Jump to content

The Dark Knight Rises


John Crichton

Recommended Posts

Wow, I actually agree completely with your final sentence!

there will be many who disagree. If it only had some emotional resonance to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was fully expecting to love The Avengers, but was surprised by how much I didn't, especially when the entire group I went with all loved it

The Amazing Spider-man was fun but completely forgettable. Emma Stone is the only memorable part, she was cute and good in her role

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Amazing Spider-man was fun but completely forgettable.

I agree. I watched it Saturday into Sunday and couldn't stay awake through the entire second half. Granted, I was running on five hours of sleep after being up for twenty hours and my belly was full of pizza, but I digress.

I did manage to stay awake through Stan Lee's charming cameo. This is a film I will never view again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emma Stone was indeed the best thing about TAS-M. Her, and James Horner.

The Avengers was nicely done...for a film developed by comitee as a merchendising vechicle for toys and other things like that. As such, it was a perfectly balanced product. And I liked it for that.

While hoping for the best, I'm still dreading this new Batman will be too heavy and self-important. I hope there's a good deal of pure entertainment in it as well. Ah well, I'll find out in three days.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a pattern here - opinions on TAS-M largely depend on one's opinion of the Raimi films. Those that love the Raimis are calling this unnecessary, and those that didn't are calling this a massive improvement (mostly). That sound about right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it works for me, I didn't care for the Raimi Spiderman films, but I did like parts of them. The subway sequence in #2 was special.

I found in the Avenger's movie I really was only intrigued by the 2 superhero characters who lacked any actual super powers

we're wanting to see TDKR at the Imax in Little Rock, it's 11.75 during the day and 14.00 at night.

However if we see it at home we can see it for 6.00 matinee, and 8.00 at night, or 5.00 if we wait till Monday or Tuesday afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Substantively there was little different between Raimi's first Spidey film and the new one. There were slight plot tweaks but the style, character motivations, and themes were pretty much the same. It felt very redundant, which doesn't mean it wasn't decent entertainment, but I'm a little surprised it's doing as well as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Substantively there was little different between Raimi's first Spidey film and the new one. There were slight plot tweaks but the style, character motivations, and themes were pretty much the same. It felt very redundant, which doesn't mean it wasn't decent entertainment, but I'm a little surprised it's doing as well as it is.

I completely disagree, Webb's style is substantially different than Raimi's. There is also quite a bit of different in the actors approaches. The music is much better here than in any of the first 3. I know Spiderman took the nation by storm back then, though I was not caught up. Raimi has a visual flair that is clearly his. While both are origin storys both have their strengths.

In the 10 years since it was nice to see Spiderman looked like a man in costume and not 0's and 1's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the RT scramble to certified fresh will be more of a trend thing than being truthfully representative of this movie's perceived greatness.

Nolan's Batman movies - whilst being superbly packaged blockbusters - enjoy the "luvvie" privileges bestowed upon a select elite of movie entries which I believe can nurture an almost mass-hysteria reaction toward them.

Still looking forward to seeing it, naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the RT scramble to certified fresh will be more of a trend thing than being truthfully representative of this movie's perceived greatness.

Nolan's Batman movies - whilst being superbly packaged blockbusters - enjoy the "luvvie" privileges bestowed upon a select elite of movie entries which I believe can nurture an almost mass-hysteria reaction toward them.

Still looking forward to seeing it, naturally.

that is why I read the individual reviews. the first bad review is just scathing, and I suspect that was his objective. Now he can say I was the first to give it a negative review.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Substantively there was little different between Raimi's first Spidey film and the new one. There were slight plot tweaks but the style, character motivations, and themes were pretty much the same. It felt very redundant, which doesn't mean it wasn't decent entertainment, but I'm a little surprised it's doing as well as it is.

I completely disagree, Webb's style is substantially different than Raimi's. There is also quite a bit of different in the actors approaches. The music is much better here than in any of the first 3. I know Spiderman took the nation by storm back then, though I was not caught up. Raimi has a visual flair that is clearly his. While both are origin storys both have their strengths.

In the 10 years since it was nice to see Spiderman looked like a man in costume and not 0's and 1's.

I'll agree about the actors having different takes, especially Peter Parker. I prefer Elfman's score. But the stuff about

Peter originally feeling vengeful and guilty for Ben's death, Mary Jane/Gwen not being able to be with Peter because it would be too dangerous, a frustrated scientist with good intentions who, under time constraints decides to test his new product on himself, a personal relationship between Peter and the scientist before he turns super villain, etc.

. Maybe this stuff was in the comics (I wouldn't know, I haven't read them), but it felt very predictable/unengaging having already seen this stuff from Raimi's film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your spoiler isn't really a spoiler, it's all canon, so if the film is an origin story those things must be addressed. Besides it's not like Superman can be with Lois any more than Spiderman can be with Mary Jane, that's the on going dilemma of hero's with duel identities. I have read comics in the past but I was only slightly familiar with Spiderman, he never interested me very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indy4, the stuff you spoiler tagged had to be in this movie because the movie had to be a new origin story in order to make this a new franchise separate from Raimi's. The key differences are that:

At the movie's end, Uncle Ben's killer remains at large and the mad scientist is taken into custody, not killed like Osborne, Doc Ock, etc.; Gwen works for the mad scientist, as opposed to being a liberal arts flunky like Raimi's Mary Jane; Parker makes his own web-slingers, which makes sense because he is an inventor/tinkerer (his bedroom door lock, helping Uncle Ben fix the thingy in the basement, etc.); the mad scientist used to work with Peter's father, while Peter's parents are never mentioned in Raimi's movies; Peter doesn't work for the Daily Bugle; etc.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that TDKR would be like last years Deathly Hallows which finished at 96% at RT with 268 positive reviews and only 10 negative, but TDKR most likely will not finish that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if those percantages ever meant anything. Lighter, family films usually get higher score. Like Pixar, or The Avengers or something like that. The Dark Knight was actually an exception. The films I'm interested in usually get something around 60-80%.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if those percantages ever meant anything. Lighter, family films usually get higher score. Like Pixar, or The Avengers or something like that. The Dark Knight was actually an exception. The films I'm interested in usually get something around 60-80%.

Karol

not true at all. The percentages are simply the number of positives against the total number of reviews. Your claim that lighter family films gets higher scores is simply a mistaken belief on your part. They are no more likely to get a positive review than any other film. You can always count on a horror film to get a lower score even if it's brillian.t

BTW Batman Begins finished with an 85. The Dark Knight finished at 94.

I will say that sometimes a 2.5 out of 4 review is counted as positive, but sometimes as negative but it's usually based on the tone of the review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indy4, the stuff you spoiler tagged had to be in this movie because the movie had to be a new origin story in order to make this a new franchise separate from Raimi's. The key differences are that:

At the movie's end, Uncle Ben's killer remains at large and the mad scientist is taken into custody, not killed like Osborne, Doc Ock, etc.; Gwen works for the mad scientist, as opposed to being a liberal arts flunky like Raimi's Mary Jane; Parker makes his own web-slingers, which makes sense because he is an inventor/tinkerer (his bedroom door lock, helping Uncle Ben fix the thingy in the basement, etc.); the mad scientist used to work with Peter's father, while Peter's parents are never mentioned in Raimi's movies; Peter doesn't work for the Daily Bugle; etc.

.

Like I said, those differences seem for the most part pretty superficial. I wish they would have tweaked it even more--there are other ways to have an origin story, even if it isn't as faithful to the comics, that would have made the film seem more fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that rebooting a film franchise scarcely ten years after it began is enough to cancel any idea of "freshness." And deviating significantly from the source material for a comic book movie is a bad, bad idea. Otherwise, why even use the IP in the first place?

But hey, you know who isn't Spider-Man? Batman! Spider-Man's got his own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that rebooting a franchise after 10 years pretty much guarantees that elements of the franchise will not be fresh, but I don't think that means you should abandon all hope of including new ideas. It's a reason to deviate even more from expectations, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New ideas like what? Peter Parker is married and his aunt and uncle are already dead before he gets bitten? Parker's an Iraqi war vet bitten by a camel spider and fights in the desert? Mary Jane gets bitten by a radioactive spider and grows an appendage to become Spider-Man? The Green Goblin is an alien? There are certain things you just can't do in the comic book world and call it a comic book movie, regardless of what you expect as a film customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, clearly those and similarly dramatic changes are the only ways in which the film could have deviated from the comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if those percantages ever meant anything. Lighter, family films usually get higher score. Like Pixar, or The Avengers or something like that. The Dark Knight was actually an exception. The films I'm interested in usually get something around 60-80%.

Karol

not true at all. The percentages are simply the number of positives against the total number of reviews.

I know that. I'm talking about something else, though. But it is more likely that a Pixar film will get better reviews than, say, Martin Scorsese film. The latter are more risky material so more people won't like it. The rules by which those movies are judged are different, because their aim is different. I somehow doubt The Avengers is better than The Dark Knight Rises and yet it is 8 percent more than Nolan's film. But because it's a safer film, which exist only to entertain the large amount of people. It achieves its goals easily and offends no one, so it is easy to recommend by critics. If it had like a political message or complicated structure, some people would find it challenging/pretentious/convoluted which will most certainly lead to lower rating. But, even if such a film is no good, at least it tries to be something more.

Same with film music. I think no one can argue Elliot Goldenthal is an intelligent composer, but he rarely gets max rating. They say it's "interesting" and "ambitious" but at the same time "not terribly listenable". Same with Alex North or Rosenman. Their material might seem less graceful to listen to than Wiliams, but those are hugely intelligent people who know a thing or two about writing for orchestra.

Another thing: I know you might not agree with me Joey (cause we see films differently) but I guess there is more politics in film reviewing than meets the eye. For example, why did John Carter get so poor reviews? I'm not the biggest fan, but there is something greatly exaggerated about its press. Just because the film flopped badly doesn't mean it is nowhere near as bad as they say.

And that's why I never liked things like star rating. I prefer to read individual reviews, just as you. Sometimes, even if the reviews is not favourable, it can still can praise film for some interesting things.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I somehow doubt The Avengers is better than The Dark Knight Rises and yet it is 8 percent more than Nolan's film.

I know or at least hope you know why, but this is exactly the reason that people should be properly trained before trying to interpret statistics.

The Avengers carries a 92% RT out of 279 total reviews. The Dark Knight Rises stands at 87% out of 46.

The sizes of the test sets are not even close. The Avengers has been reviewed by six times as many entries because it's been out since May, and only the lucky ones have seen TDKR and been cleared to review it this early. Even The Avengers' "fresh" count of 258 is 5.6 times larger than TDKR's total sample size.

Six rottens for The Dark Knight Rises? That's a small number. But because the test population is only 46, those six have a much greater effect on the overall score. The Avengers has 21 rottens. That's over three times as many as TDKR (so far), but because its population is huge, the effect is diluted, and the RT score appears more favorable.

I understand that there is no way to standardize the test groups at RT. Movies will be reviewed by different numbers of people, the people doing the reviewing will be different, movies are reviewed as a function of contributing factors, etc. The percentages are simply an aggregate way to rate movies against each other. It can be a very misleading statistic if interpreted incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I do know that. But also the rating drops more often than not, as opposed to, no pun intended, rising.

But that's beside the point. I meant that TDKR will have a lower rating than TA, anyway. Even with 300 reviews. It's just how these things are. That's my prediction.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, in my opinion, the best film that Nolan as ever done is The Prestige and yet it is also the lowest rated. Because of non-linear narrative structure and (pay attention, this is my favourite) two despicable main characters with morally questionable motivations. What kind of complaint is that especially when judging the story which makes a point out that?

Oh and don't get me started on Insomnia getting 92%, his least original or striking film (which is the second best rated film in his repertoire to this day). I like it anyway, but come on.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rottentomatoes can be very misleading and the percentage thing tends to hurt more divisive movies, that get very high and very low grades. A movie can get mostly average reviews and still have a very high tomatometer. And also movies get reviewed in relation to what preceded them, that's why lackluster (IMH) blockbusters like Star Trek and Avengers get such high ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, in my opinion, the best film that Nolan as ever done is The Prestige and yet it is also the lowest rated. Because of non-linear narrative structure and (pay attention, this is my favourite) two despicable main characters with morally questionable motivations. What kind of complaint is that especially when judging the story which makes a point out that?

Oh and don't get me started on Insomnia getting 92%, his least original or striking film (which is the second best rated film in his repertoire to this day). I like it anyway, but come on.

Or ... it's one of those rare misunderstood movies that will get appreciated at some point in the future. The first time I saw The Prestige, I thought it was merely okay. The first time you concentrate too much on the story, the plot at the surface, the actors. The first time I saw Blade Runner, 2001 and The Duellists, I didn't think they were great either. With these movies, it's the things at play behind the plot that are far more interesting. Not that I think that The Prestige belongs in the same league, mind you. Its plot is quite dense (obscuring the other aspects of the film) and the ending is weak.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the rating means is the percentage of positive review, it's not a statement on the film itself. As I said you have to read the individual reviews.

Also look at the average rating,

right now TDKR has 79 reviews, 68 positive and 11 negative but the average review rating is 8.3 out of 10.

the Avengers has 279 reviews, 258 positive and 21 negative, but the average review rating is 8.0 out of 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Joker was taken into custody though Two-Face died. Except in real life, it was the other way around.

315444_474917149185046_613277916_n.jpg

That's dumb. Ra's Al Ghul already knows how this movie ends; he probably already cashed his paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be watching the marathon playing in the cinemas tonight followed by the first showing of the film at midnight. I'm very excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy hell! I just started reading Harry Knowles' review on Aint It Cool News, but it very quickly gets filled with HUGE SPOILERS!!!!!! And they appear long before he actually gets to his SPOILER WARNING - very lame of him!

So, DO NOT READ THE AICN REVIEW AT ALL if you don't want to be spoiled!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna do the same myself between now and when I finally see the film Tuesday evening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna do the same myself between now and when I finally see the film Tuesday evening!

I'm not even watching the commercials. I'll avoid facebook too. Not that avoiding it is difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how people at work are literally counting down every day to the release. Everyone is going to see it. This films is massively anticipated, I noticed.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy hell! I just started reading Harry Knowles' review on Aint It Cool News, but it very quickly gets filled with HUGE SPOILERS!!!!!! And they appear long before he actually gets to his SPOILER WARNING - very lame of him!

So, DO NOT READ THE AICN REVIEW AT ALL if you don't want to be spoiled!!!

I managed to stop before I saw anything I didn't want to see. Hope you did too.

Nordling's review on that site is spoiler free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.