Flawed and frustrating - The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Discussion

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I usually respect this guy but this time all he’s doing is recycling the same flawed and debunked hater talking points. Oh well I guess he can’t get it right all of the time

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

They weren't debunked, the Drinker's points still stand.

In any case, I don't care: Nolan is a vastly overrated director, Inception sucked, so did Interstellar, don't get me started on Dunkirk and Prestige, and I can't even be bothered to try Tenet. His only decent work was TDK.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Nolan is not overrated at all if anything he’s under appreciated. I have debunked every single complaint about TDKR as they are all rooted in ignorance and stupidity

Dunkirk is the only movie that he’s made that didn’t live up to standards

I hope you feel better now that I’ve laid all of your concerns to rest

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

You personally debunked TDKR being a bloated mess?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

It was never proven in the first place it was a bloated mess, how do you even define “bloated mess”?

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1859) 4 years ago

I've got not issues with Nolan as a director, it's his ability to write a compelling story which is the problem. Most of the issues against TDKR would be fine had it been set in a comic book visualisation of Gotham City like Burton's. There's nothing in the movie to make a distinction between real life and a fantasy world except the events taking place which I can't relate to because too much is unrealistic compared to the real world (am I rambling here?).

Inception was fine. Most of it was set in a dream world so hey, let's boot physics out the window. Interstellar is the reason why I won't see another Nolan movie in the cinema. Prestige would have been fine but why the f- did he have to edit the story putting some of the closing scenes right at the beginning?

reply

[–] davodikum (6007) 4 years ago

I recently rewatched batman begins and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I really liked how Gotham looked in the first movie.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I like the first two just fine. Sometimes I think I prefer Begins to TDK. Rises was not great.

reply

[–] davodikum (6007) 4 years ago

Begins has a better plot. TDK has lots of good scenes which to me feel in away disconnected. I think they are both good movies. They aren't great though.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

All 3 are great films, the franchise starts out strong and it only gets better as it goes forward. One of the only trilogies I can think of that is like that.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I tend to agree. The Joker stole the show and most of the rest of the movie is not great. Especially the love triangle.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Just watched this recently. The Drinker is always scathing, funny, and usually insightful. He nails down a lot of the problems with TDKR.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

He did a great job with the Star Wars sequels and Terminator: Dark Fate but he picked the wrong film to rip on this time. TDKR is about as flawless as a film can get.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

You and I disagree there. I think TDKR has some good stuff in there, but it's surrounded by some really atrocious storytelling and riddled with errors and plotholes.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Don't worry I have debunked all of this alleged "atrocious storytelling", "errors" and "plot holes". I'm glad I could lay your concerns to rest.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I have never seen or heard them "debunked" to my satisfaction, so you have settled nothing for me. As for concerns, it doesn't concern me in the slightest; a subpar film is no skin off my nose.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Well maybe you should pay attention next time , I’m just trying to help you . The fact remains that there is not a single legitimate complaint about TDKR out there that hasn’t been debunked, whether it was to your satisfaction or not is irrelevant

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

We've had this argument, it goes nowhere. I'm not having it again.

I think the movie is deeply flawed, you don't.

Let's just go our separate ways on this one.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop condescending and insulting everybody who disagrees with you on aesthetic points of personal taste. Calling everybody "kid", saying people just need to pay attention - it's really pedantic and comes off as nasty. Can't you just agree to disagree? Can't you just understand that people don't have the same taste as you without sniffing down your nose at them and calling them inferior all the time?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I’m not condescending at all, I just treat people the way they deserve to be treated. I’ve tried to help you understand this film but at this point if you don’t want to be educated there’s not much I can do

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

"I've tried to help you understand...if you don't want to be educated..."

That is condescending.

You treat people abominably, from what I have seen. You are always belittling and insulting them. You frequently call people "kid" and, directly or indirectly, claim they're stupid or inferior for not liking a movie you love.

That behaviour is mean-spirited, or at least comes off that way.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Well it isn’t, there are one or two people I attempted to give a wake up call, if they are going to pitch a fit over the way I tried to help them then that’s their loss

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

Can't tell if you're trolling or not. But you're such a fkn Karen that reading your comments is hilarious

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

It’s a shame you aren’t mentally capable of appreciating Nolan’s genius

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I personally would rate them like this.

Batman Begins 8.5\10. Great reboot the perfect way to reboot a film. Tell a new story without relying on nostalgia or cloning what has come before. Utilizing never before seen origin story and villains not seen in live action before. Solid atmosphere feels the most comic book out of the three. Only issue is the editing and fights are shot too close up and suffer from quick cuts and shaky cam. I get it for the dock scene but the other fights we need to see.

The Dark Knight 9.5\10. you do lose atmosphere but I feel it makes up for it in technical improvements. Much better shot action and a villain that's more potent with the joker. Ras was great but his appearance and mannerisms aren't as standout like a typical batman villain is. Joker fixes the theatricality issue by being a bit more exaggerated. Only issue is the bat voice is a bit over the top and I feel it's just a little too long. Otherwise masterpiece honestly.

The dark knight rises 7/10. Bane is more iconic than Ras not as iconic as Joker and terrific set pieces. However this movie moves at a snail's pace. We don't see Batman until 45 minutes in which is fine but after he appears it's like ok we are in the clear. Well then Bane beats him and the movie comes to a standstill again. I think if you had gotten rid of that old man stuff at the beginning I don't think it would be much of an issue. Still a competent film but honestly the least rewatchable of the three. The fights were always a bit sub par in this trilogy but it's very apparent in this one. The crowd charge scene is unrealistic. I like that it was a bunch of extras but yeah why weren't the tumblers weapons used on the crowd?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Pretty reasonable numbers.

I'd probably have Batman Begins at a 7 or 8, and The Dark Knight about the same.

My only issue with Batman Begins is that Rachel is played poorly by Katie Holmes. I didn't mind the action scenes' cinematography that much. Maybe a bit. I might have a few other nitpicks. You're right about the atmosphere. It's also well-paced, focused storytelling, and it brings out the nature of fear pretty well. Maybe not as well as Alien...

The Dark Knight has a lot of genius and a lot of strange choices. They traded up with Gyllenhaal, and the other performers bring the heat, too. Ledger, of course, but Eckhart as Harvey Dent gets too little credit. Bale's Bat-voice is subpar, but I can deal with it. The real glory here is the exploration of the nature of Batman. Dual identity is cross-referenced with his antithesis: the Clown Prince of Chaos. He's also juxtaposed with Dent (the White Knight), who is himself his own living compare/contrast as Two-Face. Then the idea of playing cards and coins and tricks - that's a cool motif. I do have some reservations, though. The schemes are...strange. Joker's plans require prophets to foretell events, plus idiot cops (the school bus with bits of bank all over it? Come on). So the plotting is spotty. The atmosphere also took a hit. Goodbye, Gotham; hello, generic glass-and-steel city...

Rises...is a mess. I'd give it a 5/10. Love the setup: recluse Wayne. I really like Catwoman. There are some good action pieces. But the plotholes, the messed up character motivations, the meandering plotlines that make the film drag on AND simultaneously make it unfocused...it's brutal. Nolan's got some good themes about being broken down and rebuilt, but...it's not handled as well as "fear" and "duality" were in the others, and it's burdened by such extensive problems.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I can actually agree with the Katie Holmes complaint. Everyone in Batman Begins was really well cast therefore she sticks out as the weak link. The action scenes did bother me honestly. Like I said I get the docks being tough to follow after all it was trying to make Batman seem like some form of entity that actually worked. However during other fights it is so close up and edited so quickly you can't tell what is going on. Watch the end fight on the train and it perfectly illustrates what I mean. Shaky cam, too close and edited too quickly.

In terms of casting I do think Maggie was an upgrade over Katie. The atmosphere changed but I do think you get more competently filmed action sequences. Now you can see what is happening in the fight scenes, which do not get me wrong are still not fantastic but at least they are sufficient. The bat voice while I can look past is a bit over the top in this film and in Rises.

Interesting thing about Rises is Catwoman>>>Rachael, Bane>>>Ras Al Ghul. Both are more iconic characters than anything in Batman Begins other than Batman himself but the script and story are just so unfocused and not tight. Batman Begins just had tighter pacing and had more energy. It goes for a slower more dramatic film, but you feel it's length. A better example of how to do this old man type of story in a better way is Logan. Logan is a dark depressing film, but in the end it is so much more thought out than TDKR was.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I understand why the action scenes in BB aren't brilliant (docks excepted), and yeah, the ones in the sequel are better.

The Bat voice isn't a big problem, but it wasn't that noticeable in BB. It only gets to be a problem when he's trying to say actual conversational lines with people. In BB, I think he says the most while SCREAMING at Flass, and that works like gangbusters because the voice would scare the dripping daylights out him. In The Dark Knight, though, he winds up having a brief philosophical argument with Joker and he just sounds goofy. "THIS CITY... just showed you... that it's full of people ready to believe in gooooooood."

Catwoman is one of the most interesting comic book characters because she's hard to pin down. She's bad, she's good, she's too complex for a quick, dismissive summary paragraph. Her relationship with Batman is so intriguing, too, that there are these two antagonists who fall in love despite themselves. I would have liked the movie to spend a lot more time building that up.

Logan is, in my opinion, the best comic book movie to date.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Even though the fights were never great at least they were competently shot and edited in the sequels.

I think the issue is when he isn't calm it gets out of hand. In BB if you notice a lot of the times he is calm when talking. In the batcave, when helping Gordon save Rachael etc. I agree that does sound goofy and too much. It doesn't ruin it but I think it's a bit much.

Well Catwoman is fun because she is morally gray, the relationship has a stronger dynamic than the hero thinking she is hot, or that she's a childhood friend. There is an edge to the relationship. It's honestly why I'm excited for Matt Reeves Batman. The reason I say that is I am getting my wish. That is that Catwoman is there right off the jump therefore she will pop up in a sequel. The issue with previous live action versions of Catwoman is it was only a one off each time. Burton and Nolan. Therefore you can't flesh her out as much as you could as if you had her in multiple entries. Zoe Kravitz I think can strike a great Catwoman that is truly fleshed out. More comic book like and fun visually. Almost like a fusion of Burton and Nolan's. I think it has tons of potential. I say this because I like Matt Reeves as a director a lot. Gothic tone is back which is awesome! Not to mention the cast and crew all seem spot on. Fingers crossed!

I can't say you are wrong Logan is truly great. If I had to give you my top picks for me in no order it's Superman the movie, Batman 1989, Spiderman 2, Sin City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Avengers, Xmen Days of Future Past, Logan, and Joker. Honestly sometimes I switch Batman Returns and Batman 1989. Just depends on the day. I'm not as big on Burton's Batman's as others but I can't deny what they pioneered. I also do have nostalgia with the the Burton films.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

The weirdest thing about his bat-voice, to me, is that he had a much better one before he was Batman. When he holds Gordon up with a stapler and communicates to him by an eerie whisper, I thought that was a good level of ominous mystery and vocal disguise to use. Then he started drinking whatever Tom Waits gargles every morning, and...you're right: the soft moments suck. Action scenes, threatening dialogue: all great.

Kravitz certainly looks the part. Has she been in anything? Can she act? I can't recall having seen her in anything...

Superman The Movie, Batman '89, et al... that's a good list. My tops are Logan and Joker, then I'd roll out some Burtonman ('89, Returns and/or both), Spiderman (1 or 2), and I'd find room for Dick Tracy. I kinda love Dick Tracy for the same reason I love Sin City, but I think DT actually did it better. I've got mad respect for Rodriguez and Co. on SC, though.

Watchmen's pretty good, too. Although, I do think Snyder bungled up the direction a bit. It's just missing that over-the-top edge, but because Moore and Gibbons did such a crackerjack job on the comics, even an imperfect translation still was great. Plus the cast rocked (Edward Morgan Blake set that bar HIGH for any remakes).

I didn't really like Days of Future Past. I know why people do, and the Quicksilver scene was outstanding, but overall I didn't get into it.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Yep I agree. When the voice is good I personally think Bale is a great Batman. Unfortunately the voice being a bit over the top drags it down for me a bit. Interesting thing is Keaton I have mixed feelings on. I do feel he nailed Batman's voice better but I am not into his Bruce Wayne. I always found the villains more interesting than Keaton's Batman. In BB I feel the scene I am no executioner was such a great underrated scene. In my book that is the best live action Bruce Wayne scene we have seen in a live action film. It to me represents everything Bruce is. Unafraid to challenge authority and will not be corrupted. However the best Batman/Bruce Wayne of them all is Kevin Connroy. I know animated but still. I feel the voice is perfect and he has enough mystique but also enough motivation to let you in that balances it perfectly.

Kravitz was in X-men First Class, and Mad Max Fury Road. Not super big roles but I think she can pull it off. She was also in Big Little Lies.

You rank Joker higher than I personally would. While I do think it is good I would put Logan and TDK above it. Same goes for Superman the movie and even Sin City. Joker to me is super derivative of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver. Now TDK is derivative of Heat but I feel it does more new things than Joker did. I think Joker's big claim to fame was it was in a comic book movie. You remove that and I think it loses a bit of it's relevance. I think Dick Tracy, Sin City, and Scott Pilgrim vs The World are the best at literally putting a comic book on the screen. I just like Sin City the best.

Watchmen is kind of a mixed bag for me. Overall I do enjoy it but there is a disconnect for me. I personally feel V For Vendetta and even Road to Perdition were better handled comic book adaptions. I love the themes Watchmen is going for I just do not feel it totally stuck the landing.

I like X-men Days of Future Past because the cast is charismatic. McAvoy turns in a great performance as Xavier.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I feel as if Endgame is getting praise for something X-men Days of Future Past did years prior and better. Time travel that makes more sense and combining the old and new cast was terrific. I feel Jlaw gives her best performance as Mystique in this one also. Flaws yes. Quicksilver could have been used to solve all of their problems but that does not bother me because this is how I see it. If you notice in every X-men film they find a way to nerf Xavier. X-men 1 they poison cerebro, X-men 2, Stryker uses telepath son Jason to nullify him, X-men 3 he gets killed by Phoenix, X-men First Class telepath Emma Frost nullifies his power, X-men Days of Future Past the drugs take away his power so he can walk, Logan his powers he can't control anymore. X-men Apocalypse Apocalypse nullifies his power, Dark Phoenix Phoenix nullifies his power. They have to nerf him or else the movies would be over in two seconds.

Kudos to the casting department with McAvoy and Fassbender. Stuart and Mckellen are some big shoes to fill and I feel they did it as good as you could have. Also the production and technical aspects were great in Days of Future Past. My issue with the other ones is I felt the technical aspects were always meh to competent. I feel as though this one did a great job being a visual treat while still having a great cast. I honestly feel the X-men series should have just had Logan after Days of Future Past and simply called it a day.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I bailed on the Avengers franchise after Ultron. I liked it, but I felt like they were just repeating themselves. I wound up seeing Infinity War and I thought it was kinda tedious. I haven't seen Endgame, so I can't directly comment, but I do feel like I wouldn't care much for it. I definitely think the MCU got crazy over-hyped at some point.

JLaw made a good Mystique.

I know they wind up needing to nerf Xavier all the time, it just always felt a little more "organic" than with Quicksilver. "Come with us, save the world! It'll take you literally three seconds." "Nah, I'm going to stay in my mom's basement." "...okay...?" There were other plot holes that I felt detracted from it a bit. Stuff like them taking far too dramatic actions to stop Mystique that, if you think about it for five seconds, would clearly accomplish the opposite of what they want. Or the portal power being able to lop off Sentinel limbs and disable them. It made the indomitable Sentinels seem vulnerable right off the hop, and to me I couldn't figure out why they weren't exploiting this excellent weapon. Kitty Pryde also manages to say awake for days (literally) or possibly weeks while constantly using an energy-draining time-travel power, but she doesn't pass out or die.

Look, I'm not going to pretend there aren't plotholes in my favourite action-adventure movies, but we've all got this: I can ignore them in certain movies and not in others for some unknown reason. You don't mind DoFP's, I don't mind the ones in (for example) Batman Returns (missile penguins!) and that's just us. So, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Your movie is stupid!" just that those plot holes bug me.

Overall, it is a cool movie, I was glad I watched it, and you're right: the cast are great. You're also right about the production values: it looked cool, and the post-apocalyptic setting and the '70s setting were great.

McAvoy and Fassbender were great. Fassbender's Nazi hunter scene in First Class was powerhouse.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

See I honestly did not care for Age of Ultron. I guess what bothers me is the MCU can make a very paint by numbers film and they for whatever reason get a free pass by fans or even critically. Captain Marvel was one of the most boring bland films I have ever seen. Now you look at X-men Apocalypse it was not a good film but it got critically panned but Captain Marvel a film I honestly felt was worse or at least just as bad got good reviews and I scratch my head like really?

I did think Jlaw made a good Mystique but unfortunately they started riding off her star power after DOFP. Beefing up her importance because of how popular Jlaw became after that. I do not like when that happens. Remember in First Class she was a nobody and then in DOFP her starpower started to build and then afterwards it was more about the actor than the character unfortunately.

I can see why those plot holes bother you. I guess for me I can forgive them as long as you hit the marks where you are supposed to. For instance Avatar is a film paint by numbers and is visually impressive. It might even have less plot holes than some other films but the cast is so bland and uncharismatic and the story so paint by numbers I can't enjoy it much. If you can have a charismatic cast, pretty visuals and an engaging story I am more willing to let plot holes slide.

Totally understand. I enjoy Batman Returns and that never bothered me but I can see how that bothered others. See it is funny with Batman 1989 and Returns because I feel in terms of production Batman Returns did age better than Batman 1989 did. Not that Batman 1989 aged badly but I do feel Returns aged better in that department. Only thing about Returns is it feels overly Tim Burtony without restraint. Batman 1989 does feel Tim Burton esque but with a bit more restraint.

Yes! I love Fassbender's nazi scenes in First Class. Truly great!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Age of Ultron felt like Avengers 1 again. I don't think that was bad, but I just felt like I'd gotten my Avengers experience already. If Avengers was an A, this was a B. Whedon's first film gave me a $200 million version of playing with action figures as a kid; that's what the optimum version of Avengers was - for me, anyway. AoU was that again, but it was a re-tread. The MCU was also doubling-down on this long-term story thing which sorta hurts storytelling short-term.

I agree 100%: MCU seems to get a pass from people regardless of quality. They have (and I respect this) found an action-comedy hybrid formula which works really well for them. Any one film is pretty cool, I just got bored of the same thing. It's a chain restaurant: quality is consistent, but I'd rather take a risk on some local dive diner and find a real gem than just get served the same thing every time.

I had fun watching Avatar; DoFP is waaaay better. Look, DoFP is a good movie, it's solid, and the Quicksilver scene is one of the most creative action scenes I'd watched in awhile. It's good stuff, but it's just not a top 10 superhero film for me personally.

Returns aged well, I agree, because Burton went nuts. He locked into it and made it his own. '89 was his movie, but the studio was more controlling. Once he made a jillion dollars for them, they let him play more. This is why I always was on-board with Ledger's casting as Joker. Nolan had earned studio trust, he's a great filmmaker, so I knew he wasn't just casting for "pretty boy box office". I trusted his judgement.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Avengers to me was the best kind of fanfiction you could have made. Never before had we seen heroes brought to the big screen team up to this scale. Xmen was the first team of superheroes ever done live action but the production and the overall feel did not feel like a kid's dream. Xmen they are all in the same outfit and Wolverine is really the only one who gets to shine in the action sequences. Also it had to introduce everyone therefore it felt a bit rushed. Avengers had the luxury of having everyone have their own film to do that. Everyone has a different outfit and truly gets to shine in their action sequence. It is truly a kids wet dream.

Yep MCU is exactly like a chain restaurant that is the perfect way to put it. They do not rise high but they do not dip low. They found that sweet spot. Safe and marketable. It is consistent but if you notice they do not allow their directors much creative freedom. They keep them on a conveyor belt. They look over their shoulders and are like hey Mr. director remember do not get away from the sweet spot. With Richard Donner, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer, Robert Rodriguez Christopher Nolan, James Mangold and Todd Phillips you can tell they got to actually have creative freedom. It shows because their movies standout more than an MCU film does. MCU films have a generic feel to them. I always said it felt more like a gigantic big budget tv show than a film.

At least you get why I enjoy DOFP even though we might disagree a tad. Charismatic cast, good visuals and engaging story makes me forgive things.

Yeah Nolan and Burton both kind of had the same thing happen. Once they gained the studio's trust they were allowed to give their vision without any studio interference.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

That's the perfect way of putting it. Not as a putdown, either, but Avengers was the best fanfic ever. Whedon 100% knew why I would be buying a ticket: to see the superhero mashup. Heck, the first comics to put superheroes together in crossover books had to be basically this fanboy wish-fulfillment anyway, right? Whedon just realised that impulse on-screen.

X-Men was a good movie, and it featured a team, but it was also focused on Wolverine. It was a team movie the way The Italian Job is a team movie. There's a whole crew at work there, but it's about Charlie Croker.

The best Avengers stuff was the battle moves where they'd combo powers. The best example might be Captain America using his shield to reflect Iron Man's repulsor rays onto swathes of bad guys.

The lack of creative freedom to directors is the big detraction from the MCU for me. Burton's Batman was unique and fun. In the MCU, he'd be homogenized. Imagine what Dr. Strange could have been if allowed its own vibe and aesthetic.

I get why you dig DOFP. It's not my bag, but I get why it's yours.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

The thing about Avengers was seeing a fanfic teamup like that done well was a dream come true. Problem is now I feel the novelty is gone. Been there done that. People wonder why I get burnt out on it and it's because it basically becomes a side scroller video game beatem up. It's a team of heroes and they have to fight some sort of cgi army. They have to do the fan service scene where all of them stand together and there is a panning shot showing all of them and they unite then lead a charge. It's awesome the first time but after that it loses its magic. You also get tired of the films becoming advertisements for the next film rather than telling an engaging story. It reminds me of the game rampage in the arcades yeah it's fun but as an adult after like two levels you realize it's the same thing over and over. Not enough change other than palette swaps.

Yep exactly the team up was so vastly different for xmen.

Exactly you proved my point perfectly. That was the fanboy in us, seeing how the heroes powers play off one another. Back in the day it was always a pipe dream having heroes ever teaming up like that.

Oh for me also. It feels like the mcu movies are made in an assembly line at a cookie factory. No real personality but they hit that sweet spot, safe and marketable.

I understand why you don't. I'm glad we can respectfully disagree.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Yes, yes! Fan service wears out fast, CGI armies, and most of all the fact that they're just ads for each other! All of that.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Keaton's best work to me is due to his stillness. Watching his Batman/Wayne, I always get the impression there are at *least* three layers I'm just not seeing; he's always at least a bit "hidden", which is very intriguing for The Bat. He says and does a lot even (or maybe especially) when he's doing and saying very little. His non-interaction upon first meeting Selena Kyle, for instance, or the way he glides into the party at Wayne manor in '89, sliding up to Vicki and Knox - aloof, glib...or is he...? That stuff shows off the multi-layered, deep approach Keaton brought to the role. With Bale, the script is more blunt and Bale gets to do more, yes, but he's also a little more transparent. Not a bad performance, but not the same limitless depths.

I'll never argue with a preference for Conroy. I mean, preference is personal, but Conroy delivers everything with just his voice - very impressive. But just because half of the role is "performed" by animators doesn't make it less powerful. TAS has the advantage of being able to stylize Batman and drench him in the night and make him a living shadow. It's a great take on the character. Plus (not unlike the Burton films) it has that classic, Art Deco vibe.

I'm on-board for The Batman; looks like a good film. Some people responded negatively to Kravitz's casting, but I think she's got the right vibe; I just haven't noted her in anything (though I have seen those films).

Logan's head-and-shoulders above Joker. Joker I respect its adult audience, the themes it digs into, and Phoenix's killer performance. I dig most of your choices and I can't fault 'em. I know what you mean with TDK, I just personally prefer some other films. I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim yet, but it's on my list.

V and Road to P are great, too, but I don't usually think of them as "comic book films". Particularly Road; it's a crime-thriller first. It's not the same as a "superhero" movie. Dick Tracy kind of is. V for Vendetta is. I kinda forgot about it...

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

That is a good point about Keaton. I still honestly prefer Bale as Bruce Wayne. Maybe I do like the more blunt approach in this aspect of the character. I guess to me nothing about Keaton seems playboy and suave. Bale I do get that vibe. Keaton's Wayne to me is more eccentric where as Bale's is more how I envision a real life Wayne would be. Keaton does have some mystery to him that Bale does not. I just guess that was always my problem though to me Wayne's motivations weren't so strong on why he wanted to stop crime. I feel Connroy's version has the best of everything. He is still mysterious but a bit more suave and playboy esque. Has a great voice and his motivations are very clear without taking away any of the mystique of Batman.

I think it is the best because it literally encompasses everything of Batman. You get the gothic vibe, the fantasy element, the psychology and even all his gadgets. The great thing is even though it has the fantasy over the top stuff it is still dark and gothic. See I think producers get scared of the fantasy elements of Batman because I think they are like ok if Robin is in it or Freeze it has to be campy. When in reality you can have all those things and still have it be dark. I feel with Nolan you get great scripts well the first two anyway but since it is more grounded in reality you lose the immersion. I feel with Burton you get more style but I personally think Nolan in the first two had tighter scripts. I feel with Burton it is style over substance not that his substance was bad just my opinion. I feel the animated series balances everything perfectly.

I like Kravitz for the role. For a few reasons, one she has a Selina Kyle esque look, and honestly Matt Reeves is a good director.

I agree with Logan. I get you yeah hey the world would be boring if we all agreed right?

Yeah you are right Road to Perdition does not feel like a comic book at all. Yeah V For Vendetta gets slept on a bit. I sometimes forget about it also.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I kinda liked eccentric Wayne. Playboy Wayne gets done a lot; I liked seeing an original take. Plus, he was a bit playboyish in his own way. I also really appreciated seeing his philanthropic side. He threw the charity in '89, then in Returns the real deal is the scene of him v. Schrek. We see Wayne use his money and influence to fight corruption, not just his Bat-fists. I like that.

Bale did a good job, it's a fine interpretation.

And, yes, TAS has an edge because it's got dozens of episodes. It can show us the playboy, then the mystery man, then the philanthropist. It gets to explore more, and that's beautiful. The comics have that advantage as well, of course.

The other advantage is that, as a cartoon, the suspension of disbelief is broader. Robin can co-exist in a gothic, moody world because red tights aren't as jarring in animation. It would have been hard to work him into Burton's world or Nolan's world and have him be true to the character and fit in. Not impossible, but...hard. You're right: Robin or Freeze don't mean camp. TAS also gets extra points for re-writing Freeze's backstory into the pathos-inspirational that we now all know and love.

V is basically the one time I'm not sure why Moore is so grumpy about it. I know he didn't watch it, but I've read the comics, and sure, it's not the same, but I think they got as much as they could into a two hour film. I know that lack of universal adaptation possibility is kinda Moore's point, but...yeah, I think it's pretty good.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

It was an original take. I guess like I said I just lean toward a more blunt approach.

Yeah I liked Bale's take.

Yep exactly it gets to explore all of it.

Yep that is why animation has an easier time doing certain things. Robin can be done but that outfit would need some work if you are going for dark and gritty.

V For Vendetta I love actually, it raises a lot of good questions most comic book movies do not.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

McAvoy is great. The whole cast of the X-Men films are usually great, even when I don't like the films. I liked most of the players in Apocalypse, I just felt they got saddled with an appalling script. DoFP wasn't bad, it just didn't resonate as much for me as for a lot of other people.

I get the so-so vibes of Watchmen. I do like it, though.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I understand that. Yeah Apocalypse has a good cast but honestly I think DOFP wrapped up that series perfectly, there was no reason to continue. If they had done X-men First Class, X-men Days of Future Past and then Logan boom you got a solid string of new flicks there. X-men First Class I feel gets slept on also, not without it's faults either but I feel it is a solid start to the new series.

Watchmen I do like but I honestly think with a better director it could been better than what it was. Good yes but it had potential to be truly great. Honestly though it is better than most the superhero junk that gets put out there though. At least some effort and creativity went into that film. I should revisit it. I love the unique angles it takes for superheroes.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I liked the first two X-Films, the third was just kinda bland, generic, action stuff. First Class was decent, DOFP was okay, Logan was terrific. Apocalypse was a severe mess.

Synder absolutely held Watchmen back. He knows how to colour inside the lines. He does that really well. So when you get something primal and basic like 300 that screams out for cool visuals and violence and not a whole lot else, Snyder's your guy every time. He knows from sequences, not plots, and he can present an aesthetic from soup-to-nuts, but don't ask him to use it to enhance character or theme.

Watchmen floats above for me because the storyline and the characters are great despite Snyder, not because of him. He held the film back from its full potential, but Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons made it sing so loud and bright that even a lackluster version is still pretty shiny; even an echo sings.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

This is my rating for the films. X-men 7/10, Xmen 2 8/10, Xmen 3 5/10, Xmen Origins Wolverine 3/10, The Wolverine 6/10, Xmen First Class 8/10, Xmen Days of Future Past 9/10. Xmen Apocalypse 5/10, Logan 9/10, Dark Phoenix 3/10.

Like you had mentioned earlier I honestly think Snyder could have worked great for the MCU. He is a director for hire that needs to be kept on a leash. He has style but good grief do not let him try and do narratives because if you do you get Sucker Punch. Tome he is kind of like a pretentious Michael Bay. Michael Bay sucks and is a director that has no substance but at least he is aware of that. Snyder thinks he is deep.

I can agree there.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I basically agree with you on X1, X2, and X3 - particularly if we're scaling with other action/superhero films (I'm not putting X2 at 8/10 if we're bell-curving with stuff like The Bicycle Thieves and 2001: A Space Odyssey).

I didn't see either Wolverine standalone movie.

First Class I'd probably say 7.5. DoFP would be a 6 or 7. Apocalypse was...whoo...3 or so.

Logan would be 10 or close to it. Logan would get a great ranking even if I wasn't bracketing it with superhero films.

Haven't seen Dark Phoenix, either.

Snyder would be an ideal MCU director, actually; totally agree. Sucker Punch was crazy. As a 2 hour music video it was superb. As a movie with a narrative, plot, characters, etc., it was super-lacking.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Okay if we are measuring it like totally as a film it would be different. Not many comic book movies hold up as great films if you scale it like that. 2001 a space odyssey would get a 10 I know no such thing as a perfect film but when you hit that many high marks you can get the 10. Tdk or logan and a few others are great films aside from being a good comic book film. X-men 2 is a solid comic book movie it isn't a great film though. Logan is a great film as is tdk.

Don't bother seeing them they aren't worth your time.

I agree Logan is great regardless of the genre you put it in. I feel same way for tdk. Also with Superman the movie. See to me in order for a comic book movie to be considered an excellent film it needs to excel in many areas. Such as music, production, technical aspects, characters and writing.

Definitely don't see dark phoenix. Yikes!

Yeah it was visually fun nothing else.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I do try to rate films partly based on what they're trying to do. It isn't fair to expect The Avengers to turn out an emotional punch on the level of Silence because it never tried to do that. That said, at the end of the day, if we're talking about pieces of art, ones that are supremely impactful should rule the day, regardless of intent.

I don't have plans to see a lot of superhero films. I'm curious about Into the Spiderverse right now, that's about it.

For me to think a comic book movie is a great film in-general, I'd have to want to recommend it to non-comic book people. I think I can say that people who just like weird movies would dig Batman Returns and people who love family dramas would actually kinda like Logan.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I agree with that. See ok let me say it this way. Sometimes a simplistic film can still be a great film. For instance let's compare mad max fury road and the avengers. Both have simplistic plots. Thing is I think mad max fury road is a better film simply for the fact that it excels at many things. Avengers does have a charismatic cast with the likes of people like rdj. However the technical aspects while competent are nothing exceptional. The big thing was ok it didn't screw up the team up and seeing those powers play off each other was cool.

Mad max fury road has stellar costume design, cinematography, editing, music and stellar practical effects and stunt work. The cast is also charismatic with Nux, Furiosa and Immortan Joe. Mad max goes beyond being a well made fan fiction film or a fun superhero film. It is more exemplary of the craft. Hope that makes clear why I consider fury road to be a better film.

Into the spider verse is great beyond that yeah you aren't missing out on anything really.

Yeah that is a fair way to put it. See but I also feel rewatch value plays a part also. For instance I think lotr is an amazing trilogy. It's literally so great because it's got revolutionary technical achievements but it's also fun to watch at any given time. A film such as Blade Runner is fantastic but I'm being honest not a movie I want to watch at any given moment. Once I've watched it, it takes me a while before I want to revisit it again. I have to be in the right mood. Where as films like back to the future, lotr, tdk, Logan or mad max fury road I can watch anytime. I'm not saying it by default makes them better just giving my two cents. Those films are why I go to the movies.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Fury Road told a story *physically* which was pretty unique. Plus they let you know the nature of the society (society feels more accurate than "civilization") Max encounters through use of costuming - no verbiage.

And, I would agree, Fury Road is the better movie, although both are very, very fun.

I have a similar theory about "rewatchability", but I think about it in terms of the parallel virtues of "art" and "fun". I say parallel because they aren't exclusive to one another. Lord of the Rings (as you say) is both. The Matrix is both. Requiem for a Dream is less fun, but definitely "art" (and well worth watching).

I usually refer to this as the "Get Back/ Eleanor Rigby Dichotomy". Eleanor Rigby is this elegant, sweeping story full of poetry and backed up by beautiful, articulate strings. Get Back is a fun rocker song. Eleanor Rigby is almost certainly more "artistic", but I'm *way* sooner to just throw on Get Back. So which is the "better" song? The more "advanced", poetic, and classically-inspired song? Or the fun one with the false ending and Billy's rockin' keys?

As long as a film is well-made and accomplishes what it wants to accomplish, I usually dig it. I don't have particular genres I stick to. I like rom-coms, horror films, sci-fi, and arthouse equally because it's the quality of the film itself I respond to. Fury Road does what it does REALLY well. So I dig it. X-Men 3 I find dull(er) because it's not an optimized superhero experience.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Yep both are very fun but mad max fury road simply achieved more.

Yep I agree. Is Requiem for a dream as fun as lotr or the matrix no but it still is a great film. Back to the future is a more fun movie than Godfather or Schindlers List. Does that mean Godather or Schindler's List isn't a good film? Nope but I can say this back to the future is a more accessible movie to a wider audience. It accomplished that while still having some lasting impact and artistic value. Now in the end those two other flicks have more artistic value but back to the future can still hold it's own. Similar to Star wars empire strikes back vs Blade Runner. Both great but empire is more accessible and fun. Easier to rewatch at any given time.

Quality transcends taste is what I say. I have genres I like more than others but I can appreciate any film if it's really well made. Like I loved the before trilogy those are great romance films! I say that and that's usually a genre I lean away from.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I know exactly what you mean.

Yes, some genres are more fun to the individual, but anything well-made is appreciated.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

I'm really enjoying your exchange.

Had to jump in to defend Sucker Punch. First, my bias is I detest Snyder's DCEU stuff but like most of the rest of his stuff.

Sucker Punch has the shell of a sexy music video but has a built in reason for it. It starts with our "main" character (in quotes for a reason*) getting a lobotomy. What we see is her death-dream flashback of the events that led there. The ultra-sexualization we see is due to the sexual abuse the girls endured in the orphanage. The outlandish sequences aren't just her coping with the horror of reality (which we catch glimpses of) but rather the editorializing of the subconscious in its final dream.
*The story that pans out is that of a secondary character. It is the perspective of a side character who sees the real hero of the story have a happy ending while suffering the often unseen consequences of the forgotten co-stars. It was a play on narrative perspective.

I actually respect Sucker Punch more than most of Snyder's other work. Confessing this IRL gets me skeptical looks. "you just like the young girls in heels" Can't I like both?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

Sucker Punch isn't awful for me; I'd probably re-watch it. But I'd be doing so for its style, not its artful drama.

I know there were reasons given for the sexiness, but it was presented straight-up. Like, if the point was to show sexiness from the perspective of somebody who had gone through all that, I'd expect it to be maybe portrayed as negative, but we're just supposed to ogle it. Not that I mind sexiness...

It comes off as being insincere. Like, "Oh, uh...this is female empowerment..."

You can certainly like both.

Ultimately, I respect what Snyder was trying to do, but I don't think it was done particularly well. I'd compare it to The Fall - that trippy Lee Pace picture with multiple layers of reality and storytelling. That movie tried something similar with flash visuals and layered narratives. It, too, I think didn't quite get where it wanted to be and left me a little dissatisfied at the end. Nevertheless, I'd probably watch it again, I dig what the filmmakers were doing, and it was a nice attempt. So, I wasn't trying to say Sucker Punch was meritless, although I'd probably give it a 6/10 or 6.5 for effort.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Fair enough.
And LOL, I love The Fall. A paralyzed silent film stuntman telling stories to a little girl in exchange for the drugs he wants to commit suicide with? Heavy.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

The Fall is a good movie. I would like to revisit it some time. It wasn't perfect, but it was really cool. It also was trying to do something that a lot of other films don't bother trying. It felt more unique. If I'm being honest, Sucker Punch has that, too, albeit in a lower dose.

There are certain films (The Fall, for instance) that I like almost as much for what they could be as for what they are. They hint at a potential that they didn't quite tap, although they did give a decent enough effort and I respect it. Watchmen is another one, and yes, Sucker Punch.

Of that bunch, I like Watchmen best, The Fall next, and Sucker Punch least (it is too much a music video and not enough of a deep dive into its own world and plot - for me, anyway); all of them are flawed, but hey all get bonus points for effort and more potential than they used.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

That's a fair assessment. I think I'd rank those in the same order. None perfect. Each ambitious beyond their reach to varying degrees.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

And I'd rather watch an ambitious movie get something half-right than a movie play it safe to the hilt and come up with some perfectly-executed sliver of hum-drum pie.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Right. Kinda how I felt about Enola Holmes.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

That is a great way of putting it. There are only rare cases where I think there is an exception. It is why I actually liked the film Colossal. It is not perfect but in my book it actually took some cool new creative ideas with the gigantic kaiju monster thing. Godzilla from 2014 was so dull and a slog for me to get through. My issue with those movies is the majority of the time the characters in those kinds of movies have been so dull the last couple years. Colossal I feel actually had me liking the characters and had a great concept on way less of a budget.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

It's amazing how many times the smaller budget stuff winds up better than the bigger budget stuff. Too much money means studios want to take less risk, so they don't hire an auteur, they go with a middle-of-the-road director. Or they get a cool director but reign him in too much: don't risk our money! I remember Whedon talked about being frustrated working on Age of Ultron in particular with how much Marvel was kicking him around to set up the next batch of movies instead of just making a good movie at that time.

I'll have to check out Colossal, then.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Batman Begins (9.5/10) - At the time it was the greatest superhero movie ever and it was really the only time we ever saw Bruce Wayne doing any kind of training. A great film and a great origin story. The only weak points were Katie Holmes and the fight sequences had a lot of quick cuts and you couldn't really tell what was going on.

The Dark Knight (10/10) - I never thought a comic book movie would ever be a better than Batman Begins and I was proven wrong in 2008. The Dark Knight is not only a great superhero movie it is also on epic crime drama. The characters, the themes, the dialogue, etc. are all top notch and Nolan cemented himself with this one as the greatest director in Hollywood and the Joker is one of the greatest villains of all time as was Two-Face. I ranked this 12th of all time

The Dark Knight Rises (10/10) - I'll admit going into this I had my worries, I didn't like the title at first then I see the trailers and I see an imploding football field, a flying lobster and Catwoman driving the Batpod. Well I was never more happy to be proven wrong in my life, this film equaled the quality of TDK and in my opinion it is slightly better than TDK because it is a very emotional conclusion and it had a greater focus on Bruce while in the previous film the Joker kind of took over. Bane was also just as good as the Joker and I'm glad that Talia al Ghul was part of the story as she was needed to tie the conclusion of the story back to the beginning, plus both Talia and Bane are such iconic characters. Everything about it was great (even the Bat ended up being his best vehicle of the trilogy), it was my greatest theater experience ever, it was 2 in the morning and I just didn't want the movie to end, when I got home I couldn't sleep because I couldn't stop thinking about how awesome that was and I saw it another 4 times in the theater. Definitely the greatest conclusion to any trilogy and hands down the greatest third entry in any franchise. I ranked this 5th of all time

Overall the trilogy begins with one of the greatest movies of all time and only gets better as it progresses, easily the greatest trilogy ever made and the only one I can think of where every entry is top notch.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

What are first, second, third, and fourth of all-time?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

01. Empire Strikes Back
02. The Godfather Part II
03. Pulp Fiction
04. Apocalypse Now
05. The Dark Knight Rises
06. Raiders Of The Lost Ark
07. Platoon
08. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
09. Interstellar
10. Titanic
11. Braveheart
12. The Dark Knight
13. Psycho
14. The Godfather
15. Schindler's List
16. Edward Scissorhands
17. Saturday Night Fever
18. The Terminator
19. Scarface
20. Saving Private Ryan
21. Reservoir Dogs
22. Memento
23. Aliens
24. Jurassic Park
25. Apollo 13

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Have you been trolling us this whole time? I always thought you were a serious TDKR fan who could not face reality. But now I see your rankings and I am really wondering if you are a Master Wizard Troll.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Uhhhh it’s called my personal opinion. You have one yourself. My advice is to get over it and respect it.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

LOL
You are a trickster! You had me fooled.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Once again it's my personal opinion, deal with it. If you want to post your own list go for it.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

Remember when you said "My advice is to get over it and respect it?" LOL You are good at this!

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Right respect my opinion and get over the fact that I disagree with you. I stand by what I said. Feel free to post your own top 25 but in all honesty the way this conversation is going can serve no further purpose

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

"respect my opinion and get over the fact that I disagree with you"

Isn't this what every single person you attack asks of you? I finally see what you are doing. You are a deep cover troll.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

I think I can (maybe?) answer the tumbler question, though. As messed-up as that charge is (running at fully-automatic weapons with minimal losses...sure...) when the Batplane swoops down, sparks fly off the tumbler vehicles. It's not great, but I think that's a gesture at the Batplane disabling them somehow. It has some kind of EMP weapons, I think? So, maybe it zapped them with little "disable" rockets.

It's still too fast and too little; it looks a touch silly. In a better movie, I could forgive it, but there are so many other flaws I don't feel like letting it go.

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

This guy must be the laziest reviewer on YT. All he does is recide the plot with way too much detail, and stopping occasionally either to make a comment that has been endlessly recycled or making some joke that is usually about his drinking. Seriously, if you've watched one of his videos and seen the movie he's reviewing then you've seen the video.

Plus, as little as I like them, his hate for anything that even resembles SJW's is tired. He has yet to make a smart comment about a movie and is just really shallow with his reviews. And while someone like Jeremy Jahns is maybe equally as shallow, at least he's shallow in a reasonable amount of time. Drinker's reviews can sometimes be 20 minutes long with 0 substance.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

I honestly cringe anytime someone cites his reviews and the fact that he has such a following. I agree tdkr did not live up to the first two but his jokes and reviews are extremely shallow. The fart joke, the screaming joke, drinking joke and that annoying voice he uses. Overall I am not saying I disagree with him but I just can't stand his review style. I don't get why people will cite him as the end all be all of cinema knowledge. Oh well.

reply

[–] Yourwrongopinion (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Lol I can definitely see that.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 4 years ago

He's definitely taken cues from Plinkett, although he's got his own style, too. But, yes, his use of "shall we?" and the background music choices are the obvious ones, and there are other parallels.

Though, the Critical Drinker dives head-first into the boozer thing and doesn't have as much of the "creepy guy" vibe.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Eh he did a great job with ripping the Star Wars sequels a new one however I definitely disagreed with him on Blade Runner 2049, TDKR and to a much lesser extent Creed (although he did make some good points about how Adonis came from a very privileged background and is therefore less relatable).

reply

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

Drinker nailed the opening sequence. WTF is the only thing you can say about that idiotic plane sequence, the prison, the cops, Bane's plan, the bomb, etc etc..

I swear nothing worked in TDKR.

One point I do disagree with Drinker on is that Nolan is the man for the job and can very much can do great Batman Movies, he has already done two prior to this one.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

One, you mean.

reply

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

No, I mean two.. Nolan made two Batman movies prior to TDKR.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Batman Begins was unmitigated SHIT.

Why? Because of the massive, MASSIVE plothole concerning the microwave generator.

Al Ghul wants to use it to evaporate Gotham City's entire water supply, with Scarecrow's hallucinogenic dissolved in it, to expose to the population so chaos and carnage can ensue.

What stupid Al Ghul doesn't realise is that people are made up of 90+% water, and they will all EXPLODE or COOK when the microwave generator is TURNED ON.

Don't even try to defend that SHITTY movie because of this massive oversight by hack Nolan.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

No one cares about your stupid opinion. Drinker is a joke always has been. Remember how you claimed Joker was so original?

reply

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

So as your post confirms Nolan made two Batman movies prior too the TDKR.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What two Batman movies before TDKR? Batman Begins is NOT WORTH MENTIONING.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6032) 4 years ago

Yeah according to you. You have trash taste honestly. Not surprising you like the drinker his taste is almost as bad as yours.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

The plane sequence was amazing as was the prison. I didn't have any problem with the cops, in fact they were more honorable and better acted than in the previous two. The cop who said "you've got the wrong animal there sir" was hilarious. Bane's plan was also great, just as good as the Joker's or Ra's al Ghul's.

reply

[–] Esterhowse (468) 4 years ago

No on all of the above...

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I'm sorry but all of your complaints are debunked. Better luck next time junior.

reply

[–] johnmarti59 (2356) 4 years ago

THAT IS fuking funny as hell. Hah-hah. He's got it right.

reply