DominicCobb

I like cheese, bacon, ketchup, and mustard. Not much else really.

Cool to know that you've already got some of it to work. The pacing for it is great. It really makes the fight seem epic, while the original fight was more "look at all this lightsaber action!"

aalenfae said:

You can hear my original music choice in this video:
http://vimeo.com/43229470

Really good work here - nice and tight. I think I prefer this music though. With the other music it's not entirely clear that it's supposed to be music that's played in the bar. 

EDIT: I'm just realizing now that I've barely commented here. My apologies, I've been following this edit since the thread was started, and it looks exceptional. Quick question, is this how your duel will play out? http://vimeo.com/35930252   I think I see what you're trying to do here, and if it works out, it will be absolutely ridiculous (in a good way of course)!

Looks like 007. Good enough for me.

I hate how people miss the (political) point with these films. Yes there are political parallels, but there are NO political statements. Nolan uses the politics to further the realism. If you thought hard enough, you could find a good political argument about the films from both sides - just as you could in real life.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 10/10 - Yep, again. This time in IMAX. Incredible. I you have the chance you must see it this way.

Ninotchka (1939) 8.5/10 - Nice, funny little film. Interesting criticism of Soviet Russia here - it's not a "Communism is bad" picture.

Kagemusha (1980) 9/10 - Beautiful film. Maybe a little long at parts, but beautiful, in every sense of the word.

darth_ender said:

17. But then he sleeps with Talia.

No argument there.  If they'd developed this further, it'd be more believable as he tried to finally let Rachel go, but instead it comes off as a high school rebound when he finds out about the letter.  Besides, I imagine most know about my distaste for sex outside of marriage in films anyway.  They could have simply shown Talia and Bruce kissing in the room with the sheets covering all the furniture, then let people draw their own conclusions.  I suspect this was to make her treachery more painful for the viewer, but that didn't work for me.  We needed to see a relationship more than [JohnAdams]sexual combustability[/JohnAdams].

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that Bruce Wayne probably banged a few chicks when Rachel was still alive. While we never see him do it, so it's easy to believe he's this chaste hero, waiting for Rachel. But I think it would be entirely in keeping with the Bruce Wayne playboy character. 

Probably the main place I'll disagree with you.  Bruce Wayne's playboy persona was only an act, and not one that needed to be kept up with superficial girls in the bedroom.  He was deeper, inside he was...he was more.  I think he really maintained such chastity till that point.  Remember, we're talking about an obsessive man here.  I could see his obsessive loyalty to Rachel as equally powerful as his obsession with fighting crime.

This is tough for me because I completely understand your point and I almost agree with you. The problem is there was never any mention of chastity or sex or anything like that before hand. So while part of me doesn't think that the real Bruce Wayne would do that, the other part of me thinks the fake one totally would. It's really tough for me to think this is a problem because it technically doesn't go against what we've seen before.

And this is probably the final kicker for me:  Bruce was Batman for how long before the end of TDK?  2 years?  Can it be that long?  Could it be as short as a couple of months?  And then he goes into 8 years of retirement.  He reappears for a couple of nights and then disappears for 5 months... and is back for one more day before he's "dead" again.   There’s no room for any more Batman stories.  No other villains.  Nothing.  I understand that Nolan and company wanted to tell the end of the Batman story

Of course there was plenty of room, but I think Nolan's justification for not leaving this one open for a sequel was quite reasonable...better to end on a high note than to have a final, franchise-crushing failure like Spider-man 3.  I think the greatest error in the three films that led to your complaint was the timeframe between the first and second film (6 months later), which left little room for imagined in-between stuff (or that horrible Gotham Knight interquel, if you accept that).  Fix that 6 month gap, make it like 3 years, and it'd be better pacing for the whole arc.

I don't see how this is even a critique. Am I missing something here? I've never seen anyone criticize a movie before because you can't make any more stories.

I'm with you that I didn't want it to be left open to sequels.  I'm more bummed at the way the timeframe worked out.  With more than six months between the first and second movie, I could believe that Batman had more time to clean things up, maybe met a few other tough baddies in between, really gained a reputation as a permanent piece of Gotham, and then disappeared.  But even that's not enough of a complaint for me to dislike the movie.  It's simply a point to be made.

Yeah, I didn't think you were criticizing. Did they say the time frame between BB and TDK? I don't remember. I always thought it was something like a year.

Just going to say a few more things.

darth_ender said:

4. Did Talia still have the clicker?  Did Batman tape the jammer to the bomb when he flew off with it?  I hope against the former, but in its event I hope in favor of the latter.

I believe Gordon attached the jammer, and I think Talia died before the bomb went off anyway, didn't she?

Yes, she was already dead. 

5. What is Talia’s motivation exactly?  She is trying to fulfill her father’s mission or not?  Is Gotham still the festering cesspool that concerned the league of shadows?  Didn’t Batman/Dent/Gordon clean it up almost completely?  Did Talia want revenge on her father’s killer?  She said that was just a bonus.  Was she concerned about the organized crime and corrupt cops?  Or capitalism run wild?

Same argument I presented against Ra's himself.  They were convinced Gotham was corrupt, so they corrupted it as much as possible to justify their actions.  Talia also simply had a desire to finish what Daddy started.  But also, I suspect they felt the rich were corrupt for remaining rich...the OWS argument.

The argument was that they cleaned up the streets based on a lie, which proved that Gotham was truly beyond saving (if that was the only way to stop crime). 

6. I thought Bane was really interesting and scary until Talia appeared holding his leash.  This turned him into a petty thug in my mind.

Agreed, this made him weaker, almost like the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship.  I wish that more Talia had been revealed, and that Bane maintained more of a mutual partnership than a subservient loyalty.  But it didn't destroy it for me.

I don't get this. One of my friends said the same thing, but I don't see where this comes from. How is Talia holding his leash? It seemed to me like they were working in tandem and did have a mutual partnership. I don't know where this subservient thing comes from. The only time we even saw Talia give Bane any orders was when she told him to keep Batman alive so he could see the fire. And then after she left he disobeyed that order. 

7. How did the Daggett/Bane/Talia thing work anyways.  Before the ending, I thought Daggett hired Bane because he was a skilled mercenary, didn’t realize he bit off more than he could chew... and actually thought that Bane would just disappear once the job was done.  However Bane saw an opportunity and didn’t want to let it go, so he took advantage of it.  Once we learn that Bane and Talia have been working together all along... where does Daggett come in?  Did Talia manipulate Daggett to do what he did?  How did she put Bane in contact with Daggett?  Outwardly Talia and Daggett appear to be bitter rivals. Was this simply a show?

I admit, on one viewing, I was confused by this whole interwoven relationship.  But in the end, I think I'd answer your last question: yes.

When I saw the film a second time I realized that Bane and Talia were really in charge the whole time. As to how they got Daggett to hire Bane, I think it's up to your imagination. There was really no where they could have explained this within the film, but I'm sure there is an explanation. I'm pretty sure though that Daggett had no idea that Miranda was involved. He was simply a pawn.

8. If Talia/Bane knew the bomb was going to go off, and this was allegedly what they wanted all along, why give Batman, the cops the chance to stop it?  Just click the Button as soon as Batman shows up/the cops riot and make sure your 5 month siege ends with an earth-shattering-kaboom even if it is 10 hours premature.

Agreed.  But that's Hollywood for ya.  It's not like this is the first time this plot hole emerges in a film.  In fact, when has it ever been otherwise?

Yeah these things are always tough. They tried their best to explain it with the "slow knife" line.

11. John Blake figured Bruce was Batman because he was faking being happy?  I think that’s a bridge too far.  I think you could fix this with. Blake: All of the orphans idolized you.  The Billionaire orphan!  We’d come up with elaborate fantasies about you.  And what could be better than a billionaire orphan playboy, than a billionaire orphan playboy who was also the Batman?  It was ridiculous to be sure, but then it started to make sense.  Bruce Wayne came to Gotham the same time Batman did.  Batman went into hiding the same time Bruce Wayne became a recluse.  Of course, I wasn’t totally sure, until you let me in today.

I agreed and didn't like this explanation.  Yours is much better.

I think this is how Blake found out. They could have included it, yes, but the point of the conversation was mainly to build John Blake's character. 

17. But then he sleeps with Talia.

No argument there.  If they'd developed this further, it'd be more believable as he tried to finally let Rachel go, but instead it comes off as a high school rebound when he finds out about the letter.  Besides, I imagine most know about my distaste for sex outside of marriage in films anyway.  They could have simply shown Talia and Bruce kissing in the room with the sheets covering all the furniture, then let people draw their own conclusions.  I suspect this was to make her treachery more painful for the viewer, but that didn't work for me.  We needed to see a relationship more than [JohnAdams]sexual combustability[/JohnAdams].

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that Bruce Wayne probably banged a few chicks when Rachel was still alive. While we never see him do it, so it's easy to believe he's this chaste hero, waiting for Rachel. But I think it would be entirely in keeping with the Bruce Wayne playboy character. 

18. Why did Bane totally wreck Batman when they first fight, but Batman can easily take him on after a couple months of recovering from a broken back?  Was he in better fighting shape after being in the jail.

It didn't seem easy to me.  He just decided to focus on breaking the mask with the anesthetic, as he'd learned its function in the prison.  Plus, he had some serious righteous anger fueling him.

I read an article where they talk to the choreographer. He says that in the final battle, Batman uses a different fighting style. So I think if you put that on top of ender's argument, you've got a pretty good explanation.

24. For the first time, the Batman growl-voice annoyed me.  Perhaps everything else above had suspended my suspension of disbelief...  Perhaps I have heard too many spoofs of the voice... that Bale's voice sounded a lot like in this movie.

No argument there, though actually I found it more tolerable in this film than TDK.  FYI, not a rebuttal, but his voice was altered in post-production.

Okay, I'll admit that while I've never had ANY problems with his voice, when he said "citizen" in this one, it took me out of it for a second.

25. Batman's first night back in Gotham- he has about 20 hours to stop the bomb from killing everyone- and he spends the entire night rigging skyscraper windows and the bridge supports to burn a Bat signal when he pushes a button?  Was that really the best use of his time?  How many people (besides Bane) even saw them?  I heard the Bale voice spoof growling- "Look!  I... spent all night... rigging those fires... because fires are cool... bats are cool... bats on fire are super cool... except that they're hot... because they're on... fire."

ALLOL.  That's very funny, I'll be honest.  But I imagine he spent time getting his plans together.  But this was also a moment to inspire hope in those he would need as allies, while placing some dread into the hearts of his enemies.

Didn't think of that. But yeah, ender's right. It wasn't because it looked cool. It's all about the symbol. It's all about hope.

26. I thought the ending was a total cheat.  I am so sick of fake deaths in films, and superhero films are some of the worst.  I thought Nolan might have been above it.  Guess not.

Again, I agree.  Wholeheartedly in fact.  If they had to do anything, I would have cut all allusions to his surviving except the fixed up autopilot and Alfred looking at the camera and nodding.  Even then, how did he get the bomb far away enough from Gotham, then get himself far away enough from the bomb, all without being noticed?  Did he have a jet powered Bat-glider?  Did he get off before it got very far, just as it passed behind a building?

Showing him in the Bat seconds before it explodes was an editing cheat, in my opinion. I think he got out while he was still over Gotham. But sometimes you got to make those types of cheats for dramatic reasons. I'm not going to get into it, because I have before, but the ending, as-is, is perfect in my opinion.

And this is probably the final kicker for me:  Bruce was Batman for how long before the end of TDK?  2 years?  Can it be that long?  Could it be as short as a couple of months?  And then he goes into 8 years of retirement.  He reappears for a couple of nights and then disappears for 5 months... and is back for one more day before he's "dead" again.   There’s no room for any more Batman stories.  No other villains.  Nothing.  I understand that Nolan and company wanted to tell the end of the Batman story

Of course there was plenty of room, but I think Nolan's justification for not leaving this one open for a sequel was quite reasonable...better to end on a high note than to have a final, franchise-crushing failure like Spider-man 3.  I think the greatest error in the three films that led to your complaint was the timeframe between the first and second film (6 months later), which left little room for imagined in-between stuff (or that horrible Gotham Knight interquel, if you accept that).  Fix that 6 month gap, make it like 3 years, and it'd be better pacing for the whole arc.

I don't see how this is even a critique. Am I missing something here? I've never seen anyone criticize a movie before because you can't make any more stories.

xhonzi said:

DominicCobb said:

Well, yeah, maybe he should have used a gun if he couldn't defeat Bane, but... you know... he did.

You must not have watched the same movie I watched.  In your version, did Batman not have his back broken and get sent to a hell-hole for 5 months during the which countless people were killed and/or terrorized?  And then, at the end of their later fight, Bane distracts Batman long enough for Talia to slip a knife betwixt his ribs and only due to the long odds of Catwoman actually coming back AND SHOOTING him (with guns) is Bane defeated?

 

You misunderstand me, which is somewhat my fault. For obvious reasons he didn't use a gun the first time he went up against Bane. Then, yes, Bane broke him. So if Batman didn't think he could, when he came back, defeat Bane, then, yes, it would be selfish for him not to use a gun. But, as you can see from their final fight, Batman knew he could defeat Bane, and he did. Bane was broken, the pain was taking over because Batman messed up his mask. Bane was only able to get up to kill Batman afterwards because Talia fixed his mask. So why use a gun? Also, Bane did not distract him, Batman just wanted to let him see his plan fail, and Batman was banking on the fact that Miranda was on his side. Unbeknownst to Batman, Miranda was actually Talia, and behind the whole operation. This false trust was where he got screwed. If he brought a gun and shot Bane, yes, Bane would be dead, but that wouldn't stop Talia from stabbing him.

Let me see if I'm following: Batman thinks he can take Bane without a gun.  He can't.  Back is broken, people suffer and die.  Batman trains, this time thinks he can take Bane without a gun.  He gets Bane on the ropes, but he tags Talia in... so he still can't defeat Bane.  A bomb is about to go off and kill 8 million people.

Do I have it right?

Well, Bane wasn't really on the ropes. I would say he was defeated. Unless you mean you think the only way for Batman to defeat him would be to kill him. Which makes no sense. Bane was out. He wasn't fighting any more. He posed no threat. But he did know who the trigger man was. This was something Batman wanted to know also. Unfortunately for Batman, he had NO idea that the person he worked with and put the utmost trust in was going to stab him. Bane did not simply tag in Talia. I don't know how I can make this more clear. If Batman knew Miranda was on Bane's side, there would have been no problem. So I don't see what the problem here is. I don't remember seeing "Why didn't Bruce Wayne know Miranda was Talia?" on your list, which is probably because he had no reason to think she was. To emphasize and summarize, I leave you with this: BATMAN BREAKS BANE'S MASK, THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFAET HIM. BATMAN ASKS BANE WHERE THE TRIGGERMAN IS. MIRANDA, THE PERSON WHO BRUCE WAYNE CHOSE AS THE CEO OF HIS COMPANY, COMES OVER AND STABS BATMAN. BATMAN IS, UNDERSTANDABLY, CONFUSED. SHE TELLS HIM SHE IS TALIA AL GHUL, AND FIXES BANE'S MASK. SHE LEAVES, AND BANE RISES UP FROM DEFEAT (MUCH LIKE BATMAN DID) AND PREPARES TO KILL BATMAN. So, yes, while I understand that Batman would have not be about to be killed by Bane, had he already killed Bane; Talia would have probably killed him instead. It's important to note, also, that if Batman were to break his one rule, he would need a damn good reason. But he had no reason. He didn't think "I should just kill Bane because if I did then he wouldn't be able to kill me after my friend betrays me and fixes up his mask," because he had NO reason to believe that would happen. Hope you understand now.  

xhonzi said:

DominicCobb said:

Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid.  Period end of sentence!

Well, yeah, maybe he should have used a gun if he couldn't defeat Bane, but... you know... he did.

You must not have watched the same movie I watched.  In your version, did Batman not have his back broken and get sent to a hell-hole for 5 months during the which countless people were killed and/or terrorized?  And then, at the end of their later fight, Bane distracts Batman long enough for Talia to slip a knife betwixt his ribs and only due to the long odds of Catwoman actually coming back AND SHOOTING him (with guns) is Bane defeated?

You misunderstand me, which is somewhat my fault. For obvious reasons he didn't use a gun the first time he went up against Bane. Then, yes, Bane broke him. So if Batman didn't think he could, when he came back, defeat Bane, then, yes, it would be selfish for him not to use a gun. But, as you can see from their final fight, Batman knew he could defeat Bane, and he did. Bane was broken, the pain was taking over because Batman messed up his mask. Bane was only able to get up to kill Batman afterwards because Talia fixed his mask. So why use a gun? Also, Bane did not distract him, Batman just wanted to let him see his plan fail, and Batman was banking on the fact that Miranda was on his side. Unbeknownst to Batman, Miranda was actually Talia, and behind the whole operation. This false trust was where he got screwed. If he brought a gun and shot Bane, yes, Bane would be dead, but that wouldn't stop Talia from stabbing him.

I agree with ender here. I find a lot of people are overanalyzing this film. Yes there are some nitpicks, but, I mean, there have really been only a handful of perfect films, ever. So I'm not going to nitpick all of your argument, but I'll say a few things.

xhonzi said:

27. Why was this even a Batman movie?  He's hardly in it.  It's more about Bane and John Blake.  Why not just make that movie.  It's almost like Nolan made a Batman movie under duress.  He was contractually obligated to put Batman in at least 15% of the movie, so he did... but that didn't stop him from making 3 or 4 other characters be more interesting and have more screen time.

Do you think Batman was in more of The Dark Knight than he was in this? That film was completely the Joker's show. This film was about Bruce's journey. Besides they established early on that his body is completely wrecked. Sure he could temporarily compensate with those bracers but there's no way he could sustain that indefinitely.

I don't think Batman was in TDK enough either, but Bruce started the movie being Batman, was Batman the entire movie, and was Batman at the end.  TDKR has very little Batman (less than TDK, I'm guessing) and not much more Bruce.

This is an argument I've had with some friends of mine. Just because Batman is in the film for a fraction of the run time doesn't mean the movie isn't all about Batman. Because it is. 

Warbler said:

xhonzi said:

13. I know Batman hates guns.  But how many innocent lives is he willing to spend to keep this ideal?  He fights Bane mano-e-mano and almost loses (twice!) when a well placed bullet to the head could have ended things pretty quickly.  8 million lives are on the line, but Batman still refuses to use a gun.  [JohnAdams]Incredible.[/JohnAdams]  Henry Jones, Jr. could have ended that fight a lot sooner and wouldn’t have put so many innocent lives on the line.

get this through you your head, Batman doesn't use guns and he doesn't kill. That is part of his character.   His parents were killed with a gun.  Batman fans would have been outraged if Nolan decided to have Batman use a gun to kill Bane. 

Get this through your head: I know Batman doesn't use guns or kill... except for... you know... when he does. 

Even so, my complaint is that in a situation like this, not using a gun is ridiculously selfish and risky and stupid.  Period end of sentence!

Well, yeah, maybe he should have used a gun if he couldn't defeat Bane, but... you know... he did.

xhonzi said:

16. Bruce is still broken up about Rachel 8 years later?  Truth be told, I think Harvey in TDK acts a little too over the top at her passing.  Maybe my wife of 10 years, but not a girl I had been dating long enough to be quasi-engaged.  Rachel must be some girl that both Harvey and Bruce can't live without her.

heartbreak can do a number on you.

Tell me more, Warbler.

It's not just that Rachel died. The thing is, ever since his parents died, Bruce Wayne has never been Bruce Wayne. He didn't know what to do with his life, until he decided on revenge. He couldn't fulfill that, and decided to fight crime instead. So he became Batman, and decided to be Batman for as long as he needed. When he was done would be with Rachel and they would live a life. After TDK, Bruce retired as Batman, but, without Rachel, he wasn't sure what to do with his life. He tried building the fusion reactor to help save the world, but shut it down when he realized its danger. After that, he wasn't sure what to do. Bruce has always been a broken man since the death of his parents. Now that he doesn't have something to do, he just sits around, Howard Hughes style. But, fortunately, during the course of TDKR, Bruce learns that to live you really need to live. So no, it wasn't just heartbreak.

Not all those hospitalized were kids. If I were in that hospital I would MUCH rather see normal old Christian Bale. If he dressed up like Batman it would kind of trivialize it and might seem kind of degrading.

Bronson (2008) 8/10 - Crazy and a bit disturbing. Great performance from Tom Hardy. I really like Nicolas Winding Refn's style, but I don't know if it was the best fit for this type of story. Either way, I feel like it really put you in the head of Charlie Bronson, which was cool (insane). I hope he does more things like Drive in the future though. 

Warbler said:

I guess.  It's just Robin wasn't a cop, he was a trapeze performer.    And his first name wasn't Robin,  it was Dick.

Well I don't think Blake is supposed to be Robin. I think they just threw in that his real name was Robin as an easter egg that let's you know you will follow in Bruce's footsteps. I think some people think it's meant to show that he actually becomes Robin, but I think it's clear that he becomes Batman because 1) everything at the end points to his becoming Batman and 2) what kind of a superhero would use their own name?

Well he just couldn't remember his name so I told him it was Terry McGinnis. You have a point but I think the point I'm trying to make is that everyone who saw this movie would get the Robin reference, but a large number would not get the Terry McGinnis reference, had they made one.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

Does anyone else here agree with me that it would have made more sense for John Blake's real name to  be Terry McGinnis  instead of Robin? 

Yes. I believe they didn't use it because most people would kind of go "what? who?"

you telling me that most of an audience that would watch a Batman movie, wouldn't know who Terry McGinnis is? 

Well, yeah. First off, TMcG (as I'll call him) is a fairly new creation. Robin's been around for 73 years. Also, I'd wager to bet that at least 20% of the people who are going to see the movie are not really Batman fans (just fans of TDK or some other reason). Then it's important to note that probably at least another 30-50% are just casual Batman fans. Then you have to account for people like my brother, who was actually a fan of Batman Beyond back in the day, but couldn't for the life of him remember the name TMcG. So, yeah. 

Warbler said:

Does anyone else here agree with me that it would have made more sense for John Blake's real name to  be Terry McGinnis  instead of Robin? 

Yes. I believe they didn't use it because most people would kind of go "what? who?" By having his name be Robin it makes it clear to the majority of the audience that he will follow Batman. I actually wished he was referred to as Terry McGinnis throughout the film (I love Batman Beyond) but it would have given everything away. Shame. 

Warbler said:

timdiggerm said:

And the brings us to the thing I hate most about this movie.    Bruce Wayne leaving Gotham with Catwoman.   That is so wrong on so many fronts.   Bruce Wayne would never stop fighting crime in Gotham, you'd have to kill him or disable him permanently to stop from crime fighting.

Remember what Alfred said, early in the film, about how he hoped that Bruce would find peace. Bruce being at the cafe means that that's happened.

Bruce would never give up fighting crime in Gotham, period end of sentence. 

I think you really need to disconnect from the comic books. This Bruce Wayne is a different character. In Batman Begins, the scene where Bruce explains Batman to Alfred when they're on the plane, he makes it very clear that Batman would be temporary - a symbol to inspire people. In The Dark Knight, he sees Harvey Dent as the man who could inherit his inspiration. He sees Dent, a true hero, as the real symbol Gotham needs. He makes it very clear that he is going to retire Batman. Then, of course, Dent goes mad, but at the end, he decides that Batman could take the fall so Dent could remain as the true heroic symbol of Gotham. Now, in The Dark Knight Rises, his plan has worked, and they've cleaned the streets. Bruce is no longer Batman, but he isn't really living. Alfred leaves because Bruce turns again to Batman when Bane comes around because he believes Bruce is looking for death. Now, fast-forward to the end of the film, Bruce has realized what Alfred said was right. He wasn't afraid of death, but he should have been. Bruce managed to save the day, but he's older now. If he keeps Batman up, he will die, and for what? It doesn't matter who's behind the mask - it's the symbol of Batman. So he retires, but he doesn't do it how he did before. No, now he decides to have a life beyond Batman, as Alfred wanted. To me, it's the perfect conclusion to THIS Bruce Wayne's character arc.

As for Catwoman, he knows there's more to her than a criminal. I'm paraphrasing here, but he says, after deducing that she isn't poor enough to steal, that "she must be mixed up with the wrong people." He also later says that she must want the clean slate as "a way to start fresh." He believes that she did time before, honestly regretted it, and is now only working for Daggett because she wants the clean slate so she can get rid of her record. The fact that she comes back to save him kind of proves that he was right.

As for leading him to Bane, if I remember correctly, she said she did it because he would have killed her otherwise, and really Bruce wanted to find and fight Bane. After he got ass-kicked, he realized that he really was just looking for death, and he couldn't really blame Selina because it was almost entirely his fault he was put in that situation.  

(No spoilers here)

After four years of waiting, I finally saw

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Midnight premiere - I was blown away. As I exited the theater, I felt I needed to see it again as soon as possible. All day there was only one thing I could think of: The Dark Knight Rises.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Again - I was blown away. Again. That's right, I saw it for a second time last night. Never before have a bought two tickets for the same movie on one day. (Back in 08 I saw Indy 4 twice, back-to-back, but I snuck into the second showing. Yes I liked it - though to tell you the truth the only reason why I saw it again was because I didn't have a ride until approx. two hours after the first one let out. Just deal with it.) Anyways the reason why I saw it again was because when I came out from the midnight one, I was as aching to see it again as I was to see it the first time. And even now I still want to watch it again as soon as possible. Yes, it's that good. As to where it ranks in terms of the trilogy and Nolan films overall, it's still hard to say. Part of me feels like it isn't as great a film as TDK and Inception, but the other part of me feels like it might be, and even if it's not, it sill might be my favorite. It's that good. And yet, while I know it's not the best film ever made, for some reason my urge to re-watch is greatest I've ever had (barring the OT which I watched over and over again in my younger years). I believe this is simply because of it's size. This film is an epic, in every sense of the word. Batman Begins was an action film, The Dark Knight was a crime thriller, The Dark Knight Rises is an epic. There are so many characters, so many plot points, so many set pieces, so many emotional beats. There is a lot there. This is a good thing. Repeat viewings are rewarding. In fact I think I might have loved it more the second time than the first. It's just such a fitting end for the trilogy. I love when things come full circle and this did just that. As a lifelong Batman fan it was nice to see my favorite super-hero have an interpretation that had a definitive beginning and ending. Bruce Wayne's character arc in this was done perfectly. So was the arc for John Blake (JGL's role). Anne Hathaway really surprised me here, and I thought she did a great job. I loved Tom Hardy as Bane - not just his interesting voice/verbal acting but his physical acting to was top-notch, and in fact the stand-out aspect of his performance in my opinion. He's not Heath Ledger's Joker, but boy is he something. The real highlight of the film, though, acting-wise, is Michael Caine. Simply incredible, especially considering he has (probably) less screentime than the other top-billed actors. Okay, now I think it might seem like I'm ranting a bit, so I'll wrap things up. If anyone would like a short, spoiler free review from me, here it is: The Dark Knight Rises succeeds. Acting all around is top-notch. The story is exceptional. The action is intense. The film features all the great character building from Batman Begins and the complex moral questions from The Dark Knight (it in some ways "answers" the questions raised there and at the same time explores even more). There are two aspects of the film that are the most outstanding. One is the emotion, something the others films had little of. The other is conclusiveness. Trust me, you will not be disappointed with the ending. I emphatically recommend you see this film. 10/10

Next up: IMAX!  

I saw the midnight premiere, loved it, then last night my friends asked if I wanted to see it, and I immediately said yes. And I want to see it again. It's that good.

I cannot express how sad I was to learn of the shooting. That hit me deep. I was at one of those showings! I've been going to the theaters since, literally, I was an infant, and I've never once thought I was ever in any danger. I always walked in the theater thinking I'm going to sit down and see a movie now and nothing can stop me from watching it. The theater was always a place to escape to, and to, sometimes, watch a work of art.  

But I have to say you can't let this shooting define your choices. You can't live in fear. If Batman has taught us anything it's to not let criminals control our actions. 

Now what I'm about to say next may sound insensitive, so I apologize ahead of time. You guys really have to go to this movie. This movie needs to make serious, serious money. They don't make films like these anymore. This film is an epic. A large scale, practical effects laden epic. And it's smart. This is what blockbusters should be. If the American people could prove that they get past tragedy to see a film worth seeing, it could prove to the big wigs in Hollywood that they need to start making real films again, not stupid 3D cash grabs. And the thing is, people are going to the theaters less and less these days. This is the last thing theaters need. I do not want to live to see the day when films are no longer released on the big screen. So yes, I would like to say I am deeply sorry to the victims in Colorado. I realize what I just said was rather selfish.

But now I say that you really should see the film, not just because it's good, but because I feel it might be even more important now, than ever. I won't give anything away, but Batman has always been about standing up to criminals - but not killing them, and not using guns, I would like to add. I've heard some people say they wished that someone in that theater had a gun - this wish boggles the mind.

Anyways, go see it. I read somewhere what scene the man started firing during. If any of you want to know the scene so you can get it past you while you watch (knowing which scene it was let me get it out of my mind when I re-watched it) I can tell you. I'll try not to spoil anything, but it was approximately 20 minutes into the film, the scene where there is a shootout in the bar Anne Hathaway's character is at. Hope that helps. Peace. 

I didn't say I expect it to be, I just said I hope it is. As long as the film is great, I'm happy.

Okay, here's where my TDKR marathon gets serious

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) 9/10 - Some of the best aspects of the Animated Series in one feature length package - how couldn't it be the third best Batman film (so far)?! Lots of nostalgia with this one, and it's great to find that after all these years the film is just as good, if not better, than I remembered.

Memento (2000) 10/10 - Just as clever on repeat watching as on first. A masterpiece.

Insomnia (2002) 9/10 - Even on second watch it's still surprises me how great a film this is, considering the rather basic plot.

Batman Begins (2005) 9.5/10 - A brilliant film. I didn't catch it during its theatrical run, but I rented it when it came out on DVD, and the way the Bat origin was told blew me away. This film really set the bar for super-hero actioners.

The Prestige (2006) 9.5/10 - This film is even better on second viewing. (SPOILERS) You really understand the characters a lot more, and end up feeling quite a bit of empathy for Borden(s). It also occurred to me while watching that in Batman Begins, Christian Bale plays one man pretending to be two, while in this, he plays two men pretending to be one. (END SPOILERS) Quite a masterwork. If you haven't, you should see it.

The Dark Knight (2008) 10/10 - Really an exceptional film. Batman Begins was the greatest super-hero action movie, but this is really more than that. This film is masterful. Everything about it. Heath Ledger's Joker is, dare I say, one of the greatest performances of all time, but I honestly believe that is just the tip of the iceberg here. It's not my favorite Christopher Nolan film, but boy does it come close.

Inception (2010) 10/10 - So now you're probably wondering "what is your favorite Nolan film," or maybe your not, because you've noticed my username. Yes, Inception is my favorite Nolan film, but I sincerely hope that come 3 o'clock tomorrow morning, I won't be able to say that anymore.

Christopher Nolan's response to Rush Limbaugh's comments, “I’m not sure how to address something that bizarre, to be honest. I really don’t have an answer for it, it’s a very peculiar comment to make,” made me laugh.

TV's Frink said:

Please tell me you've seen it in "motion."

Yes I have, though part of me wishes I hadn't.