The Dark Knight Rises **WITH SPOILERS**

Octavian wrote: Also, does anyone wonder what the Joker's cameo would have been like had Ledger not died? I half expect he'd have been the judge rather than Scarecrow.

This is assuming that Rises as it is now would have ever been made instead of using the Joker as the main villain again.

QPCloudy wrote: This was the PERFECT end to an amazing trilogy. Best ever? Maybe not BEST, but at least in a tie for number 1. All three films that is. I really don't think you can pick one Dark Knight film over another. All three films combined form a fantastic story.

You can easily, The Dark Knight dwarfs Begins and Rises in both storytelling and performance.

OK, I saw it so I can come in here now.

First off, all you naysaying, joy-destroying nattering nerds should be ashamed of yourself. This film was as good as any other genre film ever made, and to sit and nitpick a film like this across lines that indicate that you somehow missed that you were watching a film about a guy in a bat costume is a fool's errand. One of the most thrilling, daring, and inventive things about all three of these films is how dangerously they toe the line between realistic plausibility and comic book impossibility. All while telling a comprehensive Batman story that works in a larger cultural context that speaks about the times in which these films were made.

Some of the negatives I've seen here and elsewhere are ridiculous. "Not enough Batman". Are you kidding? Batman was in every single frame of the film. His _presence_ was what mattered, not Christian Bale in a cowl patty-caking goons. The point is that who "rises" in the film is as much the regular people- Jim Gordon, Robin, Selina Kyle- as it is Batman.

Of course there are contrivances. But once you start getting into the "why didn't X happen" or "how could Y happen"...you may as well check out of the movie. I do it sometimes too, everybody does. But you're not too far off from the Comic Book Guy with his dot matrix printout of technical inaccuracies in the Hunt for Red October at that point.

The whole film was exhilirating, start to finish. There was enough material for it to be a full season of a TV show but the incredible editing and storytelling brought everything in on time, and the last 45 minutes were as flawless an action film as I've ever seen. I cried when the kid on the bus yelled "hey look, Batman!"

I just about cried too when Batman and Catwoman were fighting together. And when Jim Gordon was watching the footage of Batman on the TV in his hospital room. And when Talia was revealed, because that was just so bad ass. I figured out that she was in cahoots with Bane and the Leage, but for some stupid reason I didn't have her pegged as Talia.

Robin...what a fucking revelation. THAT'S how you do Robin- literally Bruce Wayne's "ward"- and not have it be some kind of slightly creepy thing. I wanted to see him suit up SO GOD DAMNED BAD at the end.

Anne Hathaway, perfect. I could have used more scenes of her in evening wear, though. Catwoman is a tricky character, she can go camp VERY easily. She didn't. They never even called her Catwoman. I was thinking that Marion Cotillard would have been better,but now seeing who she was and how perfectly Hathaway performed, I can't imagine it any other way.

Bane, dead on. Better than any other Bane I've seen. They did the right thing by taking away the Luchador mask and the venom. He was scary, and GOOD GOD Tom Hardy is big. I LOVED how cranked up his voice was, and how theatrical he was. He was not a dumb brute, true to the established character.

The best casting in the entire series of films, Joker notwithstanding, is Gary Oldman. He owns Jim Gordon.

I loved everything about the film, but there were some clunky dialogue bits (the guy explains the entire Clean Slate thing while fighting Selina...now that's TRASH writing). I actually wish that it had been a little longer.

Having the whole Chris Nolan Batman to assess now, I'd definitely say that the series is up there with Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, and Star Wars in my "favorite movies of all time". It's such a massive statement about the character, how the character works,and what the character means. Avengers might be fun and cool, but I doubt it'll be as heavy, resonant, or lasting as these movies will be.

I drove up from San Diego to Pasadena, and then drove out with our son sleeping at my parents' house to see a 10:45 pm showing at a REAL IMAX theater 45 minutes away.

Totally. Worth it.

Definitely if not for Heath Ledger, this one would easily be the best of the three. As is, it's still probably the best of the three. Anne Hathaway was incredible, both because the character was written well and the acting was great. This was the only time I've ever liked Bane in anything ever, and the scary teeth mouth mask should be his new standard mask. This was the only one of the three where FINALLY the action wasn't edited to completely unfollowable ADD rapid cuts (okay, Dark Knight wasn't 1/10th as bad as Batman Begins in this respect). Thank fucking GOD there was finally a Nolan Batman movie with truly rousing, hopeful scenes. I cried, though not as much as Barnes.

Had a really hard time understanding a lot of lines of dialogue, though. Definitely needed better enunciation, Bane's distortion obviously didn't help.

I COMPLETELY disagree with Barnes about "that's how you do Robin". You do Robin as Robin; that guy was done well, but he wasn't Robin. Robin's whole dramatic purpose is to give Batman a family, and to shine some light into Batman's life. That is how it always has been, and I think Robin fits just fine in the Batman mythos. I couldn't really care less whether it makes Batman seem a little gay. I was fine with these films not having Robin, enjoyed "Robin" in this movie, but I just have to call bullshit on Barnes' statement there.

I haven't and won't read this thread, but people are bitching about a lack of Batman? What? EVERY time Batman appears and that theme roars onto the soundtrack, I got the biggest fucking smile on my face. I didn't count screen minutes of Batman, but maybe the fact that he had fewer screen minutes or something made it so that every time he WAS on screen, it was ridiculously exhilirating and I wanted to cheer at the damn screen. I never really appreciated how awesome that new theme is until this one (still not up to the Elfman theme, but whatever), and I think that's because it was used only at the absolute most awesome "Batman is HERE to save the day" moments.

See it in REEEEEEEEEEEALLLLLL not fake IMAX if you remotely can. I was skeptical about the advantages of real IMAX over fake IMAX before, I am no longer skeptical at all, worth the three hour each-way trip.

(I should also mention that I didn't have the highest hopes for it. I actively dislike Batman Begins, I feel like the Dark Knight is great almost by accident, I strongly prefer the animated interpretation of Batman to Nolan's, and generally dislike most trends toward "realistic" superheroes, preferring fun, bright and silly to dark and serious. But I loved it.)

Dont' miss read me Stout- I love Robin in general. I love Dick Grayson, I love Tim Drake, I love Carrie Kelly, I love...well, I like Jason Todd. And Damian Wayne is definitely compelling. It is important that Batman have Robin for a number of reasons that have been thoroughly explored in many books.

My point is that in the "reality plus" concept of Nolan's films, the traditional Robin-as-ward thing would be a little creepy. Robin is a problematic character to mainstream audiences, unfortunately. It's hard to get out from under Burt Ward...and the last Batman & Robin movie.

But what they did was smart in the context of the Nolan-verse. I agree with you- let Robin be Robin, pixie boots and all. But that simply wouldn't work in these films.

Even though the "Dark Knight" trilogy is over, does anyone think we'll see another Nolan Robin or some other film? We know they're going to re-do Batman again anyhow to fit into the Justice League film, but I'm talking Nolan. That closing scene with Robin left me hopeful.

Once you get the JLA into it, you're really opening up a lot of things that don't work in the Nolan setting. Amazons. Atlantis. Martians. Not to mention the kinds of threats the JLA deals with- Starro, Darkseid, Hyperclan, Morgana Le Fay, etc. Magic, aliens, giant monsters. None of that is really right for these movies, and I think it was wise to avoid nodding at all to the larger DC universe in these films as would have been done if it were a Marvel film. The Gotham Rogues could have been playing Metropolis or Keystone City. I'm glad that they weren't.

The right way to do it would be for them to do a ground-up Batman that's more in line with the silver age concept. Something that introduces these more extreme, unrealistic elements up front without ambiguity. A different costume, different actors...and a different director.

Nolan has said no to more, but that ending...definitely a "never say never again" opening there.

Just misinterpreted you then, Barnes, I totally agree that in the context of the Nolan films the traditional Robin would not have fit.

I hope beyond hope that Nolan will not continue the series (and it also seems highly unlikely). Sorry, but Batman without Bruce Wayne is something I am completely uninterested in, especially someone as comparatively bland as this Robin.

It's funny because I felt like that too- no Batman without Bruce Wayne- until just recently, reading recent post "death" Batman books. Dick Grayson as Batman totally works, but he is a different character carrying on the mantle and that's part of what makes it interesting.

Batman without Bruce Wayne is definitely alluded to in the Spartacus-like statement he makes about wearing the mask- that anybody could be Batman.

Michael Barnes wrote: Nolan has said no to more, but that ending...definitely a "never say never again" opening there.

Maybe it was just a way to leave it open if the studio wanted to continue making the movies with a different director, and maybe Nolan as producer.