The Dark Knight Rises **WITH SPOILERS**

When that unicorn made an appearance I was sure Tom Cruise was going to show up walking in slow motion through a waterfall of rose petals with a heavy ballad by Tangerine Dream playing in the background. It was quite surreal.

Funny enough, it actually was footage from Legend. The director's cut has that piece to tie into the unicorn origami that Gaff leaves, the meaning of which is ambiguous in that version but is pretty much spelled out by the narration in the original theatrical version.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is very different- the film is more complementary, I think, than a retelling of the same story. Definitely similar, but there are some notable differences. That said, there's a lot of things in the film that are supplemented by reading the book, like the business with the fake animals, the fact that the Earth is underpopulated because everyone is leaving (hence the loneliness).

Anyway, it is my favorite film of all time. I have to say that not much could have made a bigger impression on me when I was seven years old than that movie. I remember laying in bed at night thinking about stuff from that movie when I was small.

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

He's the best Gordon yet, but he's also the first Gordon we got that wasn't fat, old, and useless. Oldman does a good job with the role; he's a great "character actor," and it's a very "character actor" sort of part, but I think the writing is mostly why Gordon comes off so well in this triology (when he's actually used, that is).

Me, I've always been dissatisfied with Gordon in the Nolan pictures. I wanted to see the Gordon from Batman: Year One. That's how you do that character. He's intelligent, capable, definitely not a man to be fucked with, but also as deeply flawed and tortured as Batman. Compared to that Gordon, Oldman is a milquetoast. And no, I don't think that's asking too much from the films, because they yanked plenty of other material from Year One in the new series.

Also, Gordon pre-white hair should have been a ginger.

And so should R.P. McMurphy GODDAMNIT!

I see what you're saying, I just re-read Year One last week and that is definitely more of a "man of action" Jim Gordon. He's a bad ass. But come on, he's in the shit enough in the films between faking his death and participating in the resistance. He's also older, it isn't hard to imagine that he could have been the same kind of character as his BYO persona back in the day.

I really liked the recent Detective Comics backup story about his murderous son...it REALLY gets into the flawed, tortured Gordon.

"Triology"...I swear, this thread has the BEST typos ever. I've actually started saying "Catwomen" instead of "Catwoman".

Anyway, the single greatest Gary Oldman moment of all time?


EVERYONNNNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!

he moves with out a sound though. and they say he kills with out emotion, and even disappears without a trace. good film

Blade Runner is probably my favorite film. I read Do Androids after it. In my view it's a good example of how to adapt a book to film. Take some of the raw ideas and adapt them rather than going 50/50 on being true to the book. Another film that does this well is Apocalypse now. It captures the feel of Heart of Darkness, but you cant really compare it to the book on artistic merit.

I've just got back from seeing DK Rises and i was impressed. It could almost be a direct sequel to the first film.

I'm not sure they're the best trilogy ever. I think they're three good films but they are two similar to each other to deliver and trilogy narrative imo. Each film asks very similar questions of the viewer and Batman; Is Gotham worth saving, what must Batman sacrifice / become to save it, is vigilantism actually a solution etc? I don't like the two later LOTR movies because i think they lack magic have some dumb dialogue and are drawn out in areas they don't need to be and lacking in others. But as a trilogy each film has a more distinct narrative than the batman movies. The latest film and the first have very very similar plot lines and twists.

It occurred to me that the Batman movies could make a good board game. Essentially you have two players, Batman and his nemesis fighting for the soul and survival of Gotham and using their various resources to try and trap each other / slog it out. It would be hard to do well but if you could some how equip the players with the resources the two characters have and create Gotham both as the object they fight for and the unruly mass that it is you could get a very engaging game. Good luck getting the rights though.

Michael Barnes wrote: Anyway, the single greatest Gary Oldman moment of all time?


EVERYONNNNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!

That's terrifying.

Just got back from seeing it. It's late. Some thoughts.

-it was a good film, but not a great one. Weakest of the three for me. Why? Plot holes you could drive a bus through, uneven pacing and, I felt, a lack of wider questions to examine. It felt like most superhero films - big, dumb, often exciting, I've come to expect better of Nolan, and of Batman generally.

- what wider questions it did offer seemed overtly political, and I didn't like their tone at all. I suspect this may have been an accident. If so it just highlights how poorly that aspect of the film was considered.

- Bane was superb. I don't like the character in the comics, he's far too regulation bad guy and I was disappointd when I learned he was going to be in this. But it was realised brilliantly. The opposite of the Joker but equally mad.

- Ditto catwoman.

- The climax was also brilliant. Absolutely thrilling stuff peppered with important emotional outlets. And probably the best "end but left open for a reboot" ever, concluding the film in a satisfying way without feeling for a moment that the audience is being manipulated into accepting the possibility of sequels.

- I didn't quite get Alfred's vision at the cafe. My understanding was that the autopilot fix signified tht Bruce had *chosen* to die and that Alfred was dreaming, but that it was presented in such a way that it was left open to interpretation that the autopilot saved Bruce and Alfred was seeing the real thing the way you guys - and most others - are talking about it, the autopilot fix was conclusive evidence that Bruce survived and met Alfred at the cafe. I hope you're all wrong. Not only do I prefer the more macabre ending for reasons I can't be bothered to go in to, but I though leaving it open to interpretation was a clever and skilled way to end the film.

i think the ending is left to be a little ambiguous deliberately. The problem with it being Alfred's imagination is that there's no pretext for it in the film. In that every strange and weird thing or vision that happens in the trilogy prior to that point is real. So then to have a character see something and it not be real would be a slight change of rules by the director. Nolan does the same thing at the end of Inception, but in this film there is a big question over what is real and what isn't. This context doesn't exist in Batman.

What did you feel the plot holes were? I did pick up on some of the political aspects of the film. It seemed to be trying to riff off the global feeling about the banking system and rich oppression of the poor etc a little.

DukeofChutney wrote: i think the ending is left to be a little ambiguous deliberately. The problem with it being Alfred's imagination is that there's no pretext for it in the film.

But there is. Bruce dreams of Ra's Al Ghul in the prison. In previous films there have been other hallucinogenic or dream sequences. And besides I don't think you necessarily have to have a pretext for that sort of material. Alfred is a sad and bitter old man by that point in the film - why should he not be falling into daydreams?

DukeofChutney wrote: What did you feel the plot holes were? I did pick up on some of the political aspects of the film. It seemed to be trying to riff off the global feeling about the banking system and rich oppression of the poor etc a little.

Perhaps plot holes is the wrong word. Perhaps it just stretched the inevitable silliness you get in action and superhero films over the limit. Perhaps the plot and characters simply weren't compelling enough to maintain the suspension of disbelief. I'm think of the sort of "why" questions Micheal was alluding to: why did Bane never check on Bruce in prison? Why were his previously obedient henchmen in the prison helping Bruce get well? How did Bane acquire a small army of thugs loyal enough to follow him to inevitable death? I could go on but it's pointless.

You shouldn't have to ask these questions. But the fact you do is a weakness in the film. When Bruce was hoisted to his feet in the prison most of the audience laughed. At a moment of what should have been great pain and pathos, people were laughing at the absurdity of it. Whatever the reason, that's pushed the boundaries too far.

As far as the politics go, yes, there were allusions to the banking crisis. And the film seemed to be saying that the anger of the mob is never justified, simply because they're the mob. It also seemed to suggest that no extension of law and order is inexcusable in the interests of maintaining stability. Those aren't messages that sit well with me, politically.

I really liked the film, but I have some complaints.

I thought the mob was a mixture of the plot hole and political hole. Once the state was out of the picture, the people just regressed to a mob of vengeful, blood thirsty thieves and psychopaths. I'm referring in particular to the show trials. Those scenes were especially absurd. If the state was neutralized like that in real life, I'd like to think that people would organize networks of mutual support while the state is off line. Sure there would be some looting and chaos, but IMO the vast majority of people try to take care of each other in times of crisis. They could have put that in the film (in fact it would have been cool if there was even some bit of conflict/tension between 'the people' and Bane)

That said, what bugged me more was that the comic book unreality seemed too sloppy/ridiculous:
-bruce wayne's various miraculous feats of healing --rebuilding knee joints and spines virtually overnight as though he was wolverine.
-how the hell did he get all the way back from the middle east virtually overnight with just some rags on his back?
-the bomb which gets more unstable with each passing minute gets knocked around like a billiard ball in the last two minutes but doesn't blow.
-the pause for dramatic monologues and tender kisses when the bomb is going to blow in less than 2 minutes, then the miraculous flight out of the city in seconds despite the difficulty of getting off the ground
-why didn't they use the batman gear when batman was in the hole?
-i think bane should have come closer to beating him up in the final scene
-no chemistry between catwoman and batman
-totally unconvincing and lame split between bruce wayne and alfred.
-etc

Conclusion:

Regardless of the above I had a blast. It was a fun ride, and I liked the twist at the end about who the kid was. Bane was awesome.

I got around to seeing it (in full gnarly IMAX) earlier this week. I was pretty unimpressed. It wasn't terrible, but it just wasn't all that good for me. I think I like it least of the three, although I haven't watched the others in years.

I share a lot of the same reasons as folks above but mainly one big one:

What are they doing standing around in Gotham for five months? Proving a point? FIVE MONTHS. What the fuck was the point of that plan, other than "Get well, Batman"? You have a bomb, it has a trigger. You could blow it up now, or wait for 150 days for something to get in your way. Which is the correct plan for a genius mastermind villain (or two)?

Also, it's important to note that the smartest crimefighter ever, when confronted with a dude with a mask made of metal tubes stuck to his head, needs two fights to figure out "hit him in the fucking face." That was the Bat-strategy. Hit him in the face. Turns out that thing's not just a fashion accessory.

I've never liked Bane, but I think I prefer the roid-raged luchador over the hipster coat and tarantula-face.

I'm going back to my policy of not watching comic book movies anymore. Even when they're at their best, they're still just sort of depressing to me.

i politically disagree with the film too Matt. I tend to set the bar of expectation in superhero films very very low, since i can count the superhero movies i like on my hands. So i don't expect the world to hold together much. With Sci Fi im the opposite, i expect a realistic portrayal of the universe and the characters in it, hence my low view of Prometheus.

The main thing that struck me as odd was the issue with the rope holding him back in the jump. When he makes the jump he fails with the rope because he needs to fear death. But as far as i could tell, the rope wasn't actually long enough for him to possibly make the jump with it tied around him. Maybe i didn't see it quite right, but it struck me as very odd. Actually also the police coming out of a hole where they have been for days and looking pretty fresh.

DukeofChutney wrote: But as far as i could tell, the rope wasn't actually long enough for him to possibly make the jump with it tied around him. Maybe i didn't see it quite right, but it struck me as very odd.

I thought that was the problem at first too, until the 'fear' thing was explained.

DukeofChutney wrote: Actually also the police coming out of a hole where they have been for days and looking pretty fresh.

Months! They get trapped down there in the initial capture of Gotham, then aren't let out until the bomb is about to go off.

I hope I look that good after five months in a subway tunnel with only the uniform on my back and a thousand of my buddies in the same predicament. Good thing Robin tied some saltines to a string or something, I guess.

I just assumed the rope weighed them down. Although mjl (I think) mentioned that maybe getting a running start might have helped. I wasn't sure why the great jump was even necessary, it seemed like climbing the wall did just fine.

On the political issue, I think there has been some misinterpretation here and elsewhere. The film doesn't suggest that popular uprising and rebellion is wrong, it suggests that revolution and resistance is often co-opted by demagogic leaders as well as people that have no agenda other than making trouble and relishing in violence. You can see this in how some of the Occupy stuff went down, moving from a potential middle-class revolt to something attracting the fucking drum circle dropouts and other would-be anarchists without a duke of an idea of what the movement was specifically about other than a "society sucks" level of discourse. Bane could be any would-be dictator that has reached out to downtrodden or disenfranchised people. Selina is the revolutionary that realizes that violence and amorality aren't freedom.

The message to me is that resistance- whether it's against the banks, the 1%, or evil-minded despots- needs to be an organic movement driven by individual heroism and perseverance. Good people with a cause.

So I don't agree with some of the interpretation that there's a right wing/pro 1% message or whatever. At all.