|
I swear I already made a thread about this, but fuck it.
What are your thoughts/feelings on TDKR, now that you've seen it and the whole thing is over?
I have to say, I will need to see it again, as I believe I missed some things (easy to do with such rapid-fire dialogue and story profession). I believe there was some symbolism I failed to notice, and that repeated viewings will be necessary in order to fully appreciate the film.
Noisefield and I caught it on opening night, in a theatre so packed that we couldn't even sit together. We are both huge fans, and have been waiting for this since the moment the Dark Knight ended. I left the theatre wholly satisfied, but with a feeling akin to that of a child after all the presents have been opened on Christmas morning. But the movie was incredible, and it truly is a near flawless trilogy, and a complete story. Batman has never and will never be done better, and I feel that a part of my life that began when I saw Burton's Batman in 1989 at age 9, has reached its conclusion.
*Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Bane was perfect. Better by far than any comic book adaptation. He was always something of a crap character; a silly response to the hyperviolent and overly muscled IMAGE characters of the early '90s. Now, the character has been given substance and meaning, and I am so fucking glad the Penguin and Riddler were dropped on favor of him. I had my doubts, but Tom Hardy (especially with his utterly babylike face obscured by a menacing breathing apparatus) was absolutely fucking chilling. Knowing they could not top the Joker, they wisely did not even try. They opted instead for something new, and the result was perfect. One does not even feel the need to compare the two. They are different threats entirely. Well done, Nolan. Well done.
Catwoman was my biggest concern, but the fact thatbthe words "Catwoman" were never uttered once (only eluded to with the "cat-burglar" news clippings) made the whole thing go off without a hitch, keeping well within the boundaries of realism set by the filmmakers.
No-man's Land based storyline was a great surprise, for someone (me) who avoided spoilers and story details like the plague. I was wondering how they could possibly make a story bigger in scope than the Long Halloween-based TDK.. but combining NML and Knightfall worked perfectly.
Thank you Mr. Nolan for excluding Robin, but still giving Batman a fitting sidekick character whose story aligned with scenes from Begins. I guess it wouldn't have killed you to simply let Levitt's character be named "Jason" or '"Dick," (see theory) while otherwise letting everything play out as it did, but fuck it. At least giving the Robin-esque John Blake a new identity prevents WB from trying to pull a Robin movie later on (though a Noghtwing one may have worked just fine).
All in all, I would have changed almost nothing. Noisefield and I both literally shed tears, damn us to hell. This is possibly the finest trilogy, in any genre, that mainstream Hollywood has ever produced. That is saying a LOT. Good luck Iron Man, you cocky CGI fuck. You are going to need it ; and so is every attempt at comic-book film adaptation from now on. I hope nobody tries to "do" Batman again for at least 50 years. It's been done to perfection, and humiliation and failure await anyone who dares.
...
Here's my theory, though: Christopher Nolan has set himself up perfectly for a "Dark Knight Returns" adaptation ten years from now. With Superman (Man of Steel) on the way, and an ideal Robin scenario in place, the plot could be executed almost perfectly, with very little Hollywood story-manipulation. He's also set it up so that such an undertaking would be a massive surprise, and probably a freaking ridiculous money-maker. However, in order to maintain the realism of the franchise, and the perfect feel of the trilogy, the plot would actually necessitate the absence of Superman completely. Is it possible? Yes. Bale would be the proper age, and the Green Arrow could easily be for into the story. Is it probable? Not at all. Pipe dream.
Best movie of 2012. If it doesn't get an Oscar nod I will be shocked and personally offended. The biggest problem: not enough scream time for Gary Goldman, who could have been given an Oscar worthy part, with just a little more actual *acting* and maybe 15 more minutes of length for the film overall. I didn't see enough of the best Commissioner Gordon the world has ever seen or will ever see. Apart from that, and an ending that I need to see again to know exactly how I feel about it, the film also was a little light on Alfred, who almost seemed like an afterthought when he showed up near the end.
But damn. Damn. Damn. Damn. I couldn't have asked for more.
|