 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bruce, let me look upon you with my OWN eyes . . ."
"Fat chance, Darth Connery! Do you do any OTHER impressions?"
I enjoyed it too. Thought it was slightly less sadistic than the last one. Also liked the ways it tried to tie in with the first two, making a three-chapter story out of them.
Catwoman had some unmistakably anti-one-percent sounding lines in there, didn't she? Limbaugh was way off base! BTW, Rush would make a frightening supervillain himself next time, if you're reading this Nolan Brothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...stupendous. Absolutely stupendous. As much as I liked the other two, this is the best film of the three, hands down.
Dan
I'll keep this SPOILER FREE but will touch on a few details that will mean nothing unless you've seen the movie.
I told myself I wasn't going to see this but a friend rented out the entire theater and we had alcohol, drinks, food, and snacks... it was a wonderful setting and it didn't cost me a dime and so it was easy to let my issues at the door.
And still I didn't like it but mind you, it didn't suck.
It felt too long and NOT epic in any shape or scare but more then that is the set up of it being 8 years and Gotham passing the Dent act basically making it crime free and not need Batman? Really?! That and the various issues regarding Batman's absence didn't really add up nor feel right to me.
[[ And am I crazy or does it TOTALLY change the tone of the ending minutes of THE DARK KNIGHT ]]
The again we quite a few scenes with no Batman and others that take a good amount time [like at the other end of the world] out of the pace of this rather long film and while it was nice to see people from the other two film, the movie could loose a lot of things that don't ever have a place in the final act.
It is better then the awful THE DARK KNIGHT but not as good as BATMAN BEGINS even though it shares quite a bit in common with it.
Visually gorgeous and very polished. Film score worked well in the film.
And like in TDK when the Joker comes to the party and throws Rachel out the window and Batman saves her only to cut to another scene [where most of us are wondering WTF happened with the guest and the Joker and his mob] TDKR has quite a few moments of editing that left me and few others wondering huh?
Bane was cool but his plot was very VERY 007 villain and because it is a movie just feels like if he REALLY wanted to do things... he could have done them faster.
And that ending ... it really made me laugh.
5/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where's the FUN!!??!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think these movies need a dose of humour. The poster for the movie looks like Batman Meets The Gimp. Who the hell needs that?! All this violent S&M imagery is pretty horrible and appeals to a disturbing, and disturbed, aspect of the human personality. Nasty, desensitising shite.
We may not want Adam West type camp back, but I think The Avengers and Iron Man gets the tone about right for this kind of movie.
Well Iron Man cheats since he has a suit made of Iron no?
Batman and those in the like are stuck using black leather and such...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I do not care for him at all, I like what Harry Knowles had to say about the movie:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57109
Well said.
Knowles probably reacted like that because Nolan didn't give him any pwesents, which probably also explains why Knowles didnt like Inception either. This is the guy whomthought The Green Lantern was a brilliant movie for god's sake.
I cannot stand Harry Knowles.
Nolan didn't give me any present and I disliked INCEPTION and THE DARK NIGHT so it is possible.
Also Knowles isn't a movie critic nor does he claim to be... he is a fan boy with a website and in no way does he ever claim to be otherwise but I guess if I had a blog where I wrote things I could and others could throw the word "writer" about me.
As for liking GREEN LANTERN [which I didn't], he isn't in bad company:
Quentin Tarantino’s official Top Eleven of 2011
1. Midnight In Paris
2. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
3. Moneyball
4. The Skin I Live In
5. X-Men: First Class
6. Young Adult
7. Attack The Block
8. Red State
9. Warrior
10. The Artist / Our Idiot Brother (tie)
11. The Three Musketeers
Others he liked (no particular order)
50/50
Beginners
Hugo
The Iron Lady
Carnage
Green Hornet
Green Lantern
Captain America
The Descendants
My Week With Marilyn
Fast Five
Tree Of Life
The Hangover Part II
Mission Impossible 4
The Beaver
Contagion
The Sitter
War Horse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 20, 2012 - 4:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
.
I cannot stand Harry Knowles.
Knowles isn't a movie critic nor does he claim to be... he is a fan boy with a website and in no way does he ever claim to be otherwise but I guess if I had a blog where I wrote things I could and others could throw the word "writer" about me.
Sorry but this isnt correct at all. Knowles DOES call himself a critic when it suits him, and frequently so, but to the "but gee shucks I'm just a geek" get-out--of-jail card whenever someone has called him out on his "writing skills" or knowledge of film.
True he started as just a fanboy but the media made him into something he wasn't and he believes the hype. He promotes himself as a movie expert although if you read his reviews it is patently obvious his knowledge is vast about one sheet posters and collectable toys but not anywhere near "expert" on movies generally. What is amusing though is he cannot stand to be shown up as anything less than the "expert" the media have made him out to be, despite this being really obvious in some of his comments about classic movies. One example - and I could give you many - was his Blu Ray review of Hitchcock's Rebecca, which was patently obvious he had never even seen the movie at all. Its pretty clear Knowles' interest is in in the main pulp movies and the is nothing wrong with that at all; but to uphold his image as "movie expert" Knowles pretends to be knowledgable about all movies in all genres and he blatently pads his articles with ill-researched (and often inaccurate) information from wikipedia etc.
I've been following AICN since the begining although rarely bother now. Apart from Knowles' hugely inflated ego, ithe site itself has become a pawn of the studios, running overtly paid-for puff pieces (case in point, the vast amount of hugely positive reviews of The Green Hornet - or indeed just about any Sony release in recent years), NO exclusive news at all (it now just links from other, better sites) and, with few exceptions (Eric Vespa and whoever Scorekeeper is for example), the current batch of writers are barely-literate hacks (their current primary writers Nordling and The Kidd are just awful, awful writers - not to overplay the point but my cat vomits more structured and cogent things that the collective output of these two "writers"). As for Knolwes himself, his slack-jawed yokel approach to writing has long since stopped being indearing and now simply comes across as embarressingly uneducated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was very keen on THE DARK KNIGHT myself, and feel this film is not its equal. If anything, it's a sequel to BATMAN BEGINS, and to be honest, I don't feel they cracked it. Everything's there and more (sequels rarely fail to be bigger), but the big dilemma of the film -- about when it's ok to walk away from the cape and cowl -- suggests to me that this was a preoccupation of the makers.
Others will love it, as clearly many here did. To me it peaked with that remarkable opening sequence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for Knolwes himself, his slack-jawed yokel approach to writing has long since stopped being indearing and now simply comes across as embarressingly uneducated.
Funnily enough, I agree with everything you say about him, although I haven't watched the site for years now... however, the broken clock is right twice a day, and for the most part -- for whatever reason -- Knowles gets it right in his review of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
