Poindexter Arachnid
Permabanned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,232
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
...I don't wanna think about this movie anymore.
Why is this complicated for you to understand? I didn't miss that. But even aware of it, I just ended up not enjoying the movie because it's not what interests me (remember in my first comments when I said I felt nothing throughout the movie, it was just.... there?) and I'm explaining why. Kind of like when Christians tell me why I should like a Kirk Cameron movie ("but it's about hope, it's right there in the title!") but the way it's presented just doesn't do anything for me.
It wants to portray itself as some kind of complex movie as the last, but it really never engages the questions.
Agreed 100%. I thought this movie was magnificent and easily the best of the three. While TDK is also very good, the only explanation I can think of for the slobbering of Heath Ledger's wildly overpraised performance is his untimely death.
It is a good summer movie with a lot of rousing moments.
Visually and aurally, TDKR decimates anything else this year, hands down.
But it stank of the third movie curse.
And the cards were in place to give us the greatest Batman story of all time.
We didn't get it.
Though in the past two days I've gotten more dissatisfied with Marion Cotillard's character. She's a fine actress, but the character adds nothing. One could fold her into Bane and lose nothing. The betrayal is just a superfluous plot twist.
I'll disagree about Heath Ledger. He's the best movie villain since Darth Vader. He is what is missing from TDKR to make it a great film. I think TDK is the best comic book movie of all-time and is one of the best films of the last decade.
Wow. Spoiler alert on that one.
But Nolan is again harkening back to Batman Begins and 1971 in the comic book, when Batman first meets Talia al Ghul, R'as' daughter. There is a long period of love/hate relationship there, where she is seducing him and yet using him, it's a dangerous dance. I understand in the movie she really DOESn'T add anything to the story BUT a twist, and it felt like a big cheat to me because unless you were actively thinking about the comic book, there was no way to even guess what she was. Ironically, if you go to her character on the IMDB page for the movie and click on her character's name, you are taken to a new page titled not by her character's "fake" name in the movie but entitled "Talia al Ghul."
I'm not a Batman fan in general, so I know nothing about any of that other than when I go poking around wikipedia. I never really trusted her because she just came in out of the blue, and there were some hints about her when she talks about her past and the "story of Bane" in the pit. Not big hints, but they were there.
I watched it a second time with a friend at his hometown, and again, I really enjoyed it!
..I swear to God, the Catwoman ruined it. Her role was not necessary, in my opinion.
I noticed quite a lot of the scenes were bland, in fact. But so were a lot of the scenes in The Dark Knight. I think if people pay more attention to details than character analysis then they'll be able to appreciate this as one of the strongest movies ever made.
I watched it a second time with a friend at his hometown, and again, I really enjoyed it!
..I swear to God, the Catwoman ruined it. Her role was not necessary, in my opinion.
I noticed quite a lot of the scenes were bland, in fact. But so were a lot of the scenes in The Dark Knight. I think if people pay more attention to details than character analysis then they'll be able to appreciate this as one of the strongest movies ever made.
Some of the 'plot holes' in the above article I agree with. I actually said out loud in the theater, 'What, he just left The Bat on that roof?' when he returns to it. I love the Batman films Nolan has made, and I love films in general, but I'm not going to let that blind me to genuinely confusing parts of the movie like some psychotic fanboy threatening to murder a critic because he disagreed with me.
That said, there are a number of the 'plots holes' in this article that, I think, can be addressed with a reasonable degree of (a) suspension of disbelief because it's a film that is literally incapable of filling in every detail without being sixteen hours long and thus excruciatingly boring, (b) a little bit of imagination on the part of the audience, and (c) a knowledge of the source material, at least as a bonus for those who read comics.
The first comment in the article is what I agree with:
He goes on explaining in detail, proving his point that showing all the details is really boring.
I only skimmed them all. I think the major problem if any is, that if you get TOO many of those questions during the movie, you spend more time having to process the questions and then ignoring them, rather than being able to just be in the zone during the movie experience, and it stops feeling real. I had a lot of small, "What??" moments followed by, "Okay, whatever."
Did you read the other two articles?
Thought the most interesting was questioning Alfred's perception at the end of the movie, a la Inception. There are other hints in the movie that it IS a real perception, but it makes you think, at least.
The first comment in the article is what I agree with:
He goes on explaining in detail, proving his point that showing all the details is really boring.
You can just save it all simply by lending the movie some poetic license.