Movie-Specific : The Dark Knight Rises

[jess87]

I didn't like Batman Begins at all, but I enjoyed The Dark Knight. From the trailer, this new Batman film looks like another weak one.

I think Batman Returns will always be the best one, in my opinion.

[Spunkie]

Miller's "Dark Knight" always struck me as really lame, and that seems to be the only Batman people think of any more. Nolan's movies were OK, but only because he's a great filmmaker, and not because of the source material.

Miller's version isn't big on me, but add Moore's Killing Joke and Morrison's Arkham Asylum and I can't perceive Batman as the Batman&Robin silly pulp anymore.

[Stewball]

What I hope - what I dearly hope for this movie - is that the political commentary obvious in the trailer is not bombasatically shoehorned into the film.....The last thing Dark Knight Rises needs to be is a 99%er rallying cry. It just needs to be a good movie.

Who said anything about the 99%ers? I assume you're talking about Catwoman's whispered comment. But given that she's the 99%ers apparent heroine bitch, wouldn't that put another slant on it completely. IMNTBHO, a good movie ALWAYS has something of import to say, and I think (trusting as I do in Nolan) this one will do the same. Perhaps we may key on Alfred for his voice of prophesy here just as he did in the DK when he stated most succinctly that, "Some people just want to watch the World burn"--an adage that appears to be still well ahead of its time.

[ShogunRua]

I think Batman Returns will always be the best one, in my opinion.

Yeah, that one was really cool. I loved the style and flavor of Burton's Batman films.

Miller's version isn't big on me, but add Moore's Killing Joke and Morrison's Arkham Asylum and I can't perceive Batman as the Batman&Robin silly pulp anymore.

I've never read the Miller one, but I did read Moore's "The Killing Joke" and absolutely despised it. To me, it underscored just how stupid and silly Batman is.

The Joker maims Commission Gordon's daughter, abducts and tortures him, and yet, neither he nor Batman are willing to kill or harm him in any way? 3rd grade rationalization aside ("we have to show him we're better than he is!"), it's stupid, and shows the disconnect between how goofy and stupid Batman is at his core, and how dead-serious and grim the comic was pushing him to be.

[Spunkie]

I think Batman Returns will always be the best one, in my opinion.

Yeah, that one was really cool. I loved the style and flavor of Burton's Batman films.

Miller's version isn't big on me, but add Moore's Killing Joke and Morrison's Arkham Asylum and I can't perceive Batman as the Batman&Robin silly pulp anymore.

I've never read the Miller one, but I did read Moore's "The Killing Joke" and absolutely despised it. To me, it underscored just how stupid and silly Batman is.

The Joker maims Commission Gordon's daughter, abducts and tortures him, and yet, neither he nor Batman are willing to kill or harm him in any way? 3rd grade rationalization aside ("we have to show him we're better than he is!"), it's stupid, and shows the disconnect between how goofy and stupid Batman is at his core, and how dead-serious and grim the comic was pushing him to be.

I read the very same lines as the complete inverse of what you claim. Batman's sense of justice is of course ridiculous and only a cloak he wears on his own madness, he's as psychopathic as the villains. "We'll go by the book." is the characters rationale, not the comics. Just check last two pages, Joker tells his joke, Batman gives into the madness and ends up throating Joker with an imaginary white line between them.

[Anomaly1]

It seems even people who don't really like Nolan's Batman movies think The Dark Knight is the best of them so far, while I had the opposite reaction. I had enjoyed Batman Begins and went into the theater expecting a continuation of that, and perhaps that was the wrong thing to expect going in, because the sequel was completely tonally different. Yes, Batman is a pretty damn ridiculous character, and yes I think the push for realism/"grittiness" is cinema these days is annoying, but what Batman Begins sold me on was creating a fully-realized world that would completely support having such a ridiculous character - it effectively suspended my disbelief. We had establishing shots of Gotham, scenes in the Narrows, scenes at Arkham Asylum, and following Batman's expeditions around the world established a rich variety of locations and Nolan's skill behind the camera brought it all together, resulting in a cohesive and enticing atmosphere.

The Dark Knight begins immediately with the Joker's plot, ignoring the ongoing chaos in the Narrows - hell so little carries over from the first film that it might as well be a completely separate entity. And while it would be redundant to world build in a series after that's already been done, the complete disregard for what was previously established is jarring. It doesn't feel like a fully realized Gotham anymore, it just feels like Chicago, they don't even try to hide it anymore. The constant moving-forward pacing doesn't help as there's no time to breath or rest from the constant going-ons. And without the world to support the character, the more blatantly unrealistic and absurd parts start becoming more obvious. Reconstructing a bullet? Cell Phone radar? It's to such a point that it begins to make me question the more outlandish elements of the first film, even if I thought it had pulled them off well. By the end we rush through two villains and it feels like we haven't given them the right amount of time.

I still enjoyed the action sequences and acting, but I left the theater a bit disappointed. And it sounds like The Dark Knight Rises will continue in the vein - it apparently takes place 7 years after the ending of the previous film, so it seems like it'll be just as disconnected, although a little less jarring due to the obvious shift in time.

I think I should give Burton's Batman films another shot - I enjoyed them at the time, but I think now I would enjoy them more for not shying away from the character's inherent absurdity, and instead creating a world to support that. I think if I watched The Dark Knight again the entire house of cards would collapse and I would not find enjoyment in it. We'll see what Nolan does with the third one.

[shebang]

^ I agree with everything you said. To me it seems that Begins was by far the better structured, whereas TDK relied on the constant-climax mode and Ledger's performance. I too am afraid to go back to the second because I really enjoyed it in the cinema and suspect that it's going to be long periods of lameness punctuated by the Joker watching it at home. As much everyone derided Katie Holmes I recollect Maggie Gyllenhaal being even worse. Oh and remember that Swat guy who points out everything that's happening during the chase sequence? Almost ruined that scene for me at the time. In Begins there were a couple of those kind of moments - the water system old guy for instance - but in TDK there were about ten or so. It seems the more Nolan gets into the action genre the more his cheesy Michael Bay-admiring side comes out. As it stands I have TDK ranked higher than Begins simply because I was more bowled over on the first viewing, yet I'd more inclined to rewatch the latter.

Also you should definitely go back to the Burton films. They are both incredibly kitschy and the first is dated with the Prince soundtrack but they are still enjoyable. Like that other guy I think Returns is the best Batman film so far.

[Anomaly1]

Oh and remember that Swat guy who points out everything that's happening during the chase sequence? Almost ruined that scene for me at the time. In Begins there were a couple of those kind of moments - the water system old guy for instance - but in TDK there were about ten or so. It seems the more Nolan gets into the action genre the more his cheesy Michael Bay-admiring side comes out.

Oh yeah, I'm remembering those characters now. What about that cop guy who shouted "Mount the curb!" before driving on the sidewalk? That made me and my friends laugh, it was just so absurd.

And yeah I'll get back to watching the old Burton films, I just have tons of other films to watch first.

[ayall]

I'm not so much surprised as I am saddened to read some of the responses.

I understand that opinions vary, but to compare Tim Burton's Batman to ether of Nolan's Batman's is rather insulting to Nolan. In my mind, it's like comparing a sappy romance novel to a book like catcher in the rye.
I realize some people (many) love trashy romance novels, and I realize some people don't like the catcher in the rye. Regardless, I think it's obvious to both parties which is a superior work of art.

While I really enjoyed Burton's Batman(Score - 85 Tier 9), it's not even comparable to Nolan's Batman (Begins - 90 Tier 10, DTK 94 - Tier 10).

I felt that Nolan's script/story was far superior to Burton's(i realize Burton didn't credit himself in writing it (though Bob Kane was involved in the writing of both Batmans)).
I also felt the details Nolan put into his Batman movies were far beyond that of Burtons Batman.

Maybe it's the changing of the times and the advantage of CGI, but when i re-watch the 1989 Batman preview, it looks like a low budget made for TV-movie.

While some may not find Nolans Scripts/Story perfect, i'd argue that it's rather close compared to that of the cheesy Burton film.
Set Design, Dialog, Makeup, Acting... all superior in Nolans film compared to Burtons.


As I had stated previously, i'm rather pleased by Nolans work as I felt he finally brought a respectable Batman Comic Book Super Hero to the Screen.
Can't wait to see Dark Knight Rises.

[ShogunRua]

I'm not so much surprised as I am saddened to read some of the responses.

I understand that opinions vary, but to compare Tim Burton's Batman to ether of Nolan's Batman's is rather insulting to Nolan.

I would say that comparing either of Burton's Batman flicks to the shit that was "Batman Begins" is extremely insulting to Burton.

In my mind, it's like comparing a sappy romance novel to a book like catcher in the rye.

Come on, dude. This is a really stupid comparison, and you know better.

Both Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman, regardless of what you think of either, are mass-produced, popcorn blockbusters. They're simple-minded films meant to appeal primarily to kids.

They're pure entertainment pictures. They have little in the way of ideas and intelligence, and are all riddled with dozens of basic plot holes.

Comparing any Batman film, by Burton or Nolan, to a piece of great art like "Catcher in the Rye" is plain ridiculous. You're like someone seriously and un-ironically comparing Bugs Bunny cartoons to works by Bergman or Truffaut. The only conclusions I can draw are that you don't like reading very much, nor do you watch many classic films.

If you're going to compare Burton and Nolan's pictures to anything, it should be pulpy crime books for 8 year old boys, which, after all, is what Batman was based on...

While some may not find Nolans Scripts/Story perfect, i'd argue that it's rather close compared to that of the cheesy Burton film.
Set Design, Dialog, Makeup, Acting... all superior in Nolans film compared to Burtons.

The reason so many people like the Burton films, and certainly prefer them to the crap that was "Batman Begins", is because they were funnier. They didn't take themselves seriously. They played the plot with a wink and a nod. They didn't have pretensions of being a serious movie while being every bit as idiotic and full of plot holes as any other Batman media.

You know, the story about a billionaire dressing up at night as an animal, who refuses to carry a gun, while fighting various other costumed clowns?