It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I can't say I have ever seen a series of films cause such a division, from some thinking they are masterpieces to others thinking they are utter excrement and getting quite angry about Nolan's supposed disrespect even to the point of giving Schumacher an easy ride after is utter desecration of the character.
Take comfort in the fact that this is Nolan's last Bat film and likely to be his last foray into the comic book world, when he's made the definitive statement in the genre why would he want any more to do with it?
As much as I would like to see him tackle Bond and with Craig I would also like to see a return to the director that gave us Memento & Prestige (my personal favourites), something a little more intimate and subtle after all the huge scale of this series.
If you haven't seen TDK (go and see it now!), sorry for no spoilers, but I'm guessing everyone on this thread will have seen the film.
I want this.
I like the Arkham games and the Nolan films (never seen the animated series though, or read the comics or anything, I've only seen Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, the Nolan films, and played the games). Why didn't you like TDK? Don't worry, I doubt Batman will die.
Kind of off topic because it isn't really about TDKR, but I was watching the Burton Batman film last night, and one thing I think he did do better than Nolan was Gotham. He made this big, gothic city which is sort of what I picture Gotham as.
I hope Bale really shines in this one. I think Ledger sort of overshadowed him in TDK, so I really want to see what he can do. I think right now I prefer Keaton to him (as Batman, I like Bales films better).
Personally I don't see it, Bale's reading is far more 3 dimensional plus he essentially plays 3 characters, the play boy Bruce the real Bruce and Batman, I never saw a great distinction between Keaton's portrayal, he had is Batman sound gruff that was about it, I like Keaton and he's really shined in other films and he was the best of the previous series but Bale has made the character living flesh and blood and not some cardboard character which to me is all the previous series did, I don't think he look entirely comfortable in the role.
I've noticed that some people criticise the Nolan films as they don't see comic book enough for me that is my problem with the Marvel films, I though Iron Man was the strongest but the subsequent films have been diminishing returns, Cap was dreadful.
I've not seen Avengers yet and I've heard from a friend who loves it that it doesn't really have much plot and is all about the characters and their interplay, Weedon's real strength. For me Nolan's films have always more appealed because they aren't so comic book, people who prefer BB to TDK seem to be those who prefer the more comic book feel, I think BB was the most that way as Nolan couldn't introduce the character and do an origin story any other way.
Once he'd done that he wasn't going to make it's sequel that way, the fact TDK is a sprawling crime epic more akin to Michael Mann is the reason I like it that much more, I'm not a huge comic book fan I've liked a few of the films of the genre but the reason I love these films is Christopher Nolan, he hasn't done what Marvel is doing. The marvel films and other subsequent films have felt like episodes whereas Nolan's feel like proper films that stand in their own right, I'm sure it is intentional but for me it is what makes them less compelling a prospect.
As much as Iove Ledger in TDK it wouldn't have been as good without Bale, his performance is more subtle and in the background but it's impressive nonetheless and his integral to whole film working. I think TDKR is when he is going to really shine and the reviews seem to say this.
Wouldn't this be the same logic as not wanting to vote for Obama because he has the name 'Hussein' in his full name?
If you want to listen to/read about this idiocy, check this link:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/rush-limbaugh-dark-knight-bain-ban/
(sigh) That's my country for you. No wonder anti-Americanism is at a all time high in the world.
I thought the way the made him all gloomy and trashy thug-like was a dumb road to take. I miss the exciting and comical antics of Nicholson and Hamill, who could play both sides of humor and darkness quite well. Ledger annoyed me greatly, especially with his talk of his background with his dad or whatever. Very overrated I've always thought.
I meant the complete opposite of what I said. I don't know why I put 'going off of,' I guess I meant to word it a different way and that's what came out. I meant 'Bale's Batman continuing on with his pact...'
Jokers background in TDK was mysterious, because he gave multiple backstory's, because he was insane. I thought Ledgers performance was the highlight of TDK.
Yes, it was all theatrical. And anyway, the Joker's backstory has never been confirmed or set in stone. It is all open to interpretation for the most part.
Depending on where you live, TDKR Mondo poster is available until midnight tonight. After this, it will be sold out for good. Get to it, if you have the cash!
http://www.slashfilm.com/olly-moss-dark-knight-rises-mondo-poster/
And now, it appears that as more TDKR reviews pile in, the film isn't as 'epic' as people planned. I just caught four glimpses of quick, spoiler-free ones, and three of them said:
while someone else said:
Time will tell!
The spoilers I added give nothing away, just putting them there in case someone doesn't want anyone else's thoughts on the film whatsoever.
The morons are already at work. And I do not mean the the movie-critics but those folks who started of being created in a moment of love or passion and have grown into fullsized looneys that consider the internet their voice and that justifies their insults.
My thumb of rule: Do not write on the internet what you would not dare to say into somebody his/her face.
A woman in the town I grew up in (about fifteen minutes from where I live now) was just murdered and had her house set on fire...because of what she wrote about the person in an article at the newspaper company she works at.
A woman in the town I grew up in (about fifteen minutes from where I live now) was just murdered and had her house set on fire...because of what she wrote about the person in an article at the newspaper company she works at.
With papers there is an extra control namely an editor who decides what to print or not to print. This sounds more like an attack on the freedom of speech.
I cannot fault the negative critisms towards TDKR, since I have not seen it nor does anyone who is NOT a critic so those morons lack any 1st hand knowledge to judge a critism correct/wrong are might have a point.
But like with so many movie-opinions you will have the Maffia here as well when one disagrees with the general opinion. And Then people can be right @rseh@les.
I just can't stand, not as a fanboy, but as a film connoisseur, how almost all of the negative comments talk about how 'it's too focused on metaphors with reality, and goes too dark and too grim'. No. That's not a proper review. A film should be reviewed based on it's entertainment value. That's what sells movies, thats what people care about.
Who cares if it complains about Wall Street. Was it fun to watch? Was it inviting? Was it relatable? Did it make sense? Was it put together well? Did it look good? That's what matters in a film. I can't stand someone rating the film BELOW a 6/10(!!!!), otherwise known as 'rotten', because of the comparisons to reality in the film. Uh, hello, that's how you make a film relatable. I don't see how you can rate a film so low for something that may not HAVE EVEN BEEN INTENTIONAL.
Can anyone see what I mean?