I have to say Hathaway/Cat woman is by far my favorite female character of all of Nolan's movies. I feel like she had considerable more depth than some of his past ones such as Ariadne. She was an actress playing an actress which is difficult to do, you have to make the role of Selina Kyle clear while Selina Kyle is an actress in the fact that she acts however she needs to to survive. IMO Hathaway was incredible.
I do agree that the way Bane
was almost tossed aside at the end was a tad disappointing, especially since his role as Talia's protector had just been revealed. So much depth had just been added to his character and then he was gone
The relationship between Tate and Bruce did feel forced and awkward but then again, Bruce wasn't over Rachel and Tate IMO really had no interest in being with him seeing as
she was actually Talia and planning his destruction
There definitely were a lot more characters and a lot of complex relationships between all of them, but IMO this movie not only tied itself up quite nicely for such a complex film, it also tied up the series quite nicely as well
anonymity wrote:Yes... This movie was overbloated with awesomeness.
Seriously were there this many criticizing TDK threads when it came out. How about we start making more threads about what was good in the movie. Cause there was so much more done right than there was done wrong.
I wasn't here for The Dark Knight but the thing to remember is that there will always be haters, especially when it comes to new releases.
My Dad now: "Rises was so disappointing, The Dark Knight was a masterpiece and had a good story structure."
My Dad four years ago: "The Dark Knight was so disappointing, Batman Begins was a masterpiece and had a good story structure."
JFKES wrote:
Yeah, I did think she was well cast, I just found her a bit 2d. Not bad, just not really fleshed out (but in Inception pretty much everyone was like that - bar Cobb).
That's actually really cool about the Flood thing. I remember you posting in a couple of my threads a while ago (and being a fan of KOTOR if I remember correctly). Do you remember anything about me on the Flood?
I think I'll leave my views of Inception's characters elsewhere. Anyway I remember The Dark Knight being your favourite film and Nolan being your favourite director working now. Not really a fan of KOTOR due to gameplay but I am a Star Wars fan.
Anyways avoiding the off-topicness for now, good to see you here. Was actually going to recommend these forums to you.
Yeah I agree with many that the movie wasn't long enough. I think rounding it off to 3 hours wouldn't have been a problem. Maybe the Blu-ray will be longer.
I would have liked to have learned why and how Cat Women learned to fight so well.
stanley wrote:The third movie curse. We all hear about it. It's the problem directors face when they have to follow up two movies with a sequel and manage to keep the audience emotionally invested and interested. It's not easy to do.
Most feel they need to up the ante with a bigger story, bigger budget, more characters, bigger set pieces, longer, louder, etc.
This is the impression Knight Rises left we with. It suffers the same issues other '3rd' movies had, particurally Spider-man 3. There are just way too many characters and different story threads going on in the movie .
Mind you, this is based off my initial viewing, I'm going to see it again, but considering this is one of the major complaints among negative reviews, it's probably worth discussing anyway.
So lets discuss:
What are your feelings on the all the different story threads / characters / arcs happening in the movie and how it was written and put together?
Was Catwoman necessary in this film? To me she did not feel integregal to the movie or Batman's arc. She could have been easily written out of the movie, which would cut down on the bloat and allowed more time to develop Bruce's arc, Bane, and the other characters as well.
Was the LOS angle necessary? I felt this this plot line was uncessary and a lame way to try to bring the story 'full circle.' It also dumbed down Bane as a character.
What the movie should have been (IMO) :
Bane is the arch villian, no LOS angle. He's a terrorist working on his own accord.
Leave Catwoman out of the film . Keep Bruce's story / arc the same. Keep Blake, Gordon and the rest of the story the same.
Now you have much cleaner, less bloated movie, with more time to develop your characters and keep your audience emotionally invested.
stanley wrote:The third movie curse. We all hear about it. It's the problem directors face when they have to follow up two movies with a sequel and manage to keep the audience emotionally invested and interested. It's not easy to do.
Most feel they need to up the ante with a bigger story, bigger budget, more characters, bigger set pieces, longer, louder, etc.
This is the impression Knight Rises left we with. It suffers the same issues other '3rd' movies had, particurally Spider-man 3. There are just way too many characters and different story threads going on in the movie .
Mind you, this is based off my initial viewing, I'm going to see it again, but considering this is one of the major complaints among negative reviews, it's probably worth discussing anyway.
So lets discuss:
What are your feelings on the all the different story threads / characters / arcs happening in the movie and how it was written and put together?
Was Catwoman necessary in this film? To me she did not feel integregal to the movie or Batman's arc. She could have been easily written out of the movie, which would cut down on the bloat and allowed more time to develop Bruce's arc, Bane, and the other characters as well.
Was the LOS angle necessary? I felt this this plot line was uncessary and a lame way to try to bring the story 'full circle.' It also dumbed down Bane as a character.
What the movie should have been (IMO) :
Bane is the arch villian, no LOS angle. He's a terrorist working on his own accord.
Leave Catwoman out of the film . Keep Bruce's story / arc the same. Keep Blake, Gordon and the rest of the story the same.
Now you have much cleaner, less bloated movie, with more time to develop your characters and keep your audience emotionally invested.
stanley wrote:
How so? Like I said, obviously the story would have to be rewritten a bit but my point is she's not intregral to what the story is trying to accomplish with Bruce's arc / journey. Are you saying Bruce needed a love interest in the end and she fit the bill? I'm sure they could have done that without adding Catwoman and her story line to the movie.
IMO,She's kind of representative of Gotham city as a whole - a dark past that she'd like to escape (erase) but not beyond redemption - fundamentally she's a good person.
She's the ambiguity that contrasts with the absolutes/extremes that Batman and Bane occupy and she adds color to proceedings, a welcome respite from the relentless bleakness/darkness of other characters.
I just wanna know why I hear people saying "Ohhh there's so much going on! So many plot lines going on at once, it's so hard to follow!!!!"
Are you fuckin kidding me? If you can't follow the plot, then you probably didn't watch BB or TDK. And if you did, you most likely didn't follow them enough.
The plot in TDKR is not complicated at all. In fact, it's actually pretty simplistic.
Just because you don't understand a movie does not mean it's a bad movie or that it could have been better. It just means your expectations of it were lower than what was actually delivered. Remember, this entire trilogy was about Bruce and his story, not Batman.
