This is topic The Dark Knight Rises in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001881
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-20-2012, 03:13 AM:
 
I seriously hope that the Dark Knight Rises is not our final look at real, true, filmmaking. What Nolan has managed to do is avoid all the contemporary use of poor story telling, over abundant and pointless CGI, and low resolution equipment. Instead, he gives us a film that is a technical marvel, tells an amazing tale of chaos and sacrifice, and allows us to get completely caught up within this universe. I seriously forgot where I was during this film. All I knew was that Gotham was under siege and I was part of it. That's what good filmmaking can do. I had almost forgotten after all the crap Hollywood has churned out over the past decade or two. Take note. This is what can save this business. Nolan is the hero Hollywood not only deserves, but desperately needs. I can't wait to see this thing in 15/70 IMAX.

The film was fantastic. The trilogy itself is a game changer.

AJG
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-20-2012, 08:15 PM:
 
After producing what is probably the greatest comic book adaptation of all time in The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan returns with the final chapter in his Batman trilogy and the result is, well, slightly disappointing.

The Dark Knight Rises sees Ra's al Ghul's League of Shadows try yet again to wipe Gotham City off the map with yet another device developed by Wayne Enterprises. The problem is, we've been here before. The films plot amounts to a rehash of ideas from Batman Begins, even the leader of the bad guys is (again) not who he appears to be.

While the "Ra's al Ghul" storyline was an interesting one in the context of Batman's origin, it made for a relatively weak finale to Batman Begins and Nolan seeks to take this finale and reimagine it as the entire plot of The Dark Knight Rises. Sure it nicely brings the story full circle and it smartly references contemporary themes of terrorism, economic decline and the destruction of capitalism, but the story is no more interesting the second time around. The simple fact is that Ra's al Ghul is not as interesting a character as, say, the Scarecrow or the Joker or even Harvey Dent, so it does the film no favours to re-introduce him albeit in another guise.

The film is neither aided by the fact that much of the dialogue is indecipherable. Bane, in particular, is a problem, his voice being muffled by his mask, but any time an action set-piece is underway it's difficult to hear the dialogue above the din. It is difficult to say, admittedly, if this is a product of the audio mix or the acoustics of my local cinema but it poses a significant problem in following the plots finer points.

Thankfully, the strength of all Nolan's Batman films have been the quality of his characters and The Dark knight Rises is no exception. Indeed, it is the characterisations and the performances of the cast which maintains the superior status of The Dark Knight Rises above the previous (non-Nolan) Batman movies.

Anne Hathaway is a very welcome addition as the unuttered Catwoman, all slinky and beautiful and devious; is there a better looking and more talented actress in Hollywood at the moment? And Joseph Gordon Levitt is also excellent as Commissioner Gordon's understudy. Even if his character arc is a tad predictable, we warm to him for the same reasons we warmed to Bruce Wayne. The usual suspects - Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman - deliver brilliant performances so predictably they barely rate a mention anymore.

The weak link is, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy); not because Hardy isn't any good but because his character is uninteresting and one dimensional. He looks, sounds and has the emotional depth of Humungus from Mad Max 2.

The Dark Knight Rises is directed by Christopher Nolan so naturally it's an extremely competent effort that is entertaining if a little overlong; it's just a pity that all this brilliantly orchestrated action and engaging character development isn't taking place within the context of a more engaging, original story.

7.5 out of 10.
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-21-2012, 01:05 AM:
 
CINEMA: Valle Drive-In, Newton, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/FM Stereo sound
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: It took like a full trailer of focus adjustments to get a clear picture
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Gotham's in trouble. Again. Wackiness ensues.

The movie is pretty good for the last twenty minutes. It's the first two hours and twenty five minutes that's the problem. If you can overlook that, you'll probably like this.

Bane is this big guy with an an in-car drive-in speaker attached to his face. He has an amplified voice that sounds like Jeffrey Lebowski. I kept expecting him to try and sell somebody a Hyundai.

The two hand-to-hand fight scenes between Batman (sorry...'the dark knight') and Bane looked like simple stunt man school practice fights. They were HORRIBLE.

Catwoman's in this. Not sure why.

The dialogue and psychological level of the script are SERIOUSLY lacking here versus the previous two. I would have thought they would have spent a significant chunk of the runtime getting Wayne to bring Batman out of an eight-year sabbatical, but nope. Didn't take much at all.

This was not only disappointing, it was Spider-Man 3 disappointing. And I'm not even that big a fan of these movies in the first place.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-21-2012, 04:35 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
This was not only disappointing, it was Spider-Man 3 disappointing.
ouch... really? because that film was a cluster**** of a film, that had way too many ideas and scenes all edited together into one major mess.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-21-2012, 04:38 PM:
 
I ended up seeing it again in 15/70 at the IMAX at the Indiana State Museum in Indianapolis. It was a fantastic experience, and one of the best IMAX's I've ever been in. The image was bright, focussed, and perfect in every way. Sound was absolutely perfect in every way imaginable. The establishment itself was also very clean, orderly, and a friendly staff. They also serve beer and wine after 5PM! The soft pretzel and the popcorn, however, were delicious.

Truly, film done right. Digital has NOTHING on this one.

AJG
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-21-2012, 10:33 PM:
 
Saw it at 9am today at the Colorado Blvd Imax in Denver. The 15/70MM presentation was outstanding. It switched to full frame so often I eventually stopped noticing.

Afterwards, I thanked a manager for showing it in 70MM and asked him to please try to get film in the future. He said it's all up to the studios: whatever they want to show. I mentioned that I came down from Broomfield (30+ minute drive). I told him I wouldn't make the trip down for digital.

I liked the film but didn't love it. I didn't come out of it wanting to see it again.

I found TDK, despite its flaws, to be more entertaining, largely thanks to the Joker & Batman repeatedly one-upping each other, and Ledger's charismatic performance.

Bane's "make 'em suffer" plan was too convoluted, and his performance was hampered by the facewear.

Batman's hero role felt like it was either straight up fisticuffs or big scale military vehicle, and never anything in-between. I missed that middle ground from 1 & 2.

I did enjoy the surprise plot twists along the way.
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-24-2012, 09:04 AM:
 
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
I didn't care for that scene - the rest of the movie was fantastic
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-24-2012, 04:00 PM:
 
This is probably my second favorite in the series behind the Dark Knight. The Joker is just a much more fun villain than Bane I think. Between that and the return of the League of Shadows stuff, I just thought the last one was better. Not that this one wasn't good. It was, and I liked it a lot. But it's really hard to top Dark Knight.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-24-2012, 09:26 PM:
 
Johnson IMAX Theater / Smithsonian Museum of Natural History: 15/70; 4:45pm

even though the character of Bane has that mask over his mouth - there's no excuse why ADR'ing the character to the point where he sounds like he's talking with a bowl of marbles in his mouth comes out intelligible - I also thought the soundmix was highly inconsistent - it was too loud, bombastic and just came across as sloppy.

the 15/70 photography though was spectacular.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-25-2012, 08:35 AM:
 
This was a good film.

It went around a long bend before it got to it's point - but it was worth it.

I'd watch it again.
 
Posted by Paul Rousseas (Member # 7022) on 07-25-2012, 11:04 AM:
 
The previous film had created very high expectations which the latter failed to meet: The main villain was far bellow Joker's level, both in terms of acting but also in looks, as the mask he was wearing did not allow the illustration of his face movements, resulting in a caricature. Additionally, his motivation to destroy Gotham City did not convince me completely. I also thought that the total presence and acting of Marion Cotillard was indifferent ... On the positive side however, Anne Hathaway "filled" the shots that she appeared and gave a charming essence in Cat Woman. The filming and photography, too, where of high quality and managed to transfer me to Gotham City! The comparison, however, with the previous film, makes the later seem "little"...

[6/10]

I saw the film at Auditorium 5 of Village Cinemas at the Mall Athens, in 35mm and Dolby Digital sound.
I don't know whether it was the auditorium or not, but I found that the picture was a little on the soft side.
 
Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 07-25-2012, 08:22 PM:
 
quote: Paul Rousseas
I don't know whether it was the auditorium or not, but I found that the picture was a little on the soft side.
I would have to agree. It is quite difficult trying to focus on the non-IMAX filmed scenes since the IMAX scenes are sharp and then the 35mm scenes look a little soft. The same problem was with Inception. Although that wasn't filmed with IMAX cameras, it still looked a little soft. It makes me wish the entire movie was filmed with IMAX.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2012, 09:27 PM:
 
I really enjoyed the movie.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
The Dark Knight (unrisen version) is still the best Batman movie, though. Can't wait to get this on Blu-ray. The presentation will be much better than the 15/70 IMAX I saw.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-26-2012, 09:00 AM:
 
Ross: even with the fact that Nolan had shot key scenes in 'Inception' in 65mm - you would have hardly guessed with what I saw or noted in the 15/70 IMAX version I saw. Nolan SHOULD have shot 'The Dark Knight Rises' with IMAX cameras AND 65mm film stock to get some sort of consistency.
 
Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 07-26-2012, 10:48 AM:
 
If everything is special, then nothing is. I thought it was a good idea to switch between the 2 and show how much more superior the full frame IMAX scenes were. I've seen it at 2 separate 15/70 locations, both equally flawless presentations. Perfect sound and picture, to my relatively untrained eyes and ears
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-27-2012, 05:03 AM:
 
quote: Paul Rousseas
Anne Hathaway "filled" the shots that she appeared and gave a charming essence in Cat Woman.
Quite so. Ann Haveherwaywithmeplease "filled the shots" very nicely indeed! [Wink]
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-27-2012, 11:40 AM:
 
Anne Hathaway? Yes please.

Has there honestly ever been an unattractive Cat Woman though?

AJG
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-27-2012, 02:11 PM:
 
Joe - Yes (keep reading)

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
That's my take on it anyway
 
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 07-27-2012, 05:01 PM:
 
Excellent movie all around and a great conclusion to the story. As was stated earlier in this thread it wasn't quite at the level of TDK mainly due to the depiction of the main villain. Bane was portrayed as a standard comic-book style villain while the Joker was much more disturbing and psychologically complex. Still a great movie all around. The 2 3/4 hours flew by!

quote: Aaron Garman
Has there honestly ever been an unattractive Cat Woman though?
My ex-mother-in-law dressed up as Catwoman one year for Halloween. That was pretty damn hideous!
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-27-2012, 09:10 PM:
 
Has anyone else noticed that this movie is REALLY LOUD?

I watched it myself late last night and it seemed pretty loud. I'm playing it for the public tonight and my lobby is just rocking, even though I'm playing it at the same volume setting that I play everything else at.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-27-2012, 10:13 PM:
 
^ like yeah...

so much so, it was lacking in nuance - it was as if the mixer just threw all the audio elements into a blender and hoped for the best.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-31-2012, 06:08 PM:
 
Yeah it was pretty loud here too. The movie has such a wall-of-sound mix especially during some of the music elements that it gets almost overwhelming at times. We've only had one volume complaint though...which surprises me.

I also found a lot of the dialogue hard to understand. There have been so many comments saying this, not only here but in some reviews I've read, that it must be a problem with the movie's sound mix. Which is too bad, considering it's a "deeper" story than a lot of superhero movies. It's hard to pick up on the subtle nuances, especially if you aren't all that familiar with the backstory or the previous two films in the series.

I tend to like my superhero movies to be the humorous, slightly light-hearted type, such as "Avengers" or "Superman II" or "Spider-Man 2." So this dark type of movie is less appealing to me. Nonetheless I liked this one quite a lot; it's going to take a couple of viewings to absorb everything. The "Bat-trilogy" might need to make it to my Blu-Ray collection considering I don't have a whole lot of memory of the last two movies.

Should this be nominated for an Oscar? For special effects, definitely, but Best Picture or Actor or any of the others? Ehh, not so sure. Michael Caine probably did the best job of acting over the whole movie. There's definitely nothing Heath Ledger-quality here (although Batman's "where is the trigger?" scene comes close).

Anyhow, I liked it. My buddy Keith, who watched it with us, absolutely loved it. My wife liked it about the same as me, I think. My vote is 3.5 out of 5 stars.
 
Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 08-01-2012, 10:03 PM:
 
I saw the movie in 15/70 at the White River Museum in Indianapolis on the opening Thursday night (took some time to process everything, plus I moved literally a week later). The IMAX scenes were remarkable, however there were occasional dust specs. Even though Bane's voice was muffled, I do think it sounded a whole heck of a lot better than it did on the 6 minute preview before MI4. I agree that the movie was pretty loud but some of the dialog was harder to hear.

I felt the plot was pretty good overall. Almost everything was tied in very nicely, between Bane, al Ghul, and the league of shadows. I think they did the Catwoman character great and Anne Hathaway did a fantastic job. I also liked Crane's cameo. I did have a few issues with the plot however. I wasn't a huge fan on how they put everything on Dent. I understand how it worked in the plot which was good, however they never once mentioned that Dent wouldn't have been driven to do all the things he did had the Joker not created him. I understand that Nolan did not want to mention the character out of shear respect for Ledger, so I can respect that. I did feel that Miranda's
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Those were my only real issues with the movie.

Overall I thought it was a great movie and great end to the trilogy. I just hope no one comes in and tries to continue it. I am looking forward for this to come to blu-ray. I give it 8/10.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-01-2012, 10:42 PM:
 
the blu-ray Matthew, is rumored to be coming out on December 7th. As for the audio mix, both the IMAX (15/70) and 35mm (at the Avalon theater) were loud and had significant bass - but at AMC Mazza the lossless DCP audio heard on the THX screen (#1) was less bombastic and different elements of the mix were better heard, still a few lines uttered by Bane were rendered incomprehensible
 
Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 08-01-2012, 11:14 PM:
 
Yeah I agree. There were still a few lines from Bane that I couldn't understand at all, though they didn't seem to be too relevant. After reading some of the dialog online, assuming it's correct, I can think back and sorta make out what he was saying. Though sorta is the key word [Razz]
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-09-2012, 02:46 PM:
 
It was okay but not as great as some are claiming.

My main issues are:

Bane is more interesting than Bruce/Batman -- so is "Catwoman."

Bruce/Batman is taken out of the movie for too long, and the story loses focus -- it becomes unclear "whose story this is." This could almost be Bane's movie.

Alfred doesn't leave *anything* to the imagination -- he says EVERYTHING that's on his mind -- and says it too many times. And then Fox repeats it all over again.

The movie is too long. And it's not just me that thought so. Several viewers pulled out cel phones just to check the time. And I noticed lots of yawning and stretching.

Bane's dialogue -- hard to understand sometimes -- technical "problem" impeded my ability to "get lost in the movie."

I don't feel compelled to see it again, but I am now interested in seeing the others. Definitely an improvement over the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher versions.

During the scenes with gunfire, I kept an eye on the exits. I wasn't expecting to be that affected by the shooting in Colorado.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2012, 07:11 PM:
 
Let's face it. As awesome as Nolan is, he doesn't know much about good sound. Listen to Batman's voice in Begins. Why does it need to shake my entire house? People bitched and whined (which is bad because nobody should ever complain about anything) and Batman's voice was less obnoxious in The Dark Knight. It didn't use the subwoofers when he spoke. In the Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue, Bane sounded completely ridiculous. People bitched and whined (again, people should never do this lest really cool people on the internet ask them how they really feel) and it was fixed for the real movie.

When it comes to sound, Nolan is a hack job. The fight scenes in Begins show he had yet to grasp the concept of proper editing as well. This has also improved after people (gasp) complained.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-09-2012, 07:42 PM:
 
I think the core problem with this film is that it is the "next best" script in light of Ledger's untimely demise. I'm sure we would have all (Nolan included) preferred to have seen the continuation of the Joker plot arc.

Having said that, most Hollywood film makers would kill to have a disappointing movie as good as this.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-09-2012, 09:26 PM:
 
I think you have to take into account the ambitiousness of shooting in Imax at a time when the world is going all digital.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-09-2012, 09:49 PM:
 
How does that factor in, Victor?
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-09-2012, 11:35 PM:
 
The "shot on film" bullshit -- even IMAX -- is pure ego and marketing at this point.

It does not impress me in the slightest. Nothing new with shooting on film.

"It's been done."
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-10-2012, 12:09 AM:
 
I was reading American Cinematographer DKR shoot and how they went about it.If i were a filmmaker I would be trying to juggle all these formats and slowly lose my grip.It can't be easy.
Any film becoming great is against the odds.
He is the first filmmaker to try shooting in Imax for a feature and I am grateful for his efforts.
Too tired too think of anything else right now...
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2012, 09:15 AM:
 
It's not easy -- no film production is ever easy -- I just don't agree that the added difficulty of shooting on film (and IMAX) serves the story -- I claim that it only serves the egos of the director and cinematographer -- more people will see the film in a digital format -- especially if you include posterity.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-10-2012, 12:03 PM:
 
It will look far better in any format thanks to it's photo chemical origins. In 5 years it will still look great where most of this digitally shot crap will look dated.
I have watched it twice in real Imax and love it but agree it falls short of Dark Knight.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2012, 01:24 PM:
 
I'm looking forward to seeing the other two -- I liked this one enough to try "Batman" again.
 
Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 08-30-2012, 01:09 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
When it comes to sound, Nolan is a hack job. The fight scenes in Begins show he had yet to grasp the concept of proper editing as well. This has also improved after people (gasp) complained.
Yet Inception sounded glorious... so perhaps he just wants Batman to sound 'gritty'? Every time I heard Bane I kept thinking "Werner Klemperer with a gas-mask on".
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-01-2012, 10:54 AM:
 
Saw it finally. Real IMAX at REgal 20 Mall of Georgia.
7pm show. nice and bright. Got a free ticket to watch Hit and Run by Sunday. Some kind of promo, I guess.

Bright picture with the contrast being OK. OPening action sequence showcased well in IMAX dimensions. I gotta say this though. IMAX is not necessarily the best storytelling format. It does not detract from anything, but it is not essential to have IMAX to have a great experience. It is overkill for regular scenes so i won't mind it when they crop out the top and bottom for home video. Where it's awesomeness lies is skyscraper scenes or scenes with a lot of vertically oriented scenery. Scenes where a lot of background scenery where you dont need to focus on the entire image but it is fun to move your eyes to scan the entire frame gradually during the scene. But for regular scenes where you want to take in the entire frame, I prefer widescreen. The only time, I liked the IMAX format in a non -nature/skyscraper backdrop scene was the one where Batman is focused on in closeup as he sits in one of his vehicles.

As far as the movie, I liked the first hour, I liked the last hour. I hated the middle 45 min because I found it too easy to nod off. I nodded off during a lot of the middle 45min and I feel like I missed nothing. The goals of the bad group of people were essentially so simplistic (let's create chaos) that it didn't require that much of a slow pace to give it heft.

I didn't find Bane's voice muffled at all. if anything, it seemed crystal clear. Batman's voice on the other hand is still laughable.The Heinz Field blowup was a tad disappointing because the trailer made that scene seem epic, but nothing extra was shown in the movie itself.Since they were showing a bunch of Steelers, they might as well have had James Harrison appear and try to take on Bane.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2