Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 444243" data-attributes="member: 8">The Dark Knight Rises (2012)[ATTACH=full]59594[/ATTACH]After my surprisingly successful rewatch of The Dark Knight (2008) I felt hesitant to continue with last instalment in the Batman Trilogy. Sort of like &quot;what if I&#039;m pushing my luck?&quot;However, prime made it known that it was going to be removed from their free-to-watch catalogue and it would be silly of me to keep dawdling only to end up paying for the rental anyway.Well, now that I&#039;ve watched it I can understand why so many fans consider this trilogy the peak in the superhero blockbuster genre.It&#039;s not a better Batman&nbsp; film than the previous one but they sure made the right choices for the ensemble cast.Commissioner Gordon is a favourite returnee from The Dark Knight and we also get a sub-hero in the form of police officer John Blake.Anne Hathaway is delightful as the catty femme fatale, and Tom Hardy is impressive as a Hellboy type of villain, stomping around and causing epic choas.It also features villain John Daggett who is actually the most responsible for everything that happens, and characters like Miranda Tate usually don&#039;t show up in a casual, inconsequential way. I didn&#039;t know what the plot twist was going to be, but I knew it was coming.Apart from the mix of characters and motivations there&#039;s also the non-stop urgency and spectacle on &quot;disaster movie&quot; scale.It&#039;s a lot, and almost to the extent that it starts to clutter the story. I&#039;m not familiar with the League Of Shadows therefore I had to take it at face value, and while that doesn&#039;t affect the story developments I feel it somewhat lessens the impact thereof.I mean, the Joker doesn&#039;t even need a motive, he&#039;s just extremely vile and sometimes the beauty is in the simplicity of it all.Alfred Pennyworth&#039;s behaviour in this sequel is uncharacteristically straightforward and sentimental, and all that blubbery &quot;I only live for your happiness&quot; made me cringe.Props and set pieces are amazing even if it continues the colour-shy tone chosen for these Batman films. It seems that the money was spent wisely - if we&#039;d consider that spending 300 million dollars on the production of a film is a sane&nbsp; thing to do - and it&#039;s the kind of blockbuster thrill that&#039;s hard to surpass. In many ways as entertaining as The Dark Knight&nbsp; but I like to make a distinction for the reasons mentioned.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 444243, member: 8"] The Dark Knight Rises (2012) [ATTACH type="full"]59594[/ATTACH] After my surprisingly successful rewatch of [I]The Dark Knight [/I](2008) I felt hesitant to continue with last instalment in the Batman Trilogy. Sort of like "what if I'm pushing my luck?" However, prime made it known that it was going to be removed from their free-to-watch catalogue and it would be silly of me to keep dawdling only to end up paying for the rental anyway. Well, now that I've watched it I can understand why so many fans consider this trilogy the peak in the superhero blockbuster genre. It's not a better [I]Batman [/I]film than the previous one but they sure made the right choices for the ensemble cast. Commissioner Gordon is a favourite returnee from The Dark Knight and we also get a sub-hero in the form of police officer John Blake. Anne Hathaway is delightful as the catty femme fatale, and Tom Hardy is impressive as a Hellboy type of villain, stomping around and causing epic choas. It also features villain John Daggett who is actually the most responsible for everything that happens, and characters like Miranda Tate usually don't show up in a casual, inconsequential way. I didn't know what the plot twist was going to be, but I knew it was coming. Apart from the mix of characters and motivations there's also the non-stop urgency and spectacle on "disaster movie" scale. It's a [I]lot[/I], and almost to the extent that it starts to clutter the story. I'm not familiar with the League Of Shadows therefore I had to take it at face value, and while that doesn't affect the story developments I feel it somewhat lessens the impact thereof. I mean, the Joker doesn't even need a motive, he's just extremely vile and sometimes the beauty is in the simplicity of it all. Alfred Pennyworth's behaviour in this sequel is uncharacteristically straightforward and sentimental, and all that blubbery "I only live for your happiness" made me cringe. Props and set pieces are amazing even if it continues the colour-shy tone chosen for these Batman films. It seems that the money was spent wisely - if we'd consider that spending 300 million dollars on the production of a film is a [I]sane [/I]thing to do - and it's the kind of blockbuster thrill that's hard to surpass. In many ways as entertaining as [I]The Dark Knight [/I]but I like to make a distinction for the reasons mentioned. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?