Sounds good to me.

This snapshot collection is dedicated to....Brian! The leader of a squad of vigilantes, who try to 'help' Batman. As far as I observed, there are four men. No.1, Brian, ...the leader was armed with an Israeli Uzi. No.2 was armed with a shotgun. No.3 carried a 9mm pistol, probably a US M9 No.4 was armed with a M2 Carbine derivative.

I imagine that this plot point was a nudge at all those theatergoers that dressed up as Batman characters during opening night.

This is Brian, at the moment of his capture by the Joker:

Brian's first appearance in the Parking lot.

Batman's first appearance:

The fight and capture of Brian's team and the criminals.

"Don't let me ever see you out here again"

'We're trying to help you!'

"I don't need help!"

'What gives you the right? What's the difference between you and me?'

"I'm not wearing hockey pads!"

Brian's end. This was a short but haunting scene.

No movie moment in many years made me jump like poor old Brian dangling from the rope and hitting the window of Commissioner Loeb's office.

It was a great movie. If it had the joker it would have been better.

It was a great movie. If it had the joker it would have been better.

Though no-one will ever be able to equal Heath Ledger anymore, so I believe it's better the Joker will be rested on his best.

Obviously, spoiler warning:

 

Having revisited this over the weekend and having access to the source material (eg. the vengeance of Bane), here are my thoughts after almost 3 years:

 

-This film had the potential to be the greatest comic book movie ever and was boosted by many powerful concepts.  But it came across as flawed and rushed in execution.  The script had problems.  Personally I liked the trilogy less after watching it because I felt that it cheapened batman.   I still love BB and TDK, though.

 

-The side characters didn't work: Robin, Crane, Catwoman, Talia.  They should have been entirely removed but I can understand why they were there.   The film should have strongly centered itself on Bane and Batman, and developed each story to a deep level.  Bane should be completely terrifying and devoid of "human" weaknesses and his end should have been dramatic rather than anti-climatic.  He is the ying to Batman's yang so to speak and would make few mistakes outside of the biggest one- not killing Batman and putting him in the pit.

 

-The basic structure of the film ideally could have been: 1. Bane Begins  2. A previously victorious but now declined batman.  But not infirm.  3. The rise of Bane, and his antics. 4. The return of batman, and his defeat. 5. The pit, and the escape of Batman intermixed with Bane run amok 6.  Batman prepares his counterattack and the final confrontation 7. Tying up the trilogy.

 

-The pit should have been a solitary cell, akin to the dark hole in "Papillion"  (terrific film). 

 

-Bane/Batman should not have been cheapened to the level of ordinary people with ordinary desires.  They in life or death should retain "the devotion to an idea" forever.  This was a major flaw of TDKR and why I thought the ending was quite bad.

 

-In tying up loose ends, is acceptable for Batman to die, but he must, (like Raz) become a "Legend" in human lexicon with an enduring impact in influencing the actions of others that exceeds what he accomplished in his own life.  How this is to happen would have been a challenge to figure out by the movie-makers and probably would have resulted in something very unique in cinema as well.  The 'impact' shouldn't have been some unrelated BS like an endowment for helping orphaned children but related to fighting organized crime/supervillians.  A possible final scene could be something set 2 decades afterward that proves that the existence of that enduring impact.  To quote MacArthur: "Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away".

 

 

Batman and Catwoman are a good couple.

i personally think it was decent. too much talking and too little action. certain scenes were unnecessary and some of the fight actions were poorly choreographed.

 

This is from footage that never made it- originally Hathaway had long hair.  It looks much better but I can see why they changed it.

It's interesting given that this was cited alongside The Phantom Menace as an example of initial hype being so strong that people talked about liking it after leaving and then realised later that it wasn't as good as they originally thought, that I think I've actually come to view TDKR more favourably than I did at the time of release. Watching it more objectively now, I think it's a great look into the psyche of Wayne and his reluctance, for better or worse, to give up his double life. In terms of telling a story about Batman and that internal struggle that he has, I honestly think it does a better job than any of the other live action movies. The only real weak link I felt was Marion Cotillard, but with repeated viewings (and of course, knowing the twist ahead of time), the character feels a bit more nuanced than I first thought. Nolan's trilogy should really be seen as one extremely long film, plot points are interconnected throughout and feel completely natural, like a complete story.

18 minutes ago, Michael* said:

It's interesting given that this was cited alongside The Phantom Menace as an example of initial hype being so strong that people talked about liking it after leaving and then realised later that it wasn't as good as they originally thought, that I think I've actually come to view TDKR more favourably than I did at the time of release. Watching it more objectively now, I think it's a great look into the psyche of Wayne and his reluctance, for better or worse, to give up his double life. In terms of telling a story about Batman and that internal struggle that he has, I honestly think it does a better job than any of the other live action movies. The only real weak link I felt was Marion Cotillard, but with repeated viewings (and of course, knowing the twist ahead of time), the character feels a bit more nuanced than I first thought. Nolan's trilogy should really be seen as one extremely long film, plot points are interconnected throughout and feel completely natural, like a complete story.

 

I view TDKR as a noble failure of sorts- I admire what he tried to do even if it didn't fully work.  What this is in Storytelling structure is plotting the downfall of the hero (TDK was the apex) and his transformation to a new identity, and then a new life- crafting a legacy.  

 

The TV series Vikings has the downfall to legacy done in detail for Ragnar and now Lagethera over the course of seasons.  The challenging part of this type of story is that it requires a thorough depiction of an internal struggle, developing in subtle steps.  This means lot of good/hard acting and writing, and perhaps more time than a film can provide.

Also- another film that attempted to show the downfall-legacy cycle was Godfather Part III- another film that didn't hit the mark.

On 1/3/2019 at 4:28 PM, Cult Icon said:

I view TDKR as a noble failure of sorts- I admire what he tried to do even if it didn't fully work.  What this is in Storytelling structure is plotting the downfall of the hero (TDK was the apex) and his transformation to a new identity, and then a new life- crafting a legacy.  

 

Yeah, I'd say if Nolan goes wrong anywhere, it's probably that he summarises the journey too quickly. When Wayne broke his back in the books, there was obviously a long saga of recovery and redemption that followed, but of course Nolan is restricted by the movie's running time, so he speeds through from to his exile to his assumed death. Still, I think the movie is at its best when it tackles themes of mortality and loss.