• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The dark knight returns - spoiler alert!!!!!

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it on the whole but the pacing did feel off. The start was too drawn out, the middle section felt rushed and the end was too predictable. Great plot and characters though, particularly Hathaway, and it wrapped up the trilogy nicely. I reckon the inevitable extended DVD release will be even better after some reediting. Also maybe the first two films spoilt me but the fight scenes were a bit of a let down, the first bane v Batman served a purpose but there was no scenes that really engrossed me.
 
Just saw it tonight. Loved it, but in some ways I was a bit disappointed.

I guess the one thing that disappointed me most is there was absolutely no mention or reference to The Joker at all. I know Nolan did this intentionally out of respect to Ledger, but I personally think that's even more disrespectful. I mean, you've got this big anarchic terrorist who tore the city to pieces and destroyed it's white knight and caused the city to turn on Batman, yet 8 years later ... nothing.

And you've got Ledger's performance which was truely one of cinema's greatest villains, but let's just pretend he never existed, mmkay? Could you imagine if James Earl Jones died after Star Wars and they tried to make Empire Strikes Back without Darth Vader?

The Joker, and Ledger's performance, was so iconic and so important to the Batman trilogy, it deserved to still play a role in the final film. I'm not saying have another actor take on the role, but at least mention that he would have been one of the prisoners escaping from the prison, for example.
 
I can only assume Nolan along with Ledgers family didn't want to go there.

same reason we won't see any of the hours upon hours of behind the scenes footage Nolan supposedly has of him.

Works two ways, respect the performance and be seen not taking advantage of his death or celebrate it by showcasing as much as possible, ah well.
 
Finally watched this last night. Good, but not great movie for me. Not as good as the 2nd one, I felt that worked as a "non-superhero movie" while this one was just another superhero movie. Just my thoughts, haven't read any of the comic books so maybe I'm missing some points that explain some of my concerns.

Too many plot holes/plot devices that took me out of it. Just off the top of my head:

The prison. They had a rope, possibly more rope, rope can be made of clothes and whatnot. No one in the history of this prison managed to fashion a grappling hook or something like that to get out of there? Really? Instead we're left with this embrace your fear hogwash to get him out.

The bomb. Like arcspace said.

The classic "wait for it" superhero moments. Before the police crashed into the anarchists Batman took out/disabled two of those bat-tanks with ease (before leaving them to fight on their own and let many of them die), but in the chase scenes he couldn't do the same? Did he run out of ammo or something? All of a sudden he needed the cat on the bike to help him. Many others where I felt the villains were just lining up, waiting for Batman to beat them down one by one.

Just fudging kill him. Come on! Towards the end she stabbed him, had him under control, knew he was trying to foil her plans, but no no.

Stock market. Really? No emergency shutdown of trading in place? Really?

I didn't feel Bane worked as an anarchist villain nearly as well as The Joker did.

I also didn't quite understand what Fox was studying towards the end. Were there multiple of those flying bat-thingies and Wayne had upgraded all of them? Or did the thing and it's electronics survive being in the absolute middle of a nuclear blast enough for him to study the upgrade logs? And it was fixed with a software patch? Fox didn't have the time to patch the bloody software?

There were more who at the time took me out of the film, just some of the ones I remember.
 
braineclipse said:
Just fudging kill him. Come on! Towards the end she stabbed him, had him under control, knew he was trying to foil her plans, but no no.
Click to expand...

I think the point of keeping him alive was to let him see Gotham being destroyed, whilst destroying him. So she fulfils her fathers plans, while he can do nothing to stop it.

That was the plan I'd imagine
 
braineclipse said:
Finally watched this last night. Good, but not great movie for me. Not as good as the 2nd one, I felt that worked as a "non-superhero movie" while this one was just another superhero movie. Just my thoughts, haven't read any of the comic books so maybe I'm missing some points that explain some of my concerns.

Too many plot holes/plot devices that took me out of it. Just off the top of my head:

The prison. They had a rope, possibly more rope, rope can be made of clothes and whatnot. No one in the history of this prison managed to fashion a grappling hook or something like that to get out of there? Really? Instead we're left with this embrace your fear hogwash to get him out.

The bomb. Like arcspace said.

The classic "wait for it" superhero moments. Before the police crashed into the anarchists Batman took out/disabled two of those bat-tanks with ease (before leaving them to fight on their own and let many of them die), but in the chase scenes he couldn't do the same? Did he run out of ammo or something? All of a sudden he needed the cat on the bike to help him. Many others where I felt the villains were just lining up, waiting for Batman to beat them down one by one.

Just fudging kill him. Come on! Towards the end she stabbed him, had him under control, knew he was trying to foil her plans, but no no.

Stock market. Really? No emergency shutdown of trading in place? Really?

I didn't feel Bane worked as an anarchist villain nearly as well as The Joker did.

I also didn't quite understand what Fox was studying towards the end. Were there multiple of those flying bat-thingies and Wayne had upgraded all of them? Or did the thing and it's electronics survive being in the absolute middle of a nuclear blast enough for him to study the upgrade logs? And it was fixed with a software patch? Fox didn't have the time to patch the bloody software?

There were more who at the time took me out of the film, just some of the ones I remember.
Click to expand...

Another one being that Bruce Wayne becomes a recluse for 8 years then just happens to appear back on the scene at the same time as batman appears again yet no one in Gotham seems to twig that Bruce Wayne is in fact Batman.

Still really enjoyed it as a film though!
 
saw it tonight, really enjoyed it, few plot holes but you have to suspend belief with a movie like that

thought the end was quite good as well, for a little while i really thought they had done it
 
the only thing that made this film worthwhile was anne hathaway, the rest i found really, really disappointing.
 
I really enjoyed this. It was about as good as it could be without Heath Ledger. Nolan's just seems to be a master plotter to me. He gets the pacing and casting just right. Don't mind if he continues making solely blockbusters as his are pretty much the only ones I really enjoy. I liked the Dark Knight more but enjoyed this as much as Inception. Can't believe someone said The Avengers was better, that film was turgid and repetitive, an identikit superhero film.
 
Last edited:
You can't really compare The Avengers and Nolans Bat-films imo, they are both comic book films but Avengers plays on the fantasy side a lot more whereas Nolan used the source material and tried to make Gotham, Batman and his villains as real as he could but still in-keeping with the source material.

They are both excellent at what they do, I loved both of them.
 
galeforce said:
saw it tonight, really enjoyed it, few plot holes but you have to suspend belief with a movie like that

thought the end was quite good as well, for a little while i really thought they had done it
Click to expand...

I always thought the expression was to 'suspend disbelief', but googled quickly and seems like both are used.

Either way, I have no problem suspending either my belief or my disbelief, but I do want some internal consistency from a movie.
 
So Batman survives having a broken back and recovers within five months to defeat bain...really?! Other than that I loved it but I preferred johansson's arse as black widow tbh
 
Saw it last night - thought it was excellent. Also thought pacing was off in places, but that didn't harm the film too much. And I liked the ending too. A fitting finale to he trilogy.
 
I though it was a good film but, tbh not as good as I expected, thought everybody was casted very very well and the pace of the movie was great aswell as the recurrence of themes from the other movies which made it a bit more personal.
However, I've never really been a fan of Bale as batman, he is too much like bruce wayne as batman than batman as bruce wayne if that makes sense. Also, bane whilst easily the best we've seen (in terms of the representation of bane in tv and film) he was fell short of the brilliance of his true character, nearing the end it felt like he had suddenly become a brainless (whilst articulate) pawn of a higher power once again whereas a truer representation of him would have him casted as batmans match and better in many ways, he is batmans match intellectually, his superior physically and should leave such an impression on batman he is like a nightmare literally snapping him in half. The whole break you part was great writing but, it never really threatened to deliver, there was never a time where you questioned whether batman would survive or whether he was actually broken mentally and physically which is unfortunate.

Also I felt bane was beaten by batman at the end to easily and it would have been better if they really showed bane's dependence of venom which could have given more depth to his character.
Still he was great.

Catwoman was far to weak unfortunately but, she was a lot better than she could have been. There were rumours of cher playing the role blergh.
I quite liked the robin character better than others (check batman forever/ batman and robin) at least.

Good film in all though, I've only really listed bad parts because the good speak for themselves.

I hope I don't sound too pretentious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back