Well, just got out of the theater.
I think it's a given that this film is a must-see.
No spoilers here, but the third act of the film was just spectacular.
I'm just bummed that being in Korea, although I get to watch the movie before the US, I get shafted by not having the Man of Steel trailer.
The same with the missing shwarma scene from the Avengers
So wait a minute...
Spoiler
http://nukethefridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bane-Details.jpg According to this, Bane's mask dispenses gas to numb pain. Does this mean he doesn't have super human strength? I'm also confused by articles I am reading. Bane is referred to as a hulking man. In every picture I have seen, Batman looks taller and bigger than Bane.
Spoiler
To be honest, it isn't quite clear the purpose of Bane's mask until a point in the film. Rest assured, bane is VERY much a hulk of a man. I believe it's natural too (probably gonna watch Bronson some time this weekend to confirm.
It also looks like Nolan had been paying attention to Windind Refn's action sequences too. As the fighting between Bane and Batman is quite visceral and vicious.
Or if you don't want to read the spoiler. Don't worry. Tom Hardy (Bane) is a beast of a man
Yeah, wasn't really that impressed.
Spoiler
I really could have done without Nolan killing Batman, Ras Al Ghul, Talia, Harvey Dent, a throw away reference to Robin, Batman revealing who is is to Gordon, some dude just up and knowing who Batman is, 45 unnecessary minutes of movie, Batman taking a hiatus for eight years, a flying... Whatever it is, Bane's voice, and the fact Anne Hathaway looks like my ex who ripped out my still-beating heart and I had to look at her for three hours.
Other than that it wasn't too bad.
I'm not exactly sure what to make of it yet. It was good enough, but not great. Bane wasn't all that compelling of a revolutionary figure/antagonist, at least not to me.
Just saw a good review where they say The Dark Knight is like a crush you fall in love with immediately while Rises is like a girl you grow to love, realizing she was the one all along.... well maybe not for you Shogunn.
ugh i want to see it again... and avengers. and all the lead up movies from both companies!
First off the movie was great. It was a nice was to end the trilogy. I had my doubts about Bane, but I was so wrong. I liked him a lot in this movie. Catwoman wasn't bad either and she looked really hot in the outfit.
Shogunn I think you missed on a few things:
Spoiler
1- Bruce didn't want to be Batman forever. He made that clear in the first & second movie. This was a way for him to "end" his career as Batman. Also Bruce stated that "Anybody could be behind the mask" which leads to #2
2- The "throw away" reference to Robin was a bit more than that. Remember that in the comics, Tim figure out who Batman & Robin was and he became the next Robin. I figure Nolan did that for the fans because he said that Robin wasn't going to be in the film.
3- The movie came to a full circle in my book and it was nicely done
For anybody else who saw the movie:
Spoiler
I think it cover 3 major story lines: The Dark Knight Returns, No Man's Land, & KnightFall
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 20, 2012, 08:07:13 AM
Yeah, wasn't really that impressed.
Spoiler
I really could have done without Nolan killing Batman, Ras Al Ghul, Talia, Harvey Dent, a throw away reference to Robin, Batman revealing who is is to Gordon, some dude just up and knowing who Batman is, 45 unnecessary minutes of movie, Batman taking a hiatus for eight years, a flying... Whatever it is, Bane's voice, and the fact Anne Hathaway looks like my ex who ripped out my still-beating heart and I had to look at her for three hours.
Ha! But I loved all of those parts! Uh... outside of the "looked like my ex" bit. :P
I know there have been some reviewers complaining about how long the movie was, but nothing in the film struck me as "filler."
Just to help me understand your critique of the movie, what would you say were the 45 unnecessary minutes?
I, for one, loved it. I didn't even notice it was so long.
I also thought it makes the first movie so much better. When Dark Knight came out I thought it made the first one seem weak by comparison, but this one brings it back full circle and makes Dark Knight, to me, seem like a little bit of fan pandering filler. I mean, it's still awesome, but gee whiz.
On the other hand I also found this movie pretty darn predictable, but I read a study somewhere that says that human brains apparently love getting guesses correct, so maybe that's why I loved it?
Spoiler
Didn't Like the Robin change of origin and name change
Just got home from seeing...man oh man! I thought everything was excellent!
Spoiler
The twist with Miranda Bates I saw coming a mile away. That would be my only flaw. But that flaw is partially on my end from reading the comics, and having a greater understanding of the Bat universe than an average movie-goer would. I'm sure they loved it though.
Just seen it, and truthfully if you are one of the Nolan fans who want nothing but for everyone to praise this film and worship at nolans feet then skip this post, I don't need to deal with that. I have always loved the Nolan bat films(may not have liked fans) but the films are something I've always enjoyed
Ok first and foremost the film is a decent film, decent but in no way the epic masterpiece its being made out to be or even a brilliant comic book film. The story wasn't bad and had an interesting arc and the acting on some characters was quite enjoyable
Spoiler
Pros
Like I said the story was interesting and really flowed quite well.
The fights were well done
Hardy though having the shortfalls of the character(see cons) worked superbly has bane and did bring a lot to the character.
Hathaway was perfect, while I do not think she topped Pfeiffer, it was a different catwoman. Her acting was great and she controlled the screen anytime she was on. Smart sexy and sassy
Gordon-levitt really surprised me, I was dreading his character and he really played it well. It added to the story with out seeming forced in for the sake of the actor
Spoiler
Cons
The bat was overused yeah it looked cool and had an impact but constantly showing up made it lose any wow factor it had. At least the tumbler worked because you seen it once or twice and that's it
Banes design and voice was still extremely poor and near impossible to understand when he went on one of the speeches.
Blakes twist was easy to spot but come on his legal name is robin....robin. name him tim drake or dick grayson. If your going to hint at it be subtle not a sledgehammer to the face.
The bane twist did have me annoyed until the fixed it.
The Miranda twist was easy to spot but most of his did that well before anything even started filming
No mentioned of the joker, yeah yeah I know it was outta respect but come on with all this dren going on and jokers MO being about bringing chaos not even a mention. It was simple enough have Gordon say he's in lockup or bane say he wants nothing to do with the clown and that's it.
Everyone bloody knowing who batman is, blake I can kinda understand, and fox has been hinted at though again its never meant to be outright said let alone bruce suiting up in front of him. But Gordon come on the whole point is Gordon does not want to know, he could have known from day one but he chooses not to.
Alfred leaving.. seriously out of all his allies out of everyone who has been with batman the one man that would never leave him is Alfred.
The ending, that ending is a complete middle finger to the whole idea of batman. I was ticked when I called it early in the film that he was going to kill off bruce wayne, which is a stupid idea in this film and comics. But to then cop out with ahh here's the happy ending just made the whole thing even more pointless. The whole thing is simply a way for Nolan to take his toys and go home.
The film is a alright film, but and I know this will do nothing but make me enemies with people here but its no way as good as the avengers and I'm an avid dc comics fans over marvel. the third film syndrome strikes again. Just a poor conclusion to the trilogy. Nolan really seemed to get it in, the dark knight. But this film really seemed like the message was its my universe and to hell with what's expected from anyone else. And I'll mess with the ideas all I want. Yeah I know my opinion will not make me any friends but that's all it is one batman fans opinion
I had avoided spoilers and literally knew very little about this film going in but even as I write this I'm having trouble even remembering a lot about this film and I never thought I'd say this about a Nolan batman film.
It's a low 2 ½ outta 5 for me at best
Spoiler
I've always been one of those people who believes that "Batman would never retire!"
And while I still hold to that principle in comics and animation, Nolan actually made me believe that a real man who dresses up like a bat would eventually have to hang it up after a certain point. The fact that a guy with no cartilage in his knees would be able to make a jump like he did in the Pit had to have been divine intervention. And, with Wayne Enterprises bankrupt and the R&D department forever compromised (on a very public level), it's clear that "Bruce Wayne" could no longer exist in Gotham City as he once did. He needed to retreat, heal, and enjoy life a little bit.
In my imagination, Nolan's Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle won't necessarily live happily-ever-after. Selina's obsession with adventure and questionable moral code will eventually drive a wedge between her and Bruce. Bruce will eventually sense that Batman is needed again (because a "Nightwing" is never enough) and will attempt to get back into the fight, whether it's behind a mask or behind a computer screen, feeding information to a protege ala Batman Beyond.
But for the sake of Nolan's trilogy, Bruce Wayne (and the fans) deserve a happy ending... even if it wont' last forever.
Just got back from seeing it and I loved it.
It's not as enjoyable as The Dark Knight, but it felt more satisfying or meaningful.
Spoiler
I loved the last few minutes. The scene with Alfred in Italy (?) was just perfect to me. Was that supposed to be Selina with Bruce? I wasn't sure.
Bane was good, and I like how everything tied into the first movie.
I really liked everything with the John Blake character, and now I want the next film to be him as Batman.
Quote from: Podmark on July 22, 2012, 12:02:40 AM
Just got back from seeing it and I loved it.
It's not as enjoyable as The Dark Knight, but it felt more satisfying or meaningful.
Spoiler
I loved the last few minutes. The scene with Alfred in Italy (?) was just perfect to me. Was that supposed to be Selina with Bruce? I wasn't sure.
Spoiler
Yeah, it was Hathaway sitting with him.
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 21, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
The film is a alright film, but and I know this will do nothing but make me enemies with people...
It's true. You having a polar opposite opinion on this movie is the equivalent to slapping my mother in the face. I hate you. :rolleyes:
First of all, TUE, I'm with you every step of the way. You called it right from where I sit and I don't think I could agree with what you said much more.
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 20, 2012, 07:28:42 PM
Shogunn I think you missed on a few things:
Spoiler
1- Bruce didn't want to be Batman forever. He made that clear in the first & second movie. This was a way for him to "end" his career as Batman. Also Bruce stated that "Anybody could be behind the mask" which leads to #2
2- The "throw away" reference to Robin was a bit more than that. Remember that in the comics, Tim figure out who Batman & Robin was and he became the next Robin. I figure Nolan did that for the fans because he said that Robin wasn't going to be in the film.
Here's the problem:
Spoiler
Not everyone CAN be Batman. Not everyone is a master detective. Not everyone is the worlds greatest martial artist. Not everyone has the drive he does to do what he does. The reason why he doesn't want to be Batman forever is because he wants Gotham to get to the point where it doesn't need a Batman. That would be a perfect world. A perfect world does not exist. The REAL Bruce Wayne knows that. At least he does in the comics. This is why he literally can't stop being Batman. The moment he does some other eight year old kid's parents are gonna get blown away. In his world he CANNOT let that happen. That's why Batman has to be Batman and John Blake can't be. Not to mention John Blake was just some flat foot cop at the beginning of the movie. He try to do what Bruce does he'd get himself killed in three hours tops.
But seriously though, if they said his real name was Richard or Tim or even Jason or better yet, TERRY MCGINNIS it would have worked ALOT better. But to just use Robin as if Robin is even Robin's real name was like WTF?
OLDMANWINTERS,
Spoiler
Because I knew it was coming, I looked dead at her face and I swear it was NOT her. I could be wrong, maybe I was looking to see my ex's face, but I really didn't think it was Hathaway. Even if it was, I'm not convinced that wasn't what Alfred wanted to see. He wanted to see Bruce at the cafe, like he said earlier in the movie. That was his dream to see Bruce living a regular life. But I don't think it wad so.
Quote from: murs47 on July 22, 2012, 05:28:38 AM
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 21, 2012, 10:52:49 PM
The film is a alright film, but and I know this will do nothing but make me enemies with people...
It's true. You having a polar opposite opinion on this movie is the equivalent to slapping my mother in the face. I hate you. :rolleyes:
Well to be fair murs I did post that review on a few sites, and one or two have some really crazy nolanites ala rotten tomatoes going to attack any critic who does not give it 10/10 crazy
So that part may not have applied to here :)
I do agree with you Shogunn:
Spoiler
John Blake name should have been Terry, because it looks like he was suppose to be the next Batman
Still, even though the movie is flaw, it's still a good movie. It not like the fans can go online and start a petition to can the ending. ;)
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 22, 2012, 12:08:07 PM
I do agree with you Shogunn:
Spoiler
John Blake name should have been Terry, because it looks like he was suppose to be the next Batman
Still, even though the movie is flaw, it's still a good movie.
Spoiler
Yeah Terry would have been the way to go but then the majority of the audience wouldn't get the reference. He's clearly set up to be Bruce's successor not his partner like Terry. Calling him Robin was the simplest way to get a shout-out.
That said I actually prefer him being an original character, I think it works better in this film, and minimizes us comparing his characteristics and origin to Dick or Tim or Terry and he can stand as his own character.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 22, 2012, 07:10:03 AM
Here's the problem:
Spoiler
That's why Batman has to be Batman and John Blake can't be. Not to mention John Blake was just some flat foot cop at the beginning of the movie. He try to do what Bruce does he'd get himself killed in three hours tops.
Spoiler
I like to imagine Bruce already prepared for that and either left training instructions or plans to return to train him. That's what I see happening but who knows if we'll ever see a John Blake continuation.
I totally agree with Podmark with this
Spoiler
Yeah Terry would have been the way to go but then the majority of the audience wouldn't get the reference. He's clearly set up to be Bruce's successor not his partner like Terry. Calling him Robin was the simplest way to get a shout-out.
That said I actually prefer him being an original character, I think it works better in this film, and minimizes us comparing his characteristics and origin to Dick or Tim or Terry and he can stand as his own character.
Quote from: Podmark on July 22, 2012, 03:39:22 PM
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 22, 2012, 07:10:03 AM
Here's the problem:
Spoiler
That's why Batman has to be Batman and John Blake can't be. Not to mention John Blake was just some flat foot cop at the beginning of the movie. He try to do what Bruce does he'd get himself killed in three hours tops.
Spoiler
I like to imagine Bruce already prepared for that and either left training instructions or plans to return to train him. That's what I see happening but who knows if we'll ever see a John Blake continuation.
That reminds me of the time when Batman had to retrain Cassandra on how to fight. He gave her a CD with every fight discipline A to Z and she started at Aikido really excited by by the next pane she was at Z looking at Batman's image bored to death. Funny.
That said:
Spoiler
She had already been trained to kill and just lost that ability, but was already a great fighter. Blake isn't. Why would have Batman left plans to retrain someone? He just started fighting again and the whole premise of him leaving wasn't so he could just retun to teach someone else to do what he feels he has to do. But there won't be a continuation with Blake anyway because this was Nolan's last movie and for them to do ANOTHER Batman movie WITHOUT Bruce Wayne is a smack in the face to Bob Kane.
Quote from: Podmark on July 22, 2012, 03:39:22 PM
Spoiler
I like to imagine Bruce already prepared for that and either left training instructions or plans to return to train him. That's what I see happening but who knows if we'll ever see a John Blake continuation.
nope, wb are already talking full reboot to tie into the upcoming justice league concept, which makes the cameo even more pointless
Aside from the gripes mentioned above which I won't mention, my biggest gripe (which I mentioned even before the film came out) is how Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman like a bloody nuetered cat. She has the chance to deliever the lines with such sexiness but never seems to actually succeed. that and the way she walks doesn't exactly exude the sexy silkiness Catwoman is supposed to have. I mean, come on, Catwoman is all about confidence and sexual allure..not whatever Hathaway brought about.
-DJ
Quote from: Deaths Jester on July 22, 2012, 06:16:50 PM
Aside from the gripes mentioned above which I won't mention, my biggest gripe (which I mentioned even before the film came out) is how Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman like a bloody nuetered cat. She has the chance to deliever the lines with such sexiness but never seems to actually succeed. that and the way she walks doesn't exactly exude the sexy silkiness Catwoman is supposed to have. I mean, come on, Catwoman is all about confidence and sexual allure..not whatever Hathaway brought about.
HEATHEN!
While I have gripes and issues with most recent comic movies (this one for sure as well) Anne Hathaway will never be one of them.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on July 22, 2012, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: Deaths Jester on July 22, 2012, 06:16:50 PM
Aside from the gripes mentioned above which I won't mention, my biggest gripe (which I mentioned even before the film came out) is how Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman like a bloody nuetered cat. She has the chance to deliever the lines with such sexiness but never seems to actually succeed. that and the way she walks doesn't exactly exude the sexy silkiness Catwoman is supposed to have. I mean, come on, Catwoman is all about confidence and sexual allure..not whatever Hathaway brought about.
HEATHEN!
While I have gripes and issues with most recent comic movies (this one for sure as well) Anne Hathaway will never be one of them.
As herself, she isn't a problem...as Catwoman she is!
Just got back from seeing it, so now I can actually read and respond to y'all's shenanigans.
DJ, you're being silly. While I agree with the statement that she wasn't quite as sexy in the role as Pfeiffer was, she wasn't trying to be... and in many ways, I felt her take on the character was intended to be much more genuine and realistic. If it had risen to the overt sexuality Pfeiffer's take had, it wouldn't have worked within the framework of the film, and would have turned the character into little more then fanboy jack off material. I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually liked Hathaway's Catwoman better because she actually felt like a real human being. And I'm sorry, I'd rather be dealing with a real woman then a purely fan-service whore any day of the week.
That said, I did feel like this film was a bit weaker then it's predecessor. It's nothing overt (Honestly, I felt like the pacing and action was actually much better in this film then in TDK) but it just didn't excite me as much overall. Maybe it's because TDK had my favorite batman villains and TDKR had one of my least favorite (I've never liked the other primary antagonist at all), so I'm not as invested in them as I was in Harvey Dent/Two Face, but even so it still kind of fell a bit flat. Still enjoyed it (more then Spiderman) but I won't be dragging everyone I know to repeated showings either.
I really liked this movie. It wasn't as great as the Dark Knight (what is?), but it's still a really solid film, and a very satisfying end to the trilogy. The writing, directing, acting, etc. were all very good and, while the story felt a bit disjointed, it was paced well enough and kept my interest throughout.
Spoiler
Bane was great. He had a tremendous presence and generally felt like a scary, powerful villain. I also liked that he wasn't a dumb brute like certain other adaptations, here he was very intelligent and disciplined.
Anne Hathaway did a really good job as Catwoman (even if they never call her that in the film). She fit really well in the context of the film, and was just a really good character overall.
Having only a basic knowledge of the comics, I didn't see the "Talia" reveal coming at all, but once I got over the surprise, I remembered who the character was and thought that it was a genius twist. However, I can see how this may not work well for other people. I would imagine that people with a thorough knowledge of the comics would see the twist coming a mile away, while the general moviegoing public would just wonder who Talia was and why it had any significance.
At the end, I was about 50% convinced that Bruce had died in the explosion. After all, this was the end of the series, and Christopher Nolan has enough clout at this point to do almost anything he wanted with the character. But still, I kind of like the idea of Bruce Wayne faking his death and retiring. I think that it fits very well with his character in this portrayal and with the series as a whole.
I agree that the "Robin" twist was a little on the nose. I think it would have been better to make it more subtle, like some kind of obscure nickname or something a character said. However, I still think that this is a great way to conclude the trilogy while leaving the story open, so that we know that things are still going to happen after the credits roll.
And I just want to comment on how, like most bombs in movies, the timer on the reactor core had absolutely no relation to how long things actually took, either in the story or the film itself. I mean, it's 45 minutes away at night, then a few scenes later it's during the day, Batman, Gordon, and the police have prepared for the assault on city hall, and the timer is at about 15 minutes? And I also like how Wayne Enterprises put a big, dramatic timer on the core, for a decay process that either wouldn't happen or wouldn't mean anything if it was used as intended.
Also,
Spoiler
I understand why they didn't want to bring up the Joker, but the way they constantly talk about everything else that happened in The Dark Knight ends up making it feel like the elephant in the room. But I don't really know what would have been the best way to deal with a situation like this.
And you can't help but wonder what this movie would have been like if Heath Ledger had lived. I've heard people say that the story would have been the same and he would have made a brief cameo (like Scarecrow did), and while that sounds plausible, I'm not completely sure. The Dark Knight really seemed to set up a continuing rivalry. "I think we're destined to do this forever." Also, I don't think that the end of The Dark Knight was a proper set up for Bruce hanging up the cowl for 8 years. I think that Heath's death may have had an even greater impact on the series that most people assume.
There's one more thing. If we want to make sense of the story, we have to conclude that the Joker never escaped from prison/Arkham, as that would surely have brought Batman out of "retirement." He may have even been given the death penalty. It seems that, in the Nolanverse, the Gotham criminal justice system actually works.
It's stupid how great this movie is.
Here's the thing about TDKR: It's a great 6th movie in a series of 6. The problem is, of course, that its only the third movie.
They needed at least three more movies to properly set up this movie (although, to be fair, one of them could be a Catwoman solo movie. WB, if you're listening:I would watch the CRAP out of an Anne Hathaway solo Catwoman movie, and I pray you were smart enough to put that option in her contract. She was PURR-FECT (Death's Jester, I don't know who you were listening to- her line readings, especially as Catwoman, just dripped with sexiness to me), and you need to wash away the stain of that Halley Berry abomination).
The thing that was the most glaring of course was
Spoiler
The level of damage that Bruce has sustained. We're supposed to believe he went into hiding the night Harvey died, which took place a few months after he became Batman, and yet he has the body of a man who has been doing this for years and years. I don't think so. Another couple of movies would've done a great deal towards making this particular plot point more believable.
That was the biggest thing, but there were other things that would've benefited from given more time and more build up:
Spoiler
Alfred's attitude, the introduction of Miranda Tate, Wayne Enterprises financial trouble, etc. Because these things were not given the proper build up, they all felt rushed.
.
But those are minor nitpicks on an otherwise brilliant film. I just wish we could've seen the films that would've set it up properly.
Oh, and shogun:
Spoiler
Sorry mate, it is very clearly Selina with Bruce. It's definitely Hathaway. Alfred got his wish for Bruce.
.
ETA: Also, WB, I would watch the crap out of a
Spoiler
Robin Blake becoming Batman
movie. As long as you kept the same cast, at any rate. Just so you know.
bredon7777, I like your point about how TDKR could have been even better if we had gotten a Hathaway Catwoman set up film. However, I think Batman's story works very transitioning from TDK to TDKR. I prefer to think of it as a 3 act play like Nolan does. But some supplementary material could have been good.
bredon,
Spoiler
Whether or not it was Selina or not is outside the point. Actually even if it was Selina, that actually makes it worse. That's still what Alfred WANTED to see. He wanted to see Bruce in a "normal" life, with "normal" people. How convenient that they are there all at the same time, just EXACTLY how Alfred ALWAYS had hoped. Way too convenient.
And I would not dare watch a Batman movie with SOME DUDE playing Batman. That's an insult. That's like giving the middle finger to Bob Kane. I barely could watch Batman Beyond.
Guys. There's a really specific reason why Nolan comfirmed with absolutely certainty that The Dark Knight Rises is the absolute last Batman film and it isn't because these movies make him a assload of money. He killed Batman. Even if he didn't, he killed his identity, his will, his reason to be Batman. I don't understand it. That's not what the character's about.
I don't get it. People bitched Michael Bay for wanting to make mutant turtles come from Mars. They wanted to thrall Bret Ratner for giving Jean Grey a personality disorder instread of being possessed by an intergalactic superbadass. Speaking of which, WE ALL tore Tim Story a new dookieshoot for making Galactus into some wussy dust cloud... that gets blown away by The Silver Surfer.
And this is somehow more acceptable to people?
Quote from: oldmanwinters on July 23, 2012, 01:20:52 AM
bredon7777, I like your point about how TDKR could have been even better if we had gotten a Hathaway Catwoman set up film. However, I think Batman's story works very transitioning from TDK to TDKR. I prefer to think of it as a 3 act play like Nolan does. But some supplementary material could have been good.
To be perfectly honest, one of the more redeeming qualities of this movie was her and it'd be a shame to see someone that well done, that well portrayed to just be that. I would have loved to see a spinoff film with Catwoman and more of her backstory.
Spoiler
To be perfectly honest, I'm still not too sure what Bane had over her in the first place. It would have been great to see what she was doing during No Man's Land too. She made a comment about it being "her" neighborhood. I know hardcore fans got the reference, but nothing was explored beyond that. Why not put Hathaway in a movie. THAT, I'd watch. So long as they don't kill her(nine times) too.
Sucks for Halle, but hell we had a Spiderman franchise three years removed from another, why not.
Shogunn,
Spoiler
I think the point Nolan is trying to make here is that, these movies aren't from a comic book. He really wanted to break out of the medium that the story originated in, and in doing so is telling a completely different sort of story. In comics, characters are timeless, you can build on 75 years of continuity and do nearly anything you want wih the characters, that's the nature of the medium, the limitless potential of comics.
Films, on the other hand, are more grounded in reality... and i believe Nolan recognizes this, that they are more grounded in a physical way. You can't have the same cast and crew produce quality work consistently over a number of years, the only exception being perhaps the Harry Potter series, but that was finite to begin with.
This is what Bryan Singer didn't understand. He tried to resurrect the Donner Superman films and failed. Nolan here, was able to tell his story and effectively end it... even if it's for the greater good actually, or WB's best interests for future investment
Quote from: detourne_me on July 23, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
Shogunn,
Spoiler
I think the point Nolan is trying to make here is that, these movies aren't from a comic book. He really wanted to break out of the medium that the story originated in, and in doing so is telling a completely different sort of story. In comics, characters are timeless, you can build on 75 years of continuity and do nearly anything you want wih the characters, that's the nature of the medium, the limitless potential of comics.
Films, on the other hand, are more grounded in reality... and i believe Nolan recognizes this, that they are more grounded in a physical way. You can't have the same cast and crew produce quality work consistently over a number of years, the only exception being perhaps the Harry Potter series, but that was finite to begin with.
This is what Bryan Singer didn't understand. He tried to resurrect the Donner Superman films and failed. Nolan here, was able to tell his story and effectively end it... even if it's for the greater good actually, or WB's best interests for future investment
Funny you should say that, because I was JUST thinking about something ELSE that bothered me.
Spoiler
Nolan spent two whole movies to convince us that some guy wearing a costume can actually go around a city and fight crime. I mean, he even mentioned he NEVER would put a Robin in a Nolan movie because it wouldn't be realistic. More to that fact, The Dark Knight was effectively a Law & Order movie with Batman in it. But in this, as much of a fan of the comics I am, I think they stretched the realm of believability a little too much. Blowing up a football stadium? Cutting off a major American city from the rest of the world? Busting out a prison and allowing the criminals run an entire city for months? I mean, to be perfectly honest, as I sat through it, I immediately felt, "man, this ain't realistic. How would something like this happen in real life?" Then I remembered "Oh, this is a Batman/comic book movie... and it's actually based on a Batman/comic book storyline." And I started to be a little okay with it until I remembered again "Oh, wait, I thought Nolan was supposed to be convincing us that this could actually be real." So yeah, just a little put off by what was happening.
But yeah, thanks for reminding me about Singer giving Superman a child and how much that bothered people.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 23, 2012, 01:51:42 PM
bredon,
Spoiler
That's still what Alfred WANTED to see. He wanted to see Bruce in a "normal" life, with "normal" people. How convenient that they are there all at the same time, just EXACTLY how Alfred ALWAYS had hoped. Way too convenient.
Spoiler
I don't think it's convenient at all, I think it's intentional. Alfred had already told Bruce the story so I think Bruce went there knowing Alfred would be there. It's his way of saying goodbye to Alfred. It's probably my favorite scene in the movie.
Batman Beyond is my favorite DC cartoon so I don't have an issue with a new Batman or Bruce retiring.
Spoiler
I agree with Pod's assessment of that scene. It wasn't that bruce was living the perfect marriage or anything... he never could. The film itself established that he'd never be content settling down and raising a family. But he did it to make Alfred happy, knowing that's what he wanted him to have.
Truthfully, I saw Bruce taking a more Batman Beyond-esque role... By "dying" he cemented peace in Gotham as much, if not more, then he had with lie of Harvey Dent, and it left him free to help the world "with his mind, not his body" as Alfred put it. What little still needed to be done for Gotham on the physical side of things he left to Robin (who he's clearly still keeping tabs on JIC).
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 23, 2012, 01:00:17 AM
Here's the thing about TDKR: It's a great 6th movie in a series of 6. The problem is, of course, that its only the third movie.
They needed at least three more movies to properly set up this movie (although, to be fair, one of them could be a Catwoman solo movie. WB, if you're listening:I would watch the CRAP out of an Anne Hathaway solo Catwoman movie, and I pray you were smart enough to put that option in her contract. She was PURR-FECT (Death's Jester, I don't know who you were listening to- her line readings, especially as Catwoman, just dripped with sexiness to me), and you need to wash away the stain of that Halley Berry abomination).
If they had set up the film with a Catwoman movie beforehand, I might've understood her portrayal of the character a bit better and not be so hard on Hathaway...I just have a hard time hearing Hathaway speak and not thinking of the Princess Diaries.
This movie was way more fun than the previous Batman flick. Selina Kyle stole the show. It ended well.
I was totally distracted by Bane's voice, though. He sounded like Dracula to me. That was a mild annoyance. I also wish the Bane/Batman fights were just a little better choreographed.
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Spoiler
I believe that's the scene where Lucius finds out that Bruce finished the autopilot for the Bat. It's the scene that sets up his survival.
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Spoiler
I believe that's the scene where Lucius finds out that Bruce finished the autopilot for the Bat. It's the scene that sets up his survival.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, Pod!
Spoiler
Anyone else think that the Joker would have been pretty good for that court scene? I think he would have started to screw with Bane at some point
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Spoiler
I believe that's the scene where Lucius finds out that Bruce finished the autopilot for the Bat. It's the scene that sets up his survival.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, Pod!
Spoiler
His alledged survival. Him fixing the auto-pilot shouldn't be a automatic leap to him surviving. Especially when we see him in the cockpit three seconds before it explodes.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 31, 2012, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Spoiler
I believe that's the scene where Lucius finds out that Bruce finished the autopilot for the Bat. It's the scene that sets up his survival.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, Pod!
Spoiler
His alledged survival. Him fixing the auto-pilot shouldn't be a automatic leap to him surviving. Especially when we see him in the cockpit three seconds before it explodes.
That's why he's Batman.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 31, 2012, 06:45:25 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2012, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: laughing paradox on July 29, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I do have a question:
Spoiler
I zoned out during the segment at the end where Lucius Fox was talking to two operatives. It was something about Bruce Wayne doing something six months ago? What was that?
Spoiler
I believe that's the scene where Lucius finds out that Bruce finished the autopilot for the Bat. It's the scene that sets up his survival.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, Pod!
Spoiler
His alledged survival. Him fixing the auto-pilot shouldn't be a automatic leap to him surviving. Especially when we see him in the cockpit three seconds before it explodes.
Spoiler
But that would mean that when Alfred saw them at the cafe... he was dreaming?
OH MY GOD TDKR IS A SEQUEL TO INCEPTION!
Well played, Nolan, well played.
My logical mind prefers to think that Alfred might have been hallucinating at the end.
Also...
Spoiler
If Indiana Jones can survive a nuclear explosion (unharmed) in a fridge, then I suppose the Batpod cockpit could have been "nuke proof." Do'h. :doh:
Not trying to pick a fight, but I find it really insulting to Alfred to claim that he was hallucinating. There is no evidence for it, and a ton of evidence against it.
Spoiler
Podmark hit it right on the nose. Bruce knew Alfredwas at the cafe, and wanted to let Alfred know he was allright, and had moved on from Batman, and had found someone. It was deliberate. And while I still maintain we needed another movie to explain how Alfred went from :"Lets renovate under the southeast corner of the mansion" to "I'm outta here"- I felt that scene at the cafe redeemed him perfectly.
As for
Spoiler
Batman surviving the Bomb- Bane made it clear on more than one occasion that it was a neutron bomb. Now, I may be mis remembering my HS science class- but IIRC, a neutron bomb did very little physical damage. My science professor back then called it the human roach bomb- kills humans, leaves buildings standing. So as long as it hit the water before it exploded, I don't have a problem with Bruce getting away- besides, he may have gotten enough radiation exposure to get cancer later, we'll never know
Here's the thing, Shogun-
Spoiler
Bruce Wayne's already BEEN Batman. Would I watch a movie where Robin John Blake becomes Batman before anyone else? No; I'd be just as outraged as you are. But Bruce's story is done, and I've got no problem with him passing on the gig to someone else. And if we kept this cast and this director, Yeah, I'd watch the hell out of it. YMMV
Spoiler
Totally agree, the hallucination idea is quite some leap.
I'd watch Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Batman2/Robin/Nightwing/Aquaman/absolutely anything. He's fantastic. I can't wait for Looper, though that's as much because it's a Rian Johnson directing JGL and Brick is an awesome movie.
Spoiler
I don't think it's an insult to Alfred. But I'm almost thinking what was everyone expecting to see? Of course we were going to see Bruce there. Alfred pretty much said as much waaaay earlier in the movie. Actually, he DID say as much. For him to be in that cafe, like Alfred wanted to see and hoped and dreamed of seeing for years, and for him to go back, what were we expecting to see?
Seriously, if the boy you grew up taking care of, who you loved more than your own life grows up and dies and you see him months later in a cafe COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED, would YOU really just smile and nod like Alfred did? Really? I don't want to relate this to real life, but my brother died 12 years ago, October. If I saw him on October 13, 2000, a day after he died, I'd hug him like a Ricki Lake reunion show. I definitely would if I hadn't seen him in months! That wasn't him.
And as far as insults go:
Spoiler
I think it's insulting to Batman that anyone could even fathom that anyone else could actually BE Batman. In the comics, there were extreuating circumstances that had two other people being Batman, but neither of them lasted, nor were they meant to. Bruce Wayne is Batman. Batman is Bruce Wayne. That's his battle, his life, his world. He has dedicated his life, trained his mind and body for this. He is Batman because the world is effed up. He will continue to be Batman until the world is not effed up. The world will always be effed up. He will always be Batman. 2+2+1+1. What's really insulting is the interpretation that, A. He can just give up being Batman because B. The world is fixed enough that he does not need Batman. That's not how or why Batman works.
Spoiler
If Blake wants to become Gotham's new champion, he has years of training ahead of him. He needs to take a similar journey as Bruce took before becoming Batman. Right now, he's just an average man, average strength, average fighting skills, just average. It would be pretty cool if Levitt packed on 20+ pounds of muscle and returned as Nightwing. It could even be implied that Bruce trained him over the years. I think it's fairly obvious that the character John Blake is a amalgamation of Grayson, Todd and Drake. I would pay to see this.
Just wondering how would you guys cast the Batman reboot?
Batman/Bruce -
Alfred -
Lucius Fox -
James Gordan - Bryan Cranston
Mr. Freeze - Daniel Craig
Joker - Adrien Brody
Killer Croc - Ron Pearlman
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 02, 2012, 05:03:53 AM
Not trying to pick a fight, but I find it really insulting to Alfred to claim that he was hallucinating. There is no evidence for it, and a ton of evidence against it.
My bad, bredon. When I made that post, I wanted it to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but I just forgot to put some emoticon in.
Looks like I finally found it:
:P
My ribbing grows out of my (small) frustration that the Nolan Bat-series was so grounded in realism (as much as possible), and I just don't see any realistic way that the film could end the way we were led to believe it did.
But I think I can at least buy your scientific theory about the nature of the device. I don't know anything about the science behind it, but it is plausible.
I'm totally with BWPS and bredon on this one.
Spoiler
The face value of the cafe scene is that it's real. I don't recall any effects or cues that it could be a hallucination. Also being a hallucination would change a very uplifting ending into something very somber and sad and I don't think that's what the film was going for.
Quote from: Midnite on August 02, 2012, 06:29:36 PM
James Gordan - Bryan Cranston
Hah, I like that one. He did a great job with the voice at least in the Year One film.
This thread seems to be winding down...
In a desperate attempt to breath some life back into it, here's TMNT co-creator Peter Laird's thoughts on how the film reminded him for a ("silly") early script idea for the first Ninja Turtles movie:
http://plairdblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-brief-review-of-dark-knight-rises.html
Just saw this, and the hallucination/Alfred's dream theory for the ending is a bad hallucination.
There's no evidence for it, and three pieces against:
Spoiler
1. Alfred tells Bruce about his hope, meaning it's exactly what Bruce could recreate to show Alfred he's okay.
2. After the bomb detonates, Lucius gets told about the auto-pilot being fixed, and fixed by Bruce Wayne 6 months ago.
3. We see an actual scene of Bruce and Selina in a cafe across from Alfred, in a movie that is in no way about subjective reality. That kind of uncertainty finds footing in a movie like Memento or Inception, but there's no sign of it here. Also, Alfred never really saw Selina, why would he imagine Bruce with her (and it's definitely Anne Hatheway)? Point 2 is also meaningless without point 3 - why mention that the autopilot worked if Bruce is actually dead? All it does is introduce the plot-hole of 'why didn't he use autopilot?'
Really, there's no reason in the film to suspect the scene isn't real, beyond not liking the scene.
You want more discussion: how the hell does Bane eat?
He goes shirtless enough to know he doesn't have a peg tube and he's huge so he ain't exactly starving.
Maybe a coworker gives him high-protein suppositories? If that's the case it's good for him he didn't team up with Poison Ivy this time.
Quote from: Talavar on August 06, 2012, 12:21:00 AM
Just saw this, and the hallucination/Alfred's dream theory for the ending is a bad hallucination.
There's no evidence for it, and three pieces against:Spoiler
1. Alfred tells Bruce about his hope, meaning it's exactly what Bruce could recreate to show Alfred he's okay.
2. After the bomb detonates, Lucius gets told about the auto-pilot being fixed, and fixed by Bruce Wayne 6 months ago.
3. We see an actual scene of Bruce and Selina in a cafe across from Alfred, in a movie that is in no way about subjective reality. That kind of uncertainty finds footing in a movie like Memento or Inception, but there's no sign of it here. Also, Alfred never really saw Selina, why would he imagine Bruce with her (and it's definitely Anne Hatheway)? Point 2 is also meaningless without point 3 - why mention that the autopilot worked if Bruce is actually dead? All it does is introduce the plot-hole of 'why didn't he use autopilot?'
Really, there's no reason in the film to suspect the scene isn't real, beyond not liking the scene.
Guys, you all are trying to make it sound like Alfred is tripping on LSD or something. I'm not saying that he was, no more than I'm saying he was tripping earlier in the movie. But all of that is STILL beyond the point though.
Spoiler
Alfred does indeed tell Bruce not just what he hoped, but what he always wanted to see him in, a regular life... as if he'd really have a regular life with Catwoman anyway. Not only that, but fixing auto-pilot doesn't automatically mean he wasn't in it. If you're actually suggesting Nolan gave absolutely NO reason to suspect that Bruce Wayne did not die, then we would not have seen him fly off in the Bat with a bomb attached to it. We would not have seen Batman in the cockpit of the Bat three seconds before it blew up. We would not have left it open to suggestion at all that Batman had died. It isn't like I'm the only person that is saying this. But in the slight chance I am wrong, there is still one HUGE glaring problem with it all:
Whether Bruce Wayne killed himself or not, Nolan is STILL suggesting Batman could or would simply just GIVE UP being Batman, which would NOT happen. Batman is the creation of a brutal and chaotic world. As long as the world is brutal and chaotic, there will be a Batman. The world is ALWAYS and will forever be brutal and chaotic. Ergo, there will ALWAYS be Batman. That Batman is Bruce Wayne. It's his war. He was the one with the resources, the dedictation and the ability to do it. He would not just QUIT being Batman. He COULD not do it. Especially after what we saw happen in that movie? Again, the moment he stops being Batman, some other eight-year old kid's parents are going to get blown away. He cannot have that happen. That is WHY he is Batman. If he's dead, like I said he is, it's just weird, unauthentic and odd storytelling for that character. But if he is alive like all of you are suggesting, that's FAR worst. He's changing what the character is. This is the same man who devised the ONLY strategy designed to defeat him if he were to go bad is hypnosis, to forget who he is. Other wise he would not stop. That's not who Bruce Wayne is.
Shogunn2517,
Spoiler
I agree that Bruce (in any multiverse) couldn't give up his fight forever. Nevertheless, I can see him "retiring" from the traditional rooftop hopping style of justice. Whether he's wearing a suit or pulling the strings of a protege behind a computer, Bruce Wayne will keep on fighting. We've seen him "retire" in a number of different Batman-universes, but he always has another comeback in him.
But for the sake of the movie trilogy, we don't necessarily have to see him doing that. We just know he will... given enough time.
Quote from: BWPS on August 06, 2012, 01:38:00 PM
You want more discussion: how the hell does Bane eat?
He goes shirtless enough to know he doesn't have a peg tube and he's huge so he ain't exactly starving.
Maybe a coworker gives him high-protein suppositories? If that's the case it's good for him he didn't team up with Poison Ivy this time.
That's a really good question. I am stumped!
I don't think I agree Shogunn2517.
Spoiler
While many versions of the Batman would not quit, that's not what Nolan created. he already had a Bruce that quit for 8 (?) years between the second and third movie, and he was already showing that Bruce was physically breaking down (the cane and leg brace). I recall a study I heard about that said that if somebody tried to be Batman there would only be a small window that they could physically manage it, I think that is what Nolan is going for. Bruce can't be Batman forever and his films are about the start and end of Batman. You can certainly reject that as an idea, but I still think that's what Nolan was going for.
Now who's to say that Bruce is really going to live a normal life, who's to say that he's even trying. I have a easier time believing that Bruce faked that scene for Alfred's piece of mind than I do it being Alfred seeing what he wanted.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on August 06, 2012, 06:55:56 PM
Quote from: Talavar on August 06, 2012, 12:21:00 AM
Just saw this, and the hallucination/Alfred's dream theory for the ending is a bad hallucination.
There's no evidence for it, and three pieces against:Spoiler
1. Alfred tells Bruce about his hope, meaning it's exactly what Bruce could recreate to show Alfred he's okay.
2. After the bomb detonates, Lucius gets told about the auto-pilot being fixed, and fixed by Bruce Wayne 6 months ago.
3. We see an actual scene of Bruce and Selina in a cafe across from Alfred, in a movie that is in no way about subjective reality. That kind of uncertainty finds footing in a movie like Memento or Inception, but there's no sign of it here. Also, Alfred never really saw Selina, why would he imagine Bruce with her (and it's definitely Anne Hatheway)? Point 2 is also meaningless without point 3 - why mention that the autopilot worked if Bruce is actually dead? All it does is introduce the plot-hole of 'why didn't he use autopilot?'
Really, there's no reason in the film to suspect the scene isn't real, beyond not liking the scene.
Guys, you all are trying to make it sound like Alfred is tripping on LSD or something. I'm not saying that he was, no more than I'm saying he was tripping earlier in the movie. But all of that is STILL beyond the point though.
Spoiler
Alfred does indeed tell Bruce not just what he hoped, but what he always wanted to see him in, a regular life... as if he'd really have a regular life with Catwoman anyway. Not only that, but fixing auto-pilot doesn't automatically mean he wasn't in it. If you're actually suggesting Nolan gave absolutely NO reason to suspect that Bruce Wayne did not die, then we would not have seen him fly off in the Bat with a bomb attached to it. We would not have seen Batman in the cockpit of the Bat three seconds before it blew up. We would not have left it open to suggestion at all that Batman had died. It isn't like I'm the only person that is saying this. But in the slight chance I am wrong, there is still one HUGE glaring problem with it all:
Whether Bruce Wayne killed himself or not, Nolan is STILL suggesting Batman could or would simply just GIVE UP being Batman, which would NOT happen. Batman is the creation of a brutal and chaotic world. As long as the world is brutal and chaotic, there will be a Batman. The world is ALWAYS and will forever be brutal and chaotic. Ergo, there will ALWAYS be Batman. That Batman is Bruce Wayne. It's his war. He was the one with the resources, the dedictation and the ability to do it. He would not just QUIT being Batman. He COULD not do it. Especially after what we saw happen in that movie? Again, the moment he stops being Batman, some other eight-year old kid's parents are going to get blown away. He cannot have that happen. That is WHY he is Batman. If he's dead, like I said he is, it's just weird, unauthentic and odd storytelling for that character. But if he is alive like all of you are suggesting, that's FAR worst. He's changing what the character is. This is the same man who devised the ONLY strategy designed to defeat him if he were to go bad is hypnosis, to forget who he is. Other wise he would not stop. That's not who Bruce Wayne is.
Introducing the auto-pilot after the fact, then suggesting it wasn't used is ridiculously bad storytelling; it's nothing but introducing a plot hole. What Nolan is doing here is a narrative technique called building suspense.
Spoiler
He leads you to believe Batman is dead, yes, then woop - he's not really! Any sort of slight twist ending basically functions this way - build your expectations of one thing, then hit you with something else.
That this version of Batman would quit being Batman is definitely a change to the character, but it's a change introduced in Batman Begins. This version of Batman always intended to quit, did quit for 8 years after the last movie, then quits again here. Batman also quit at least in the Dark Knight Returns and the DC Animated Universe (the prologue to Batman Beyond), so it's not an unheard of change. In the comics, they never have to worry about it, because Batman is eternal & unaging, but in any format trying to conclude his story, Batman has to either retire or die. As it's clear Batman doesn't die here, a (potentially temporary) retirement is a valid ending to his story in my opinion.
Quote from: Midnite on August 02, 2012, 06:29:36 PM
Just wondering how would you guys cast the Batman reboot?
Not neccessarily the characters i predict will be in the next one just what I'd like to see down the line:
Batman/Bruce Wayne - Jon Hamm, would really like to see this one, but i doubt it would happen
Nightwing/Dick Grayson - Jared Padalecki
Robin/Tim Drake - Nicholas Hoult
Lucius Fox - Giancarlo Esposito (but I think he should have not as big role in the reboot)
Alfred - John Cleese maybe?
Gordon - I agree with Midnite here, Bryan Cranston is such a good choice that i would be dissapointed if they cast someone else
Hugo Strange - Ben Kinglsey
Ra's Al Ghul - Christopher Lee
Riddler - Johnny Depp or Neil Patrick Harris
I have to agree with many who have already posted in the thread, we already saw that Nolan's Batman wished to retire in the future and was forced/coerced into retirement due to his bodies condition. For the story, it is no small stretch that he was pulled back in to being Batman when the League of Shadows targeted him. Bruce was very curious about Catwoman's desire for a fresh start. It was a theme that ran through the whole movie. Bruce Wayne was always going to get a fresh start, and he was always planning for retirement.
That being said, I like how the detective in him leads him to find Selina Kyle after she robs him. Catwoman works in this movie because she is not just some thrill-junkie thief, but a young lady who became stuck in a lifestyle that she desperately wanted to leave behind. Bruce was living the same life! I think it was an excellent tale all the way through.
I know it isn't DC's current Batman, but that wasn't what I expected. I wanted to see a good movie with a good story and for it to entertain me. TDKR delivered.
Great year for comic movies!
That's the way I see it Stream. It's a story of the Batman. It has nothing to do with the comics storyline. It's it own story. Almost like a what if. I think most people who saw the movie wanted it to be "off the pages of the comic" and it's not that.
Over all I enjoyed the film. Tom Hardy is just awesome in everything he does so no real complaints about his portrayal of Bane. It was a fitting end to Nolan's Batrilogy. :cool:
Spoiler
I didn't like Nolan's tacked on reference to Robin though. The first name thing was lame. It would have been much better if he had changed his name from Dick Grayson.