The Dark Knight Rises 2012 ½

Watched Jul 20, 2012

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

449 Comments

  • while i understand back to the future is endearing, i feel it stands the test of time because its clearly a period piece. set in the 80s, he goes back in time. it isn't set in "present" day. why am i even defending this? it doesn't need it.

    if we're comparing the films, BTTF makes me care about everyone. people have motives, things that drive them to act the way they do. sure it might be more simple, but the end product is enjoyable to watch again and again. not eye candy to keep you from realizing how lame the performances are because the performances AREN'T LAME.

    i was blown away by the scale of the batworld in this last film, in this nolanverse, this "more realistic" take on batman. saw it in imax. it was so epic, sure i completely ignored some of the silliness. i just wish people would accept that yes, this movie was kinda lame. we had tons of pretty things to look at but it doesn't save it from being disappointing. i saw it once and have no urge to see it again. none at all. as i'm sure i mentioned, i really loved DK. i own it and while it was in the theater i saw it probly 4 times. money well spent. all in imax too. eye candy AND performances.

  • while i understand back to the future is endearing, i feel it stands the test of time because its clearly a period piece. set in the 80s, he goes back in time. it isn't set in "present" day. why am i even defending this? it doesn't need it.

    if we're comparing the films, BTTF makes me care about everyone. people have motives, things that drive them to act the way they do. sure it might be more simple, but the end product is enjoyable to watch again and again. not eye candy to keep you from realizing how lame the performances are because the performances AREN'T LAME.

    i was blown away by the scale of the batworld in this last film, in this nolanverse, this "more realistic" take on batman. saw it in imax. it was so epic, sure i completely ignored some of the silliness. i just wish people would accept that yes, this movie was kinda lame. we had tons of pretty things to look at but it doesn't save it from being disappointing. i saw it once and have no urge to see it again. none at all. as i'm sure i mentioned, i really loved DK. i own it and while it was in the theater i saw it probly 4 times. money well spent. all in imax too. eye candy AND performances.

  • sorry for the double post. stupid lag

  • Oh, I wasn't comparing them. I was just stating a fact I thought everyone should know.

  • Isn't 1/2 star a little harsh? I do agree people are entitled to an opinion, but wouldn't a rating like that indicate this movie is the bottom of the barrel in EVERYTHING? I'm refering to production values and acting or course.

  • Omg will this ever end?

  • Seriously though, Back to the Future is a GREAT movie.

  • Read the review, Geoff. It's justified. This movie does almost everything wrong. Including the utterly bored, phoned-in acting.

  • I own 6 Cacti and a Venus Fly Trap.

    Fuck you, Batman. Fuck you.

  • Was anyone else dragged painfully out of the film every time there was an establishing shot of a recognizable cityscape, someplace that is definitely NOT Gotham? I much preferred the constructed Gotham of BATMAN BEGINS. I realize all three films shot on location for many scenes, but it just wasn't as "In Your Face Real Place" in the first one.
    And I concur... BACK TO THE FUTURE is indeed a great movie. Quite possibly Zemeckis' best. Will it lose something when we reach 2015 and there's still no flying cars or hoverboards? Nope.

Please to comment.