Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Romo 2 Austin, Jul 22, 2012.
Much like obsessing over imaginary characters at all.
Yah I agree
-Best way I've ever seen a superhero trilogy ended, one of the best trilogies for movies in general *vietnam-like Spiderman 3 flashbacks*
-Bane actor was awesome
-Really great writing and story line they had for Bruce in this, I was pulling for him from start to finish
-Action scenes were pretty good
-Robin, Catwoman, and Talia seemed to just be thrown in the movie with no real background or purpose that moved the story along. It didn't feel like they were necessary characters
-Bane final fight was the lamest thing I've ever seen
-Nearly 3 hours long
Just curious, but why is that a con to you?
It is a long time to sit in a movie theater. Also, it didn't have that much action, to make you forget it was 3hrs.
I basically agree with Robin, even though I hope that character eventually evolves into Nightwing instead of Robin if it progresses beyond this movie. I did think that Catwoman and Talia were essential to the story. Selina Kyle's motivation to free herself from her past created a wild card character sitting between the forces of good and evil in the movie. Which would she side with? The moral conflict is straight out of her comic book character.
Talia al ghul is the link between The Dark Knight Rises and Batman Begins. She is the architect of Gotham City's destruction, just as her father was before her. It is her loyalty to him and her fellow League of Assassins which motivates her to complete mass genocide. That and pathological revenge, that is.
I thought it was kind of "come on man" when Bane beat the crap out of Batman earlier in the movie, broke his back and all Batman did was do pushups to get in better shape and kick Bane's butt. I was like, "Come On". And when they had the love scene I tapped my 11 year old grandson on the shoulder and said, "they just ruined the movie huh"? LOL.
I both loved and hated that first fight between Batman and Bane.
It was a riveting scene of brutality and conflict, but the inevitability of it bothered me. Hearing Bane's preaching and seeing how impotent Batman was made it seem as if Bane had 'read the script' and knew how it would turn out before it happened.
And how one man could simply absorb such punishment without feeling it? Bull.
Especially one which - according to what the film eventually tells us - is at least 10-15 years older than the Batman he's beating down.
I can let Talia go only because she was the "link" and needed to be in there just to complete the story, but I felt the way she was introduced was lame. Miranda was a completely non suspicious character who's only purpose was to activate the bomb in the armory and then unmask herself out of the blue. She also COMPLETELY undermines Bane's character at the end which is really my only hated part of the movie.
Bane has this great intro to the movie and amazing look into his character throughout the whole movie. I think part of the reason I liked Bane so much was the backstory of the "legend" of how he was born in darkness and crawled his way out. Only at the end do we find out that Talia was the child of legend and this burdening sense of power he has over Batman just evaporates until the nail in the coffin where he's taken out by freaking Catwoman.
As for Catwoman, the only thing she does in the movie is act as a plot device 3 times: make Bruce lose his money, send him to get beat down by Bane, save him from Bane. Otherwise her scenes make no sense and provide nothing to her back story or give us a reason to like her.
Also as previously mentioned, the reason I did not like that this movie was 3 hours long was because a lot of it was not needed. Catwoman and Robin's character scenes provide nothing to the movie and just take up space. Why did he need to take those kids to the bridge? Why did that whole sequence take so long if they would just blow up the bridge anyway? Who is the girl Catwoman is friends with? What was the point of Miranda and Bruce having sex?
So much of the movie didn't add anything but the parts that did where absolutely amazing and very well done which made me look beyond everything else.
I actually do.
People don't realize the Joker was essentially a plot device. He had no arc. The Dark Knight was about Harvey Dent, not the Joker. Nolan has said it himself.
Bane, to me, was a much more complex and shocking villain than the Joker.
Not for me.
While Tom Hardy did a great job as Bane with some tough shoes to fill, Heath Ledger's Joker performance was epic and in my opinion, the greatest 'comic book' performance of all time. I think the next actor tasked with playing that character will be petrified to have to follow in his footsteps and try to live up to that standard.
However, in Hardy's defense, his Bane was captivating every time he was on the screen. I feel the mask was both a blessing and a curse.
Bane is different how? The movie certainly wasn't about him at all. He wasn't even in charge of the evil plot. Catwoman had more character development than him.
You hardly learn any more about Bane than you do of Joker, and half of what you think you learn about bane really is about Talia. Bane was a love sick pawn the whole time. Kinda weak imo.
Not to say I didn't think Bane was an incredibly well acted character. I liked him a lot, a bright spot in the movie to be sure.
Heath Ledger's Joker elevated Dark Knight onto an entirely higher level of movie quality, imho.
I couldn't agree more. This is exactly how I feel on the subject.
The only other thing I could add to this is I don't know how anyone could think the Joker wasn't absolutely essential to TDK. He IS the reason for the Harvey Dent storyline. Without Joker, and how he does things, there is no storyline to have Harvey Dent become evil.
The Joker IS the story in TDK. How he acts, and what all he's willing to do, is what builds more on the Batman character and builds on Dent as well.
After Heath Ledger's incredible performance as the Joker, I spent some time thinking about another actor who can pull off a performance anywhere close to Ledger's. Now, I know that in all likelihood, no one can out perform or even match Heath in that role but I was thinking about another young, up and coming actor who can do a serviceable job. The actor who I kept coming back to was, Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It was interesting seeing him in TDKR.
I do not know, if he is up and coming, at the tender age of 31. I think he was misused, in this movie. There was sooo much potential, they could of done something where, he wore the suit, while batman was hurt. It kind of seems like it was wasted.
I think they still can if they choose to.
If they want to try to keep any of this going, I think that's where they have to go.
I meant in terms of his development as an actor. I know he has been in several movies but aside from his role in Inception and 50/50 (which i haven't seen yet), he has yet to play a major role in a big movie. Regardless, I think he has the potential to play a lead in a great movie.
A "big movie" and a "great movie" aren't always the same thing. I keep seeing the trailers for Looper and Premium Rush every time I am at the movies. He is the lead in both those movies. Maybe those will be big movies.
I've heard the plot is from "Tale of Two Cities" and influenced by Prince and the City and The Battle of Algiers.