The Dark Knight Rises 2012 ½

This review reportedly contains spoilers.
I can handle the truth.


  • Everybody has influences. Artists copy and steal from each other all the time.

  • Can you explain how the opening scene of Back to the Future isn't pointless?

    I already did. I said:

    The opening shot, without words, gives us more information than a dozen Nolan monologues.

    Going deeper, I will add:

    It starts on a multitude of clocks, which represent time - a major factor in the plot of the story. It then gives us information about Doc Brown with newspaper articles that provide a piece of his character's history. Also seen are photos of other famous inventors from the past. This and the following moments give us his occupation. His place is cluttered and unkempt. His coffee pot is missing, yet the maker is rigged to start automatically, as is the television, which tells of the plutonium theft. The toaster burns the toast and pops it up and down repeatedly, hinting that Doc Brown is not the best at what he does. We learn of his dog through the automatic feeder, which piles food on top of food that was never eaten. This tells us that Doc is too busy with menial tasks like making his own breakfast. He's too busy.

    Also, keep an eye out for Doc hanging from the clocktower.

    All of this is communicated to the audience without a single word spoken. Okay, there was the newscaster on TV, but even muted, the message still comes across. Look at EVERYTHING you know about this character, his personality, his world, the story's world - during the opening credits.

    Marty is first shown entering the makeshift lab with a hidden key, which means these two characters have a past. Marty sets his skateboard down (a key prop for later in the story) and it rolls right into the stolen plutonium.

    This is all one shot.

    After that, Marty plugs in his guitar (another key prop for later), cranks all the high-tech audio equipment, and jams a single chord that blasts him across the room. Certainly, he knew what he was doing. Music is one of his passions.

    Are you really, truly, seriously suggesting to me that the opening scene in Back To The Future sets up none of the story or the characters?

    Because that one scene does a better job of communicating A LOT of vital story and character information to the audience than any opening scene of any other movie ever made.

  • So, it sounds like my original hunch was essentially correct: that you are much more critical with your review, and rating of the christopher nolan directed Batman films...

    No, you are wrong. I even gave you examples of other popular films that I was not fond of and thus reviewed accordingly.

    If you can't read that much of my previous reply, then I don't see the benefit of reading yours. Let's be a little more respectful of one another's time if you wish to have a serious discussion. If you just want to make a point that you already have conceived, then go ahead, but I have more important things to do than hope I'm not wrong on the internet.

  • @Ryan - Any response to my questions or comments?

  • My only response is to learn to read what other people write, because I responded already and spelled it all out for you, and I did it conveniently and directly above your most recent inquiry.

    Please don't reply any more, because you're clearly here to spew an agenda instead of having an intelligent debate.

    Thank you. :)

  • I can't take it anymore!!!!! This thread just wont die!!!!! unsubscribe.

  • I watched this movie for the first time in at least a year. I had watched The Dark Knight on a Friday, Batman Begins the next day, and so I figured why not finish it out.

    But going into it I was having all these thoughts that I knew this movie was logically dogshit. And as I watched it I was pointing them all out. Going back to your review I realized that these points you made and I read 2 years ago never left my head as I picked them out one by one as I watched.

    And yet I didn't want to shut the movie off. And I was puzzled at what keeps me intrigued with movies and what I think is important to a good movie. And I just read this part of your review:

    "I understand that different people put greater importance on different aspects of film. Some people like this for the spectacle and intensity of the sound design and production design, and that's fine. It's easy to enjoy this film in that regard. They are without a doubt this film's most appealing traits. Other people, such as myself, put greater importance on the actions of the story making sense, and having a cause and effect relationship. Those people can't watch a movie like this - which throws structure and plot and character development and basic logic completely in the garbage - and simply accept every single absurd notion, because there are just too many to even count. People who greatly value the common sense approach to storytelling and quality of screenwriting can still be bored by a well-told story if there is not enough drama or conflict working to keep the story entertaining. That's where we draw the line. But...where do the people who enjoy the spectacle draw the line for lack of coherence? This movie just absolutely punishes suspension of disbelief for nearly three hours full-on. What is Nolan *not* allowed to do in terms of the actions of the characters and the believability of the plot? It seems like he can do whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of how unbelievable, illogical, or simply impossible it is. Why must it be that way?"

    And it took me back to my thought process while watching. My thoughts were that the sound design, the spectacle, the intensity were all really fucking fantastic. And that's…

  • Wow, thanks for your comments. It's nice to see a level-headed reply when discussing Nolan.

    But I must at once disagree that I am a nitpicker. Nitpicking is complaining about trivial things, like Batman having nipples. But as you said yourself, the problems in this film's writing robs the viewer of seeing the story's full potential, and anything that has a direct negative impact on the story is not a nitpick. Quite the opposite. They are major problems born through weak writing, and they need to be addressed when passing any judgment that hopes to be fair. If it's there, I'm pointing it out and explaining why it's a problem for those (many) who don't see it.

    It's okay to watch a movie for the style, but people should understand that it's the style they find appealing, not the writing or directing or storytelling or anything of the sort. Nolan makes stylish popcorn flicks - I have no problem with that. But I have a major problem when people are naive enough to proclaim him to be the next Stanley Kubrick. That's a joke.

    If you're interested in reading more, might I suggest my review of The Prestige. I also suggest you approach with a lot of free time on your hands, because it dwarfs this review in terms of both its length and the level of detail used when explaining why Christopher Nolan is not only a poor writer, but a wholly unimpressive and mediocre-at-best director.

  • Of course I used the wrong word in trying to praise someone for their time invested. Looking back what I'm really trying to say instead of "nitpicker" is "someone who put as much time and thought (or more) into each detail of the script as the person who wrote it". My mistake.

  • No harm, no foul. :)

Please to comment.