The film was good , but it needed room.
 
Having three hours to tell a fairly straightforward hero redemption story and still bungling the pacing magnificently is a sign of inept direction. By no means was there "too much story" to fit into the already quite gratuitous running time. If anything, the narrative that was present needed quite a bit of refinement and acute focus to justify the length in the first place. It wasn't shoehorned in, it was simply a case of something already thin being stretched even further.

And for the last time, Joseph Gordon Levitt was not supposed to be Robin. His character's "birth name" being Robin was simply a nod to fans, something to excite Batman aficionados. You know what would have been a lot more exciting? If the film had been made better.
 
And for the last time, Joseph Gordon Levitt was not supposed to be Robin. His character's "birth name" being Robin was simply a nod to fans, something to excite Batman aficionados.

That's where your wrong, that wasn't a nod to fans that was to casual viewers who only think there's only one robin.
 
I would've fanboy'd so hard if they called him "Richard", though either of these names would've flown right over people's heads.
 
^ True, I thought "Tim" being his name was more appropriate, while some thought "Dick" was more accurate.

Yeah, I saw the movie with some friends and the moment JGL said "my real name" I said "Tim Drake" one of my friends next to me said "Dick Grayson" :laugh:

But at the end we were both ok with it being "Robin".
 
Just like thanos did during the avengers. I thought he was going to be named "Jean-Paul"

Considering the arc that they were just on, an Azrael Batman would definitely work for keeping the symbolism of Batman which can be anybody, upheld.

And it would be so easy! Like the girl in the end clarifying that John Blake's "John" was changed from "Jean" and the second name "Paul" was omitted for some reason, than John Blake keeping his first name "Robin" hidden... Though not really the "good ending" people might have hoped for. :sweat:
 

Latest News & Videos

Latest News

Back
Top