uh, no it's not.

[spoil] [align=left]Bruce leaves his will, giving Blake (Robin) the means to find the cave entrance and restoring the Bat Signal on top of GCPD. when collecting the bag Bruce left him, the woman asks him for his name. He replies, "John Blake". She then says, "You should use your full name...Robin."[/align][/spoil]

and here's another big spoiler for ya
[spoil][align=left]In the last fight, as Batman and Bane are fighting each other, we all know Batman smashes Bane's mask (he doesn't do that on purpose btw, Then, Bane loses control, goes ape**** crazy, and slowly starts to die. He's wheezing and you can see it in his face that he's a goner, but Batman keeps wailing on him and grabbing him, screaming "WHERE IS THE DETONATOR!!" Finally, he pulls Bane close and says, "Tell me where the detonator is...THEN you have my permission to die." [/align][/spoil]

Off to see the midnight showing in a couple of hours. My local cinema is running BB and TDK now leading up to midnight.

Will post a short review when I get back if Im still conscious.

This movie exudes metric fuck-tons of awesomeness.

Go see it.

Fantastic ending to an epic trilogy! Definantly up there with the Original Star Wars trilogy & Lord of the Rings! There is alot to take in during one sitting so recommended to see it twice. Each of the Dark Knight movies had their own certain tone and style. To me it seemed as the movies progressed they became less and less "comic-book-y," which to me is a good thing.

This movie shits all over Avengers! I hope it blows it out of the water box office wise.

Well Harry just shat all over this one. Pretty much hated it, not that his reviews can be trusted. Doesn't sound like they stayed true to the character of Batman, leaving Gotham for a girl, staying away for 8 years, shoehorning Robin into the end just to say they included him. this is probably a download for me.

[spoil]

[/spoil]

That Harry Knowles doesn't like this movie makes me MORE optimistic/excited for my midnight viewing later tonight.

I'm not seeing it until Saturday, but I was never going in with expectations that this would be better than the Dark Knight. I've always thought it would be a supreme disappointment to everyone if only because it had to follow TDK. I'm sure it'll be very good - people are just going to be prone to hyperbole because of ridiculous expectations.

I still have problems getting over the fact that Batman was never seen again since the day Harvey died.

Wasn't the ending TDK speech from Gordon all about that Bats is The Dark Knight who'll be despised by many, but will be always fighting, always doing what is right? Not to mention Joker teased about their future confrontations (now it looks like Joker didn't know what he was talking about). It would be much better if this particular story was about an even older Batman (say 18 years into the future), if they didn't cut his "career" so short.

You're absolutely right. I'm also not a fan nor do I understand the decision to make Batman go into hiding after TDK.

"He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight..."

As much as they wanted to respect Heath Ledger, it doesn't make much sense to completely ignore many of the events of this trilogy's high point.

Anyway, I don't want to criticize too much before I see the movie.

It's really nothing like tdk at all except in tone...more of a sequel to bb. The people crying about Robin need to gtfo of the internet.

My advice gents is just go along and enjoy the movie. It's not rocket science or curing cancer ffs.

Harry has, and always will be a fat fucking retard. Anyone who reads his shit is probably a fat fucking retard as well.

Apparently the teaser for MoS is now attached to prints..?

Okay then SI, spill your guts.

WHY is it a good BATMAN movie? Isn't that out of character for him to be holed up like Howard Hughes? They should've just made him much older and referenced Dark Knight Returns. Now THAT would have been a way to top the last one!

Don't be scared of the source material. These are comic based characters. This isn't Hamlet. I think that's where Nolan goes off course, trying to ground this too much in reality.

In essence, he's basically said Batman's "career" spanned about 9 years, with 8 being off wandering his house with a cane! He trained and became Batman during 'year one' in Batman Begins, 6 months later he fought the Joker and Two Face, gets his ex-girlfriend killed, gets sad over it and goes into hiding for 8 years! Comes back, get's his ass AND back broke by Bane, recoups, hooks up with Catwoman and calls it a day at a cafe after losing his fortune and handing over the batcave to some cop. Really??

My main enjoyment from the film comes not from the source material, but from the way Nolan handled his trilogy. I'm not sure what people expect but imo the final film delivers in spades.

Ok we all cried when Bane was first revealed as the villain. After watching this you can't tell anyone else would have worked. He's the only one who can go tie to toe with Batman and break him. Literally. He goes back to square. Two ex-communicated students of The League of Shadows presiding over the fate of Gotham. An orphanage op with the same ideals as a young Bruce Wane.

The beginning, fall, and rise of The Dark Knight is done here better than it ever will, I have no doubt about it. I have a few concerns about this movie which I will mention when you guys have seen the film. It's not all mindless gushing. Just so I got it straight you don't like the 8 year gap but wouldn't mind a larger gap, did I read that right ?

I'm sorry about the typos I hate this Cunt of a phone.

I was going to write something up here about my thoughts on the flick but the shit that went down in Colorado is really killing my post-screening buzz.

I'd give this movie a solid "B." But the things I didn't like seemed to outweigh the things I did like.

Felt like Joseph Gordon Levitt was being forced down our throats a little bit.

The pacing felt off. I thought the pacing of the story was one of the biggest strengths of BB and TDK. Every scene built up to the next one, and the dramatic tension went in one coherent direction in the first two films. TDKR's pacing felt disjointed through much of the film.

Going from Maggie Gyllenhaal to Anne Hathaway was an upgrade in every conceivable way. The "(fill in the name here) went out like a punk" statement can easily be applied within the film as well.

One can come up with two very different interpretations of the ending. I have a feeling the corporate suits preferred the "happier" interpretation. Wish the ending had been more definite.

I was blown away after seeing TDK. After seeing TDKR, I was like "eh, that was alright." Good atmosphere in the theater, and every seat was occupied for the midnight showing.

well fuck. 12 dead and something like 30 wounded in a horrible shooting at a midnight showing of DKR. One 24 year old wearing a bullet proof vest and a gas mask, white male shooter, going up the aisles 15 minutes before the film began, he apparently threw a canister of tear gas out and began shooting with an AK, 2 handguns and a shotgun.

Even a 3 month old baby was shot! (who brings a 3 month old to a midnight movie?) The man was apprehended in the back of the parking lot by police. Prayers and thoughts to those affected.

What a horrible, terrifying situation. It seems the film has gained a stigma, unfortunately. I saw it last night (a Friday night) with very sparse attendance. Saw a guy being escorted out of the theater for wearing a "I SURVIVED BATMAN" t-shirt. No shit.

Lots of boos at the Gangster Squad trailer featuring gunmen shooting their way through a theater screen. Confusion at the Man of Steel trailer featuring Lord of the Rings music.

As for the film... eh. Many of the plot's beat points were VERY convenient. It stuck to its overall theme well enough, though it got a little Inception-y toward the end. Anne Hathaway was fantastic and I wasn't expecting how she interacted with Bruce at all. Her scenes were easily my most anticipated. Tom Hardy as Bane - WOW - amazing how he can act with his eyes and body language. His motives were too muddled but he grew on me as a villain. I can't remember actually fearing a character like that in a long, long time.

I'm a little amazed how much of the film doesn't actually feature Batman. I'm glad I kept my expectations tempered.

I just got back from a screening. My immediate conclusion is that Rises is a good film which happens to include The Batman.

As a whole, I’m not sure if Batman's reduced screentime was merely a unintended consequence of the story being told or a deliberate creative choice on Nolan’s part. While I’m not in the camp that thinks this is an inherently bad idea, I do prefer the previous two film's more balanced approach.

For me, the most disappointing aspect of the film was its slightly cursory service to its real-world plot points. I mistakenly thought that Batman’s second beginning would be deeply rooted in the World Recession. While you can find a way to parallel Wayne’s rediscovery and reinvention of himself with the World Economy’s need to do the same, this concept doesn’t seem to go as hand-in-hand with real world as the Joker’s schemes did with the War on Terror.

In addition, I would have liked a more resolute conclusion for the supporting characters of Fox, Alfred, and Gordon. Save for certain aspects of Alfred’s story, these characters were simply there to service the plot. I guess the Nolan brothers ran out of ideas for them.

I did like the two cameos in the film. (Crane as Robespierre is appropriate.) I also thought that Talia’s reveal was handled well.


The Joker is still correct. If he went free, he and Batman would be battling ad nauseam (like in the comics). However, Joker got caught and that was the end.


This movie is as much Robin Begins as it is the end of Batman. As such, it makes sense that he would have a lot to do.

Regarding the shooting, The Onion had a poignant piece about it: " Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out ."

That was fucking brilliant.

After I saw it, I went back and read some of the spoilery reviews I avoided. For all his excess, I tend to agree with some aspects of Harry's review.

Overall, I would say that I liked it.

It's not a bad movie but TDKR is technically Nolan's worst film. Its pacing is extremely disjointed and there are a number of story decisions that seem like a complete departure from what Nolan established in BB and TDK. There's also a boatload of irrelevant new characters that offer almost nothing except to advance the plot.

What I liked:

• Bane is, for the most part, one of the best things about the movie. As much as I wasn't a fan of Bane's selection as a villain, he was menacing and physically imposing. The shot of him breaking Batman was pretty iconic.

• Batman beating the shit out of Bane.

• Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Selina Kyle. How her character was written is a bit of another story.

• Bruce's journey to hell and back was one of the more engaging aspects to the movie.


What I didn't like:

• I don't know why Wayne became a recluse. For this all to be on Rachel is way too convenient. It doesn't make sense to me why the guy at the end of TDK who had promised to remain a force for good suddenly decides that he's never going to don the cape and cowl again.

The Dent act might have locked up mob bosses and organized criminals, but there's still rape, murder and other crimes going on in Gotham. A "petty criminal" robbed Bruce of his parents. It was one of many "leaps of faith" that Nolan asked of the audience for this story to work.

• Alfred leaving Wayne is complete and utter bullshit. Not only did you take Michael Caine off the screen, which is NEVER a good thing, but it's completely against the character's motivations. All Alfred talked about during TDK was how important Batman is to Gotham yet here he is in TDKR telling Wayne not be Batman even though Gotham needs him. Another huge leap of faith asked of the audience and I didn't buy it.

• I really think John Blake detracted from the film. Good performance and I get that he's our "in" to this world, but it got to the point where he became the main character in a film titled "The Dark Knight Rises" (which is flat out a bad title) and the film lost focus. There were far too many characters, like Blake, wanting for more screen time and it led to a plotting nightmare.

• John Blake deducing Batman's identity? Major BS. Ridiculously convenient.

• Bruce half-hazardly guarding his identity in this movie was very silly.

• Using Bane's comic backstory for Talia's cinematic origin was bullshit to me for two reasons: First, it was only used to create the big "twist" of the movie which everyone who knows anything about Batman saw coming anyway. People complain about Joker killing Bruce's parents? Nolan completely bastardized both Bane and Talia's origins in one movie just to serve a pointless plot twist. Second, it completely negates the motivation and power of Bruce's journey.

We the audience were led to believe that the reason Bane was stronger and better than Batman was because he was born and raised in hell on earth. His iron will was forged of desperation and pure anger. But then it wasn't. So Batman was beaten to inches of his life by just a really strong dude. Bull-fucking-shit.

When you go back to earlier in the movie, think about how Bane basically used Talia's backstory the whole time as if it were his own. He's taunting Batman during his fight with him about how he suffered in darkness and knows what it's really like while Batman has just adopted these tricks as cheap tactics. Later we learn Bane was rescued in the hole by Ra's. Like a fucking bitch.

• Seeing Heinz Field instantly took me out of the movie as I expected it would. It elicited a collective chuckle from people in the theatre as Ben Roethlisberger and other famous NFL stars were seen. This is supposed to be a fantasy city and seeing a recognizable landmark from a real American city is just not a good idea. Of the Nolan films, Batman Begins got Gotham the most right.

• For most of the movie, I didn't feel like I was watching a Batman film. It was boring, especially during it's overlong setup, and mostly just not very fun or engaging like BB or TDK.

I'm mixed on the ending. Robin aside, I like the idea of Batman enduring as a symbol even though he's taken up by different people. I also like Bruce faking his death - ala Dark Knight Returns - and actually learning to move on with his life. I like the call back to Alfred's vacation spot. I think it should have been left more ambiguous (like Inception) and that Bruce has linked up with Selina Kyle in a Hollywood happy ending is a bit of sappy BS (and completely against her character).

So i've seen the film a couple of times now and have had some time to process the film and decisions Nolan and his crew made. TDKR is not a perfect film, this much is known. I'm not going to bother rehashing the same old complaints we've all heard and read ad nauseam by this point but I will say that my own ability to overlook these faults and appreciate the film on its own merits as a rousing (if slightly dull) blockbuster has improved with time.

Despite some truly amazing set pieces it almost felt as though Nolan was simply going through the motions on this film, struggling for something to say while relying on bombast to carry him through. Still, The Dark Knight Rises is an impressive spectacle the likes of which we aren't likely to see for sometime (if ever again). If nothing else, Nolan's take on the Batman has yielded one fine origin film in "Begins" and a superlative entry in the superhero cannon with "The Dark Knight." I think I'll let him slide this time around.



Points to CoGro for highlighting these two moments. I still can't believe how sloppy and obvious these scenes are in the finished film.

I liked reading your thoughts, CoGro and Joe. I think the “leap of faith” and “going through the motions” critiques are at the heart of the film’s problems. As whole, it’s odd see the Nolan brothers turn out an inconsistent script as their previous efforts have largely been dense and tightly plotted. Maybe Warner Brothers didn’t give them enough time to get the script completely right?



Bane adopted Thalia’s identity in order to provide her with cover. If Alfred had discovered that Ra’s daughter was the child who escaped, it’s likely that Tate and Kyle would have been viewed in a much more suspicious manner. (In a related note, it was nice see that Chuck Dixon was happy with his creation’s portrayal in the film..)

Regarding the Steelers, it’s likely that screen time for some marque players was a condition for the use of the stadium. Regardless, I take some comfort in knowing that Roethlisberger’s character probably got blown to bits.

I understand your point about ambiguity, but, as a whole, I wasn’t bothered by the Bruce’s “happy” retirement. Selina’s inclusion in the ending didn’t bother me either. Just because she was with Bruce at that moment, it didn’t mean that they were married (as Alfred wished). It would have been a little sad to see Bruce alone. Therefore, he had to be with Selina as she is the only living woman left in his life.



You have to respect the film’s scale and darkness. I was surprised how Nolan thoroughly crippled Gotham and was shocked at some of the film’s bleaker moments (i.e. Bruce’s compound fracture, the rape and murder of Thalia’s mother, Bane’s decision to hang a few the Wayne board members).

In terms of the future, I wonder if Warner will give the next creative team for the Batman franchise as much free reign as they gave Nolan?

i didn't like it.

1. not enough Batman. your movie is called Batman, not BruceMan. I want the growling, snarling, crime-solving utility belt gadget man, gadamn Batman. not Bruce whining in his mansion over a girl that didn't love him.

2. How exactly did Bats survive the nuke at the end? I never saw a point where he could have stopped the plane and jumped off. ??

3. mid-air blood transfusion within 2 minutes? yeah right!

I can't imagine this being the best they could do. There are some great ideas here. The League returning to finish the job with Talia in charge is an obvious and believable bookend to Batman Begins. The "No Man's Land" elements also make sense and I can see how they could lend to the LOS's plans.

There's just absolutely no substance here because there are too many characters who don't belong and not enough characters that do. Once Gotham's criminals are released and the city falls into chaos, I think it would have been richer to see gangs and mobsters start to carve up Gotham and take it back to where it used to be, except worse.

The ticking time bomb idea was fine, but the problem is that nothing is allowed to happen in between because everyone is under martial law and everyone is afraid of doing anything. It might have been a better to leave the city in chaos without any knowledge of their impending doom - the nuclear bomb acting as a final punishment.

The death by exile bit is pretty pointless considering all of these people were supposed to die in a nuclear explosion anyway.



Alfred shouldn't have discovered anything about Talia and that's the point - it's a very convenient plot twist that hurts the film and the collective bios of both villains: Bane needed to come from that prison so that Bruce's defeat of Bane was justified. I'm not complaining about Hardy's portrayal as much as I am a really stupid plot decision by the Nolans.



Possible but a bad decision to even use it by Nolan / Warner. They could have used no NFL players and I'd still be peeved that Heinz field is in the movie. We're talking about a very recognizable sports venue from one of the popular sports organizations in North America. Instantly killed my suspension of disbelief.



Wasn't bothered by his happy retirement either and I get why Selina was included. It just doesn't make sense for her character to do that in any way she's ever been represented and it's another reason why she probably shouldn't have been in the movie.



I think Paul Dini should get his chance to write the next Batman movie. Between his contribution to the comics, TAS and the Arkham-verse, Dini has his finger on the pulse of Batman better than any living human. My hope and wish is for the next Batman series to follow the style / mood of the Arkham games. That would be un-fucking-believable.




Avengers was a far bigger spectacle for me. By Far. Dark Knight Rises wasn't that big a spectacle for me at all.

You would hope that Dini’s prior successes would give him credibility with the Warner Brothers Executives. The funny thing about Nolan’s finale is that it allows for a continuation of the Begins timeline. The next writer could bring back Wayne, Blake, and even the Joker (who is referenced in the Rises novelization).

I half dream about a live-action version of Dini’s Return of the Joker, with an older grizzled Wayne (recast), Blake as NightWing (possibly recast), a sexagenarian Joker (Mark Hamill, of course) and a younger Harley Quinn.

If it the franchise is to go into Beyond territory, a new Batman would have to be introduced (Terry McGinnis?). Personally, I think it would be cool to have a Batwomen front the next trilogy. It would be a fun creative challenge to see if a female Bat hero can be just as a dark, frightening, and compelling as the Wayne original.

Speaking of Paul Dini and the Arkham games, looks like he won't be returning to the series; which apparently is going in a totally different (and in my opinion, terrible) direction. Terrible, terrible decision.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/08/03/a ... -next-game

Just saw the movie. It was fantastic like the previous two, but with so many references to them, why not a small comment/explanation for the lack of Joker? It's the only "flaw" I found.

As much as I like Dini's work, surely there are some other good Batman writers out there besides him. But, yeah, the silver age turn doesn't sound too interesting.

TDKR has started playing on movie channels and it gave me a chance to revisit the film a year later.

I still think the screenplay is a jumbled mess and the character motivations are very unbelievable.

I would have:

1. Kept Bane but made him an assassin hired by the League
2. Introduced Cobblepot, instead of the forgettible Daggett character, and made him an arms dealer central to the plot
3. Kept Tate but reworked her arc a bit so she and Bruce had a deeper relationship. Eventually I'd have Alfred/Bruce reveal his secret to her.
4. Made Ramirez be the one responsible for telling the truth about Dent when things got really bad. She would hope that it would inspire Gotham to fight with Batman but it would lead to Bane releasing inmates and mobsters to go after Gordon and the cops
5. Introduce Branden, who would lead the task force against a still active Batman at the beginning third of the film (Branden would be supplied by Cobblepot, who would be getting illegal weapons and dangerously modified devices secretly being supplied from Batman's armoury)
6. Kept Bane breaking Batman's back, but in the bat cave where he would then destroy it
7. Cameo Roman Sionis and Julian Day
8. Kept Alfred in the story - he would rescue Batman after Bane beats him, and would nurse him to recovery with Tate.
9. Kept the League of Shadows as the main antagonist; Talia would be responsible for infiltrating Wayne Enterprises so she could divert its funds and technology to help the criminals and the corrupt destroy Gotham, making the Wayne family the direct reason for its downfall. She would be supplying Cobblepot, Branden, Bane, etc.
10. Not have Bruce retire and only have a 4-5 year gap between the two movies. Bruce would have fully transformed into Batman, using it as a way to escape from his pain about Rachel.

I don't know how I feel about the nuke thing. On the one hand, I buy the idea that you want to take Gotham to the absolute brink of disaster if this is going to be the final film in a trilogy. On the other hand, it takes Batman into cartoony superhero territory and becomes a bit too silly. I think there needs to be a massive disaster in Gotham (bombs causing a massive Earthquake?) and a League of Shadows plot that leads the people to their impending doom, but I'm not convinced a "bomb" is it.

I also think there needs to be a character that carries the plot forward while Batman is in recovery. I'm not convinced John Blake is that character: it could be a combination of Gordon and Catwoman who would be our "in" since she would be able to learn about any explosive plans Cobblepot, Bane or Branden might have. It should not be Joseph Gordon Levitt; he was far too distracting from the main story. He made TDKR not feel like a Batman movie.

I've always thought that the ending to The Dark Knight Rises was an homage to this:

Exactly.

There's enough nods to previous Batman stories/incarnations throughout the entire Nolan series to make this totally plausible.

One year later I really can't even watch the movie in one sitting. The opening plane hijacking is still an amazing piece of filmmaking but beyond Anne Hathaway as Catwoman TDKR really doesn't have much going for it.