The Dark Knight Rises (4K Ultra HD)

Me: "you don't NEED to make another Batman film! You have given us everything!" Nolan: "Not everything, not yet." The Dark Knight Rises borrows many elements from The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Knightfall, but DO NOT think this is a straight forward adaptation of those storys. This just borrows some key plot elements, and becomes a stand alone movie. It's alot like what Nolan did with Batman Begins, as that one was heavily inspired by Batman: Year one, but became its own story. WARNING: I may SPOIL The SECOND installment, The DARK KNIGHT, in DETAIL. So at the end of The Dark Knight, Batman took the blame for Harvey Dents fall, now becoming enemy number 1 of the police. The Dark Knight Rises takes place 8 years after the Dark Knight, and as it turns out, Bruce Wayne gave up Batman and is now retired. Meanwhile, Gotham City is currently celebrating a time of peace. The Joker was captured at the end of The Dark Knight (and although his fate is uncertain in this film, all you need to know is that he's gone) and the police have cleaned up the rest of Gotham. Although peace has been achieved in Gotham, our heros have pretty much been eaten alive by this lie. Bruce Wayne hung up the Batman symbol, but never moved on. He is a recluse in Wayne Manor, not knowing what to really do with is life. As for Jim Gordan, lets just say he has been messed up the most mentally after Dark Knight. His wife has left him, and he has been speeking this lie for 8 years, PRAISING Dent going "oh, Harvey Dent, truth, justice, and the american way!" while thinking "yeah, Harvey Dent, the jerk that tried to kill my own son!". So in a way, Jim Gordan is on his own, having nothing but this lie he has to live with. Things change, however, when our terrorist Bane steps in Gotham. He has one purpose: take control of Gotham. He starts a series of attacks in Gotham, forcing Bruce Wayne to pick up the mantle of Batman again to reclaim his city. Of course, there is much more to Banes plan, as he wants to break Batman both mentally and physically. Why? Because Bane is associated with a previous villain in this series, and seeks revenge. This all leeds to a number of sub plots and character arcs (along with the introduction of several new characters) all leading up to an ending where everything is tied together. The POSITIVES: -The writing is great (not as great as Begins and The Dark Knight, but still great). -The action and effects are sensational! 90 percent of the action of this film is done with practical effects and death defying stunt work. There isn't really an iconic "money shot" scene like the truck flip in the Dark Knight, but the action is still really good. Also, the fist fights between Batman and Bane aren't as good as they should be, but are still alright, and improved over Begins and Dark knight. But, the dialogue between Batman and Bane makes up for it. -The acting is incredible. The characters are written and portrayed well, and are all great. There are probably too many characters to take in one film, but, they are all still done well, and you don't want any of them to have been cut out of the film. -There are some great moralls too. Plenty of emotion, and some good character analysis. -The ending: there are no words to describe but EPIC. It's written great, filmed great, and acted great. Somehow, Chris Nolan wraped everything up PERFECTLY, and I am shocked he was able to do so. Trust me, he MEANT IT when he said this would be the final Batman film of this series. SURPRISES: -One of the main charcters in this film was Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Her role isn't EXTREMELY pivotal to the plot, but important to Bruce Waynes story, and she has plenty of screen time. I didn't think Hathaway would be a good Catwoman, at all, but I was wrong! She was cast PERFECTLY, and gave a great performance. Tom Hardy I already new would be a great Bane (and he was). -In The Dark Knight Rises, ALOT of new characters are introduced, but thankfully, almost every character gets enough screentime, and they all give great performances. -Another newcomer particularly is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who gives a great performance as Officer John Blake. Although an original character by Nolan, he has several chatracteristics of a few charcters from the comics. He was acted and written so well, that I WANT to see this John Blake character in the comics. -And lets not forget the plot twists. There are moments of BRILLIANCE in this film. Obiously I won't spoil the plot twists for anyone though. Sure, I saw 1 or 2 of them coming, but there were a few I DID NOT expect. The NEGATIVES: -one nitpick I have is how Batman immediatly retired after Dents cover up. Instead, I would have stated Bruce continued to be Batman for 2 or 3 years (as a fugitive being hunted by the police) and slowly faded away, and by the point of this film, he has only been retired for a couple years. This is only a nitpick, since the starting off point of the film would stay the same, and this change wouldn't have made much difference to the plot. And it would still take place 8 years later, the only difference being he has just been retired for a couple years, instead of all 8. -Banes voice is an issue for alot of people. Trust me, you can understand him... 97 percent of them time. There are a few lines of dialogue that you can't quite understand, but overall, the voice was fine. BUT, in the opening, Banes voice was TERRIBLE! Yeah, I could understand him, but you couldn't help but laugh whenever he talked. After the opening act, however, they got the tone right, and Bane started to sound cool later, just bad in the opening. -editing was alright, but felt kind of "choppy" at times. -The pacing was good for the length, but still not that great. -alot of people think the film was too long. I disagree, I thought it was to SHORT! -The movie is 2 and a half hours long, but, this movie is the definition of a 3 hour movie. If it was just 15 minutes longer, almost all of my problems would be fixed.. The pacing would have been better, and the film just would have "flowed" better, instead of feeling clutered with information. And considering that some of our most successful films (Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and a few others) are well OVER 3 hours, I doubt extra length would have been a negative effect on this film in any way. -Despite the large amount of characters cramed into 2 and a half hours, most of the characters get enough screen time, except for one. Marion Cotillard as Wayne interprise member Miranda Tate. She gets a good amount of screentime, but still needed more. If the film was 10 to 15 minutes longer, 5 extra minutes JUST with her would have given her character more time. She was the one character that just didn't get enough development. -I have a few other nitpicks, but only a few are worth mentioning. There is a scene with a bank robbery in broad daylight, but 8 minutes later, it's pitch black! And when it comes to the plot midway through, it may seem a little illogical, but no more than Batman Begins or Dark Knight, so you can't question what is realistic and what isn't WITHOUT questioning the others. You can't ask one question without asking another. Overall, The Dark Knight Rises is, whether you like it or not, a good film, and an incredible ending to Chris Nolans trilogy. And alot of people complain about the ending, saying "MY Batman wouldn't do this!" well, it's not anyone elses Batman in this series, it's Chris Nolans Batman. We all have out own interpretation of the Batman character, and Chris Nolan gives us his. And personally, I don't think Chris Nolan could have ended his take any better. So, if you ignore the comics, forget your personal opinion on the Batman mythology, and view The Dark Knight Rises as a STAND ALONE MOVIE, you should be fine. The main reason why the ending works is BECAUSE it's forshadowed in the previous 2 films (if you payed attention, of course). "if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you will become something else entirely. A legend." As a man he can be destroyed, but as a symbol, he can live forever. THAT is a comman theme illustrated in this entire trilogy. If you can accept that, then you should know that The Dark Knight Rises has a very fitting end. If you liked Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, there is no good reason to NOT like this one. If you liked Begins (but didn't care for The Dark Knight) this should be a pleasant surprise, as this movie ties in ALOT to Begins, and I would even reccomend everyone to rewatch Begins before viewing Rises. But, if you DIDN'T care for Begins or Dark Knight, this film probably won't win you over, but everyone should still check this out. For me, this film gave me everything: Suspense, action, genius writing, great performances, 2 great cameos, plot twists, and an incredible ending, Nolan book ends everything as a trilogy should. Another word of warning: If you are looking for a nonstop "Batman" film, well, this may not be for you. This movie features less screentime for Bruce Wayne in the Batsuit than any other Batman movie. But that's the point. We got plenty of Batman in The Dark Knight, so now, we have Bruce Waynes story being completed. If you don't like Chris Nolans take on Batman, that's fine, but don't HATE on these movies just because they aren't for you. Sure, it is pretty illogical at times, but just as much as every other movie in existance. And if someone is going to tear this film apart over nitpicks or small plotholes, trust me, if I tried I could EASILY do that to any other movie. Just acknowledge that these ARE good films, instead of complaining about what you DON'T like. It's not that I ignore the problems in this movie, it's because there is MUCH more good than bad, so I can still give it 5 stars. Also, some people were dissapointed with The Dark Knight Rises because the expectations were SO overwhelmingly high. PLEASE, do NOT let your expectations get the best of you! Think logically (like me) before viewing this movie. Sure, this film isn't 10 times better than Dark Knight as that was to Begins, but, it's still great! I still love all 3 chapters of this trilogy (something alot of trilogys fail at). So, if you enjoyed Batman Begins and Dark Knight (and payed attention to the themes illustrated in them) you should enjoy this. Is this the PERFECT everything a fanboy could want Batman film? Well, no. But heck it'll do! It's still a great Batman movie, and succeeds in doing what was most important: giving the trilogy a fitting ending. Sure, the movie isn't perfect, but quite frankly, a perfect film just doesn't exist. And if there is anything else that anyone is confused or scratching their head about, please comment. After seeing this film 3 times, I have been able to explain nearly every plothole or problem I had when I watched it the first time. If you were confused in any way, feel free to ask questions :) Everyone should check this out, as it is a truly incredible ending to this amazing trilogy. Me: "I never said thank you." Nolan: "and you will never have to."

The following review started out as a gentle and respectful reply to another reviewer, so it may not seem as cohesive as other reviews, but I'm now posting it for two reasons: 1) I'm really tired of all the "too long" comments, because I see that response as an indication of the general loss of decent attention spans that now exists in the citizens of our troubled nation (USA, but maybe other nations too?), and 2) there seem to be a lot of shots taken at Chris Nolan-just for being Nolan, and since--IMHO--TDKR is the most "Nolan-ese" of the series, I suppose people who don't like Nolan will find more to dislike than those who like him. And, it may also be true that points 1 and 2 above are connected. On the other, I really like long films, and I really like Chris Nolan's film-making, so I'll admit that my bias in those two areas shows up clearly. Oh well. But, to the "review": I'm not a Batman fanatic, from the comix side, but I do like Chris Nolan, esp Memento & Inception, and I guess this film "felt" more like a Chris Nolan film than the first two. I'll also concede that I am one of those crazy people who actually likes *really* long films! (Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia are two of my favorites.) Having said that, I'll note that I thought TDKR was amazing, and--in some ways--the best of the three. I had not read many reviews of this one until I watched it, so the way the plot unfolded was mostly new to me, and I have to say that I genuinely liked the way Nolan paced that unfolding, especially as Bane was set-up as virtually unbeatable, perhaps even by Batman at his peak. I've heard Bane described as "jolly," or perhaps just too flippant, but I think his attitude is simply a supreme confidence to the point of arrogance, and his arrogance makes him dismiss Batman, and any other opponents, with a vile amusement that is probably flip and sarcastic, and tied very much to his angry and bitter "soul." Also, to note one example that comes up as negative, I have seen the "climb" out of the prison described as "too long," or "boring." Nonetheless, I really liked the technique of revisiting Wayne's attempts until he finally took the blind prisoner's advice and climbed "as a child," without the rope. Now, I'll concede that after the first two attempts, I was already telling myself, "he has to do it without the rope, like a kid," but I think Nolan wanted the audience to be a bit ahead of Wayne on that point, because he kept showing the footage of the kid climbing, and the absence of the rope was pretty obvious. To me, it shows that Batman/Wayne is still having difficulty getting his mind/spirit back to the point where he can battle Bane with any chance of success, and Nolan just lets us see that before the character does. Some folks have criticized Nolan's portrayal of Batman/Wayne as borderline crippled over an 8-year period, but he is just human, after all, and it shouldn't be a shock that his emotional loss in The Dark Knight sparked a long period of withdrawing from everything. If you believe Batman is simply a man in great shape and with great martial arts training, and with a few other skills, then you will accept that all of that can be lost through neglect and carelessness and a sorrowful apathy. OK, I'm in danger of rambling here, but I guess my point, for what it's worth, is that I have watched all three of the films in this particular Batman series. I have really enjoyed all three, but I've been waiting for the true "Nolan" twists to show up. Batman Begins was extraordinarily tame in its "Nolanisms," and then The Dark Knight seemed much more a Nolan product (esp in the Joker protrayal), and finally in The Dark Knight Rises, the "true Nolan" finally shows up, especially in those scenes where the action is so fast and shocking that it is almost bewildering, which is what you get in Inception (albeit for different narrative reasons). As for the ending, should Nolan have left Batman's fate more ambiguous, and would that have been more effective? Possibly, but as it stands, Wayne's fate is something about which only the audience, Alfred, Lucius, and Selena truly know. From an emotional perspective, I just liked that touch(with no excuse). There's other little stuff too, like the way Gordon is brought down and chastized for allowing the lie about Batman to continue. Gordon has been a true shining star up until this film, and he does his best to get his police force back on board, and he ultimately makes sure Batman's image is reversed, but there is a point, after Bane reads his speech, that Gordon is justifiably portrayed as pathetic and helpless. Again, a Chris Nolan technique that produced in me a profoundly sad feeling. Yikes! This was a lot longer than I intended. I'm not trying to slam anyone else's review, or start a "review war;" I'm just pointing out the personal perspective from which I "watched" this one, and I'm hoping some of you on the border might give TDKR another shot. Happy New Year!!! Grace and peace, Rick.

I was exceptionally impressed by this trilogy as a whole. The Dark Knight blew most people away and set an extremely high standard for this one to meet. I don't think this film met the standard for pure intrigue set almost single-handedly by Heath Ledger in his role as the Joker. I was however very impressed by Tom Hardy's performance as Bane and loved the character. I have heard many complaints about Bane from random people, but he is well constructed and developed, and highly formidable. He is a completely different animal from the Joker, and as the original story told, was meant to be Batman's arch-nemesis. I loved this movie for many reasons, including the depth of plot and for the story itself. Like most great movies, I think that it takes multiple viewings to pick up on all of the subtleties woven into the plot. (Study it closely naysayers, depth is there.) Many people complain of gaps and plot holes, but I don't give those complaints as much credence due to the subtle points woven in. Nolan does a good job of succinctly referencing most of those issues to move the story along quickly, you just have to pay closer attention. So purely as entertainment, I think this movie is incredible and well worth multiple viewings. ~plot spoiler alert from this point on~ This movie is very important, culturally, in my opinion. Nolan clearly draws a lot of inspiration from our society today, and writes a lot of cultural parallels into the movie. Much of what I am referencing here is the class warfare instigated by the cries of Bane for the citizenry to take back their city. A certain portion of the population is fooled into following a certain number of Bane's henchmen (not to mention the criminals set free) under the pretenses of rights to other people's property. This may seem like a digression, but Catwoman's character is a huge part of this side of the story. She is the caught between the two sides throughout much of the movie. She begins as one who sympathizes with movement of the [storm that is coming]. As the movie progresses however, she transforms from one who agrees with the deluded occupiers, to someone actively (however unwilling and detached she tries to be) engaged in fighting alongside the rational opposition to Bane. Catwoman's character is necessary for Nolan because I believe he wanted to show the line of logic that a fence sitter could follow to go from one side to the other. The tipping point for Catwoman was after a family was unceremoniously ripped from their home and Catwoman stood looking at a photo of the family and said "This was someone's home..." to which her friend replied, "No, this is everyone's home." She failed to buy into the propaganda machine controlled by Bane, and subsequently began to oppose those she once stood with. There are many more details showing cultural and societal parallels written into the movie. I won't go into any more, but in case it interests you in addition to the the movie for story's sake, watch for them. That is all, it's an incredible movie.

The simple question brings a complex answer here. The question with "The Dark Knight Rises" is obvious--is it as good as "The Dark Knight"??!? The answer is "No"--but that is an answer that has to be considered in context. "The Dark Knight" is arguably The Best Superhero Movie Ever; clearly is at or near the top of anyone's list in the genre. It also is one of the best movies made in the first decade of the 21st century. But when considered with movie series that have gone into two to three sequels, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a high-quality effort; very much a worthy third act in Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's story of Bruce Wayne. Take into account some of the recent "third chapters" we've seen--X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, The Bourne Ultimatium; Superman 3 from the '80s, Rush Hour 3, Batman Forever from the Burton/Shoemaker set...TDKR sets itself above these movies because it follows the continuity of the first two movies--the path that the Nolans followed, their vision of Bruce and Gotham--and gave it a full and completed story. Chris and Jonathan have been very good in combining parts and pieces of the great Batman stories of the last 25 years in this series. Obviously, much of their vision of Wayne has been based on Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" throughout the trilogy; and there were strong elements of "The Killing Joke" in TDK as well as harbingers of the "No Man's Land" series from 1999. TDKR--obviously--draws from both "Knightfall" and allows a reimaging of "No Man's Land" to come to fruition. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Nolans REALLY liked the "No Man's Land" scenario. But just as obviously, Chris and Jon also took great care with their imaging of The League of Shadows--in their real-world vision of The Bat, The League seems the perfect and best antagonist to this vision. Tom Hardy's Bane, in turn, fits brilliantly. Hardy captures much of what the character was when he was introduced--highly intelligent, uncompromisingly vicious. Again, much credit goes to the Nolans, who have a capacity for getting actors who will physically mold themselves. Christian Bale worked himself into good shape for all these movies. Hardy becomes a powerful, intimidating presence as Bane; though his mask (The positive for the Blu-Ray/DVD set is that Hardy's lines--at times, unintelligible in the theater--were cleaned up for the disc release...) serves a different purpose than in the original story. It's a great performance from Hardy, who has to do so much of it just with his eyes. This movie allows for the actors that Chris and Jon rely on for good performances to step up--Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake, the young Gotham police officer who knows who Bruce Wayne is/was and brings him back into the game; Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate ("I'm sorry, but what was her name again...??!?"), and again, Hardy. Bale's final turn as Bruce Wayne...is morose at first, with Bruce having become Howard Hughes in the aftermath of the Joker and Harvey Dent. As I've said over the years, Chris and Jonathan see Bruce Wayne more as a person with multiple personas more than a person with a secret identity; and what Christian captures early is how not letting the Batman out has affected him. Christian has been solid in his interpretation thoughout the trilogy. What brings Bale's Wayne back to "The Game" are Gordon-Levitt's Blake--explaining what he knows about Bruce, how he knows, and the sudden direness of the situation; AND... Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle. I cannot emphasize enough that Hathaway just kills it. She brilliantly captures the modern-day Selina; sharp-tongued, skilled high-end jewel thief, top-end martial artist, protector of her neighborhood...and just drop-dead gorgeous, especially in her catsuit. Kudos to the Nolans for the cat-eared goggles for Selina. In interviews after the completion and release of the movie, Hathaway has wistfully talked about Selina, quietly imploring the Nolans to revisit her at some point. Here's an open hope that the Nolans DO find a path back to her. Michael Caine's Alfred seems full of regrets here, and does not get as much screen time as in the first two. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox is still the sly and intelligent inventor. Gary Oldman has had a wonderful grip on Jim Gordon throughout. Again--"The Dark Knight Rises" is not on the level of its magnificent predecessor. But it is a very, very good film; and a great completion to The Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. Plus, it does leave some crumbs out there to lead to a new storyline. So, bravo to Christopher and Jonathan; Christian, Michael, Gary, Morgan, Liam Neeson, Anne, JG-L, Tom, Marion...well done. Highly recommended.

As far as trilogy enders go (Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Santa Clause) this is hands down awesome...but that's only because the bar has been set so low. I'd rate The Dark Knight Rises slightly ahead of Star Wars III, but it doesn't hold up to the standards of quality set in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The pacing was forced, the story illogical, and a sense that this was Batman you were seeing, but that everything was trying to be wrapped up prematurely, like half the development team was doing their job and the other half just wanted to get it over with and get paid. *Spoilers* Bruce Wayne losing Wayne Corporation: between his wits and Lucius Fox that would never happen, nor would they build a fusion reactor without realizing beforehand that the technology could be converted into a bomb. That's an oversight neither man would make. Second, Bruce's personal fortune would not be tied up in a single location for someone to steal with a thumb print at the stock exchange. He would have bank accounts, etc that would be uneffected, so the idea of him being broke is ridiculous. Still, the way the movie is filmed it seems plausible if you don't think too hard and just go along for the ride, as most people seem to do with movies. Catwoman: pleasant surprise to see Anne Hathaway fit the roll so well. Her acting saved a badly written part, for her betraying Batman to his death then falling in love with him makes no sense, nor does Batman's telling her she's making a serious mistake and then is all 'forgive and forget' later. He didn't even punch her once for that, even though he nearly died. The Bat Plane: Fox says it's just another Wayne prototype...so where's it been the past 8 years? If it had been something Fox had been working on in the interim, fine, but he doesn't say that, so why didn't he give this to Bruce in Batman Begins? That said, the design and function is awesome. Good tech work, bad writing. Bruce the Hermit: The knee leg injury was said to have been from the fall that killed Dent, but we see Batman running away afterwards...so no serious injury. He's had 8 years of 'retirement' to heal up, get reconstructive surgery, whatever. No excuse for him to be in anything but perfect health. As for being a recluse, he should be a fit recluse, otherwise all the lessons he learned in the first two movies are tossed aside. Batman was supposed to be on the run, every night patroling the city looking for bad guys and having to run from the police at the same time, not retire and live in the east wing of Wayne manor pining over Rachel. Ras's daughter: Why wasn't she there when Bruce was trained? Was she already on the board of Wayne Enterprises? She and Bane pop out of thin air into the league of Shadows storyline. Bane: Supposed to get stronger from the drugs, not use them as painkillers for an injury that we never get to see. He is clunky, slow, and strong. Batman's fighting knowledge should have him dancing around the man with hit and run attacks, not going at him fist to fist. Bane's victory was forced. As for his line about having grown up in the dark...he lived in a prison with a giant sunroof! Gotham held hostage for 5 months: no point in this save to give Bruce time to heal and escape. If they planned on nuking the city they'd do it. If they planned on taking over and staging a revolution, they'd do it. Both didn't fit. Ras's manipulation was designed to destroy the city, not play with them. This was not a true league of shadows operation. Alfred leaves: not true to character, nor his revealing the note he'd burnt. His absence seemed to be written in to get Bruce alone and poor. Having a Butler sticking around would be counter productive. Again, the storyline was forced here. Bridge blown to stop bus: All the bridges were blown in the beginning...save one??? Supposedly to get supplies in, you assume, but then you see barricades and fencing put up to keep people from getting out. Again, written in just to have something to blow up at the end for dramatic purposes. Robin discovers Batman: Apparently happens due to a look on Bruce Wayne's face, showing him the same pain at having lost his parents. But wait a second...Bruce Wayne lost his parents, so Bruce Wayne should look like that. Batman didn't lose his parents, as far as everyone knows, so where's the link between Bruce and Batman? Total bomb here. Makes zero sense. Training Robin: a few conversations, a bad of goodies, nothing more. Gordon's speach: Conveniently ends up in Bane's hands. He says 'search him' and the first thing the goons grab out of his pockets is a bunch of paper? They then find a gun...shouldn't they have got his gun when they knocked him out in the first place? Bad writing here, all to get the speach into Bane's hands. Clean Slate: Very convenient technology. Daggot's little speach points that out well. Fighting: Not enough effort put into this. Batman Begins level of choreography was not replicated. Bummer. You can see bad guys waiting around waiting their turn to get hit. Police mob at end: So cliche it doesn't deserve to be in Batman. Walk up at tanks held by criminals? Seriously? Bad writing again. Batman's armory: How did Bane find it? How did he know where to look for it? It was supposed to be a secret, so where was the security breach? Never explained. Batman getting owned: Little things like Catwoman disappearing when his back is turned...Batman doesn't turn his back. He's the badass, and the writing waters down the character to trump up catwoman. This was much more a Bruce Wayne movie than a Batman movie, and they didn't do Bruce Wayne well either. His intelligence disappears at convenient times. Bruce running away with Catwoman: nice ending after thinking he's dead, but totally out of character. Both them hooking up and him quitting being Batman. Gothan is a mess, Gordon needs help, and he leaves an untrained newbie to take care of everything and even a brand new bat signal on the roof? No, totally not right. Bruce Wayne leaving Gotham behind permanently and running off(supposedly broke)just doesn't fit. Batman/Bruce is not supposed to be happy. He is a tragic figure turned hero...not a lover/family man. Him being happy is not the objective, him keeping other people from avoiding the loss that plagues him is. That is Batman. A lot of good things in this movie, but the writing was subpar and contradictory with the previous two films. In the end it's worth watching a few times, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't live up to Batman Begins, at all.

Great movie

I just finished watching this for the second time (the first time was in the theater) so I thought I would write my review now. I was eagerly awaiting the release of this movie. I have been a huge fan of the franchise ever since the original Batman Begins [Blu-ray ]. Whenever I am really excited about a new movie, I tend to feel a little disappointed the first time I see it. That is why I watched this movie a second time, and I definitely enjoyed it more the second time around. I am not going to give an overview of the plot. Other reviewers have done that. I am going to simply list what I liked about the movie (and one thing, at the end of my review, that I did not like). There are some spoilers in my review so if you have not seen the movie yet you probably should not read my review. This is also a very long review. Once I start writing I usually find it difficult to stop. Alright, enough preface, onto the review! I have always liked the idea of super hero movies, but there are actually very few super hero movies that I really enjoy. In fact, I do not even watch very many of them, because in my experience I am almost always disappointed with them. The three Nolan Batman movies are really the only super hero movies that I think get it right. There are a number of reasons I think these films work so well. Here are some of the reasons I think this particular film works so well. First, it is set in the real world, and not some cartoonish world. I realize that some super heroes can only exist in a cartoonish world. Batman is one of the only super heroes that is, ultimately, just a guy in a suit. When you start talking about actual super powers you have obviously left the real world. Still, I am amazed at how few super hero movies attempt to create realistic characters, with understandable human motivations. Christopher Nolan has done a great job in this film, and the other Batman movies, creating a whole host of interesting and realistic characters. Ra's Al Ghoul, The Scarecrow, The Joker, and Bane are, in my opinion, the most interesting villains I have ever seen on screen. Each one is different, they have different motivations, and, most importantly, they are each unique. Most movie villains are essentially interchangeable with one another, you cannot tell them apart. The villains in these movies are real, full blooded and fully realized, characters, and so are all the other characters. That, on its own, is a real achievement. Second, the writing is very good. I did not think that the writing in this third movie was quite as good as in the first two. There were some lines, which I did not write down and cannot remember off the top of my head, where I thought "I have heard that before". But mostly the writing is quite good. I have been noticing lately how many cliched scenes tend to show up in films and television. I am starting to get the feeling that there are ten or twelve scenes that literally get passed from writing room to writing room, implanted directly from one movie right into the next (how many times have you seen the "it's not your fault" scene?) I did not get the feeling that any of the scenes in this movie were stock scenes that I had seen in half a dozen other movies. The writers put some thought into what they were attempting to say. I especially liked the underground prison which, I thought, was a particularly good metaphor for a kind of Chekhovian despair, and the solution (climb without the rope) was a good piece of writing. I had a few minor quibbles with the overall plot, holding the city to ransom with a nuclear device, but ultimately I think it worked. Third, it is more complex than the standard super hero flick. For example, is Cat Woman a hero or a villain? I love the way that they decided to make her both. All of the Batman movies tend to move past the simplistic good guy/bad guy dichotomy. The world itself is more complex than that. Everything is not all black and white. It is rare to see any kind of moral complexity in a super hero movie. Fourth, the acting is superb all around. Christopher Nolan has a knack for picking really good actors. The repeat characters, or the characters that appear in all three movies, are all excellent of course. Some of the best actors in the world. And all the new characters in this movie were equally excellent. Tom Hardy is excellent as Bane, Anne Hathaway made an excellent Cat Woman, I have always been a big Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan, and Marion Cotillard, who I have had a minor crush on for years, was also excellent as Miranda Tate. Fifth, I love everything about Bane as a villain. Super hero movies are, in my opinion, more about the villain than the hero. If you have a really interesting villain then you are on your way to a really good movie, if you have a lackluster, or overly cartoonish, villain, then the movie is already ruined. Evil, for some reason, is just more interesting than good. The super hero is almost like the straight man. You need a good straight man. A bad straight man, or hero, can ruin a movie as well. But the hero represents us, the viewers, and our values. That is not where the true interest lies. The true interest lies in the villain. Bane is a very interesting and compelling villain. You feel his presence as soon as he enters the screen. Just the way he walks is enough to mesmerize. There is a scene where Cat Woman and Batman are fleeing from Daggett's, and there is a moment where Cat Woman turns around, there are probably a dozen henchman firing guns at her, and then there is Bane, just silently walking, and somehow Bane walking is far more interesting, and menacing, than all the henchman firing guns. He draws the eye, his presence is so much more powerful. It is only a split second, but it is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Sixth, super hero movies need to be visceral and stir up emotions. I am a philosophy student, and I have actually spent quite a bit of time thinking about why people enjoy super hero movies. I do not really know the answer, but I have a theory. I think that super hero movies empower people. I think most people probably walk around with some unconscious fear or anxiety in their everyday lives. Bad things happen in the world. Even those of us who have never been the victim of a violent crime, know that they happen, and we have all probably been in situations where we were unsure of the outcome, where we felt things could go either way, or where we thought "If things go badly here I am going to be in a lot of trouble." I think that super hero movies are cathartic in the sense that they temporarily purge us of our fears. This movie does a good job tapping into that. There were a lot of "goosebump" moments in the movie for me, and when Batman finally starts to get the upper hand with Bane, you can feel it viscerally, in your body. That is what movies do, I think. They make you feel helpless (which is why you need a strong villain) and then they empower. This movie does that exceptionally well. Seventh, I know some people have complained about what they perceived to be the political message of the movie. It seems as if Bane represents the Occupy Wall Street movement. I do not know what Nolan's politics are, but I saw an interview where he said that they were just trying to show the cracks of society that people would try to wedge open. I actually think that was a good device. It made the movie more realistic, and it tapped into emotions that are already there. That is part of what made the movie visceral. Movies cannot create emotions in people out of thin air, they have to tap into emotions that are already there. I think the movie did a good job tapping into emotions that already exist in our society, complains that people already have, without becoming an overt political statement one way or the other. I think it made it a more powerful movie. There is one minor complaint I had with the movie. I know there were some plot holes, but plot holes, unless they are particularly gaping, do not usually bother me that much. I try to look at things from the writer's perspective. Movies are not meant to be carbon copies of real life, so it makes no sense to demand absolute realism from a movie. If you want absolute realism just live your life. Life itself is very realistic. So I am not going to go through the movie and pick apart the plot holes I thought I saw. There was, however, one place where I felt like the writer's made a real mistake, and that is the way that Bane was killed. Now, it makes total sense that Batman would have a "no gun" policy. When I say "it makes total sense" I do not mean that it makes sense from a moral standpoint, or from the standpoint of realism. No one has any moral objections to cops carrying guns, so they should not have any moral objections to Batman carrying a gun, and I am not sure it is really realistic to assume that a vigilante would adopt a "no guns" policy, for the same reasons that police officers do not have a no guns policy. When I say it makes sense I mean that it makes sense from a movie maker's perspective because Batman is a super hero. No one wants to watch Batman have gun battles. People want to see Batman fight, hand to hand, up close and personal. A hand to hand battle between Bane and Batman is way more interesting and engaging than a gun battle would be. However, it is not a good idea, in my opinion, to constantly remind the audience of the fact that Batman has that "no gun" policy. Particularly when a nuclear bomb is involved. The notion that Batman would still object to using guns when the city is being threatened with a nuclear device is obviously ridiculous. Now, I am not saying that the writer's should have given Batman a gun. Like I said, the audience wants to see Batman fighting, or using his bat stars, not shooting. What the writer's should not have done, in my opinion, is remind the audience over and over that Batman is not using guns. By having Cat Woman ride in on the bike and just shoot Bane the writer's are just reminding the audience that Batman could have killed Bane at any time if he had just been willing to use a gun, and just in case there are any audience members who do not make that connection immediately, they have Cat Woman make a "humorous" quip about Batman's no gun policy right after she does it! Why would you remind the audience that Batman could have killed Bane at any time? Perhaps they were trying to "own it" by getting out ahead of the criticism, but it tends, in my opinion, to undercut the whole movie. Bane took over an entire city because people were afraid of him. Why was everyone so afraid of him when anyone could have just shot him at any time? You do not want the audience to be thinking about such things, which is why I think they should have found another way to have Bane killed, and they should not have highlighted Batman's no gun policy (like the fight scene with Cat Woman). The no gun policy was already established in the prior movies, it should have gone unspoken in this one. That is a minor issue, and it certainly did not ruin the movie for me. All in all, I felt like this movie met my expectations, which were extremely high after the first two movies. Alright, that is the end of my review. Sorry it is so short. I just could not really think of much to say...

The Chris Nolan Batman trilogy has been one of the best film interpretations of a comic book character...EVER. That being said I do not really review movies as it's been said and done many times already here and elsewhere by people far more qualified than myself. All I can say is that if I buy it on blu-ray, it's safe to say that I've already seen it on dvd or in the theater or in some other manner, and liked it enough to shell out the money for a blu-ray copy. I'm an avid movie watcher and collector but my critiques of a movie shouldn't really matter much to you. I've enjoyed many movies that critics have bashed and disliked many they have praised and often times agree with them. it's all subjective, so watch it for yourself and if you like it enough, then you should buy it. If my opinion really matters to you then I'll say it's an excellent movie and franchise and all 3 movies should be watched. Great action. Great acting. Great story. I do have a gripe with the cost of new blu ray movies though. There is no reason that blu rays should cost more than a dvd and no reason they should be at their current prices. As far as I know, it doesn't cost much more, if at all, to produce and manufacture blu ray discs. I understand it's a newer format...that will undoubtedly be replaced in the near future...but is that reason enough to gouge us with insane prices? Again, blu ray DOES NOT COST MORE to produce or manufacture compared to DVDs. The price for a completely packaged blu ray movie probably costs less than $2 and we have been charged upwards of $50...or more...for a single movie. Ridiculous and they dare complain about losing profits to pirates. We've all seen them market anti-piracy at the beginning of every movie. They seem to be the biggest pirates of them all with them robbing us blind. I understand they have a right to make profits from their creation but I think there's a difference from profiting and profiteering, and then there's just pure greed.

ラストに衝撃のOOOだったのか‼️

Slendido cofanetto, magnifico film, immancabile pezzo da collezione sia per i fan del crociato mascherato che non. La riproduzone della maschera spezzata è elegante, impeccabile e piena di significato: un "must have" per chi voglia custodire un film indimenticable nella confezione esclusiva che merita. In poche parole, la bellezza dell'articolo conferma quanto già visto con la limited edition dedicata al Batpod del doppio DVD de "Il Cavaliere Oscuro": la base mantiene la stessa geometria, ma riporta il novo titolo (The Dark Knight Rises), mentre la maschera, pur essendo realizzata in plastica, mostra egregiamente ogni dettaglio (graffi e lesioni) sotto l'effetto della luce. Purtroppo, la stessa cosa non può dirsi per la custodia dei due Blu Ray. Seppure sia discutibile ma simpatica l'idea di estrarre la stessa dal retro della base suddetta, appare davvero frustrante il modo in cui i Blu Ray risultano inseriti all'interno: un disco è posto sopra l'altro, il che non soltanto provoca il rischio di graffiare i dischi a vicenda, ma fa decisamente rimpiangere la presenza di una custodia semplice, come nella versione normale del film, o al più come fatto nella limited edition de "Il Cavaliere Oscuro" nella quale ogni disco occupava una facciata della custodia. Se però si considera che tutto il resto è pregio e che con un po' di attenzione si evita che i dischi si graffino, è un prezzo che si può essere disposti a pagare di buon grado. Riguardo al contenuto dei dischi, c'è tantissimo materiale: se il film, pietra miliare del cinema (comunque non ai livelli del predecessore) risulta magnifico non solo per la storia epica ma ance grazie agli oltre 70 min di riprese IMax, i contenuti speciali inseriti sono davvero tanti e non deludono neppure per qualità, tuttavia questi ultimi presentano una pecca: come al solito, sono presentati solo in lingua originale, ma seppur siano presenti i sottotitoli anche in italiano, spesso risultano illegibili quando lo sfondo sia molto chiaro (o peggio) bianco, col risultato che la loro lettura risulta spesso frammentaria e noiosa. Infine, ma non per importanza, un 10 e lode a Amazon: confezione immacolata, pacco resistente e compatto, tempi di spedizione e arrivo talmente ineccepibili che, continuando su questa strada, sarà probabile che il pacco vi arrivi a casa qualche secondo dopo aver cliccato su "Acquista"!

parfait, rapide, précis un bon deal

Great price for a Steel book blu ray !

Este el segundo caso particular, en el que una preventa sale rápidamente hacia mi hogar. A pesar del rumoreado "boicot" a Amazon.es de las distribuidoras patrias, se me envió rápidamente. Tanto, que tenía cómo fecha el Lunes 3, y el sábado 1 ya la tenía en casa. Y ahora, a lo que interesa. La edición está muy bién. Las escenas IMAX se salen de la calidad que tienen, y e n conjunto es una edición visualmente notable, aunque opino que la paleta de colores elegida, algo apagada, hace que no luzca tan bién cómo otros films, pero es igual, le va que ni pintada. En cuanto al audio, la V.O simplemente es de "DEMO". Brutal, asombrosa, ruidosa, envolvente... la V.E se presenta en un pobre DD 5.1 a 448kpbs. El doblaje y los efectos, por tanto, sufren, dado el bajón de calidad con respecto a la original. Pero cumple si se ha de visionar el film en Castellano. Bane está muy bién doblado y se oye imponentemente. Compra muy recomendable. Se presenta en una edición de 2 BDs, uno con la película y el otro con extras diversos e interesantes. Lo que no me ha gustado es la caja Amaray, una de esas cutrescas con el signo de reciclaje marcado en esta, para ahorrar. Muy cutre para un lanzamiento tan esperado. Recomiendo encarecidamente visionar al menos una vez el film con la Versión Original cómo audio, y activar los subtítulos según necesidad.