jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

Did The Dark Knight Rises live up to your expectations?

  1. gabrielthomas72 profile image77
    gabrielthomas72posted 5 years ago

    Did The Dark Knight Rises live up to your expectations?

    If you have been to watch the Christopher Nolan film The Dark Knight Rises, did it tick all of the boxes and round of the trilogy well? Or did it ultimately not live up to hype surrounding it?


  2. nycgrl profile image81
    nycgrlposted 5 years ago

    I just saw it this weekend and I feel it did live up to the hype.  There were some parts where it dragged a bit and it was a very long movie (or maybe it felt that way since I had just downed a very large bottle of water and was feeling the urge lol).  But the ending wrapped it all up amazingly and it was very touching.  I love Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the movie, he's a great actor and he was great in his part.  Anne Hathaway was alright, she had some funny one-liners but nothing special.  Christian Bale was, as always, superb.

  3. JohnGreasyGamer profile image84
    JohnGreasyGamerposted 5 years ago

    I have to agree with critic SpoonyOne of The Spoony Experiment,

    "It's not so much a Batman film as it is a Bruce Wayne film."

    Too right. It will remain true that we wanted Batman to be kicking Bane's urethra and such for 120 minutes, but in the end it does its purpose: tells the story not of Batman, but what happens when Batman isn't available. It may be disappointing (I was disappointed myself), but in the end it does what it was supposed to.

    Take Mass Effect 3 - you may not have liked the ending, but that doesn't mean it's an ending. It was beautiful, and it did the job: ended Sheppard's story.

    So in all, it was OK. If you tell someone to expect it (or if it was marketted properly), it will be perfect. But in opinion it's really not.

  4. plussize-lingerie profile image60
    plussize-lingerieposted 5 years ago

    I have to agree with JohnGG above - ultimately there simply wasn't enough Batman in what was supposed to be a Batman film. I'd go further though and disagree that it was a film about Bruce Wayne - it seemed to be much more a film about Bane, which is really not that interesting. It got too caught up in itself, and when Batman was on screen, he wasn't really cool enough. (Not Bale's fault - he was, as usual in the role, excellent.)

    In the first film we had the Batmobile and in the second the Batpod and the shocking destruction of the Batmobile.The big cool thing in this one was supposed to be The Bat, but it was just awful. Ignoring plotholes about how it went unnoticed on a rooftop for the best part of six months, the actual gizmo was just laughably bad. Batman wouldn't be seen dead in it (yes, intended, for those who have seen the film).

    And there really wasn't much else in terms of development, which seems like a waste of 6 years time supposedly elapsed between the events of the previous film and this one.

    Lastly, why put silver plastic onto the Batpod? It made it look like a toy.

    Ultimately, not terrible, but the weakest of the three and had this been the sccond film, I doubt there would have been a third and Chris Nolan's stock would not be where it is. The critics' responses seem to be very much like those to The Lord of the Rings - by the time the 3rd film comes out, they realise they have missed the Zeitgeist when they were less than enthusiastic on previous films, so want to look hip and say how great it is, when by pretty much any standard it falls short of parts 1 and 2.