[El Zilcho]

QUOTE (Otter @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 20:47)

Only a flesh wound!

I'll bite your legs off!

[Linki]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Tuesday, Jul 31 2012, 15:24)

snip

Well done. Completely destroyed that nonsensical crockery.

[GTAvanja]

I am going to see this movie again tonight. I just have to. I can't wait for a DVD release to see it again.

[Hell No..]

Enjoyed it. Preferred the Dark Knight, but glad I seen it.

Anyone else struggle to understand Bane in some parts? There was a scene where I missed a whole line.

[visionist]

Finally saw it in 70mm IMAX.

It's a feast for the senses.

Tonight at midnight I'm seeing the entire trilogy back-to-back in the same venue.

I should get some sleep...

[GTAvanja]

And I've just seen it again. It's definitely one of those movies you appreciate more when you see it at least one more time. You get to see a lot of details that went unnoticed the first time. It makes a lot more sense now and my opinion of the movie has improved significantly. I thought it was great the first time I saw it, but now I think it's amazing. And I just love everything about Bane now.

[Linki]

I'll be going to see it in IMAX. Hopefully, if it hasn't sold out. The IMAX I'm headed to is the third largest screen in the world, in Melbourne.

For those of you who have seen it in IMAX, what was it like? Is it too big?

[Digital Murders]

I saw it in IMAX twice, and standard the third. It wasn't that much of a difference, but then again I'm no fan of 3D films either. Paying $7 more dollars to see something comparable to a pop-up book is stupid to me. All your paying for with IMAX is seeing the film on a screen twice as big.

You could probably get the same results if you sit in the first five rows of a standard showing.

[Linki]

QUOTE (Digital Murders @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 04:16)

I saw it in IMAX twice, and standard the third. It wasn't that much of a difference, but then again I'm no fan of 3D films either. Paying $7 more dollars to see something comparable to a pop-up book is stupid to me. All your paying for with IMAX is seeing the film on a screen twice as big. You could probably get the same results if you sit in the first five rows of a standard showing.

That's disheartening. Is it really not that great? Reconsidering now.

[Rockstar20124]

QUOTE (Indi @ Monday, Jul 30 2012, 18:44)

Well I for one thought it was fantastic.  By people even comparing the Nolan trilogy with Burton's trilogy cannot be justified.  They are both different and have their own unique cinematic depth to it. Thought it was great, and to be honest I think Nolan has nailed Batman throughout all of the trilogy in a pretty perfect way, Batman in the comics has a darker side to him, and the Nolan trilogy goes to the origins of Batman (Batman Returns) and all of this leads up to the events of TDKR (Talia Al Ghul being Miranda Tate, and her and Bane finishing Miranda's father's masterpiece) @Rockstar20124: I respect your opinion, sir.  But comparing Anne Hathaway with Halle Berry's rendition of Catwoman?  WHAT?!  The 2004 Catwoman movie was very entertaining, and I respect your opinion but Anne Hathaway's version of Catwoman was devious too.  She used to powers of seduction, betrayal, and trickery with Bruce Wayne and anyone connected with the Wayne Enterprises organisation.  Once again, I entirely respect your opinion, but that baffles me.  It's quite clear to me that if you didn't like TDK or BB then you won't enjoy this one.  If you like Burton you like Burton, if you like Nolan you like Nolan.  I've seen all of the Batman films (even the piss-take version of the one with Adam West), and you can't compare sh*t to any of them.

I respect your opinion too, sir

Catwoman should be a playful lady with a feral untamed and at times devious and sadistic cat like side. Not just the way she thinks and acts but also the way she walks with her hips and whole confident, maybe a bit arrogant, body language

Anne Hathaways Catwoman is a mere thief with maybe a sexy outfit but lacking the sensual moves and personality. She looks too fragile and stiff. And she's a big hypocrit saying you can steal basically everything as long as you are faster then the rightful owners as an advice to a kid She should have said something like it's OK to steal from corrupt rich guys and leaving hardworking Joes who get underpaid alone. And she really wanted to escape the city cowardly not just without saving people but without any revenge feelings towards Bane? Really? The real Catwoman would have wanted to scratch Bane's eyes out for threatening her, her friends and her city FFS She wouldn't help Batman because it was the good thing to do. She would do mainly to get back at Bane for hurting her ego

Also, why the hell didn't this Catwoman have any claws and some kind of whip? Boring! Just like Batman with almost no gadgets. Not even a Batclaw? Boring as well!

These are the reasons why Halle Berry is a much better Catwoman then Anne Hathaway. And obviously Michelle Pfeiffer is still the best Also, I think The Dark Knight starring Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart was a great movie worthy of Tim Burtons Batman from 1989. Maybe not a 10/10 like the film starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson but definitely a 9/10

Anyway, I have read that Anne Hathaway thought she was going to be cast as Harley Quinn. And maybe she would have played that part better with her literally big smile and big eyes.

http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knigh...arley-quinn.php

Maybe Marion Cotillard should have played Catwoman instead. She definitely has a more feline appearance with her devious eyes, eyebrows and body language

[Ronmar The Only]

QUOTE (Digital Murders @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 00:16)

I saw it in IMAX twice, and standard the third. It wasn't that much of a difference, but then again I'm no fan of 3D films either. Paying $7 more dollars to see something comparable to a pop-up book is stupid to me. All your paying for with IMAX is seeing the film on a screen twice as big. You could probably get the same results if you sit in the first five rows of a standard showing.

You're not only paying to see it on a screen twice as big, you're paying to see sequences as they were actually shot. The regular version would have certain parts of the shots chopped out to fit the normal widescreen presentation that the rest of the film is in.

I would say that it didn't make that much of a difference in The Dark Knight, but I'm quite certain a lot more of Rises was shot in IMAX resolution than Dark Knight.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (Rockstar20124 @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 18:00)

Anne Hathaways Catwoman is a mere thief with maybe a sexy outfit but lacking the sensual moves and personality. She looks too fragile and stiff. And she's a big hypocrit saying you can steal basically everything as long as you are faster then the rightful owners as an advice to a kid She should have said something like it's OK to steal from corrupt rich guys and leaving hardworking Joes who get underpaid alone.

Obviously I can't say you're wrong about your opinion of what the character should be like and how Hathaway plays it, because it's a matter of opinion. (Personally I thought she was the most fun character, and much needed among all the stern faces of all the super serious cast that made up the rest of the feature).

But those two points are straight up incorrect. She only tells the kid that you should only steal people you can outrun, not that it's okay to steal from anybody you can outrun. That might be a subtle difference, but it's important. This all comes quite some time after the masquerade ball scene, where she makes it quite clear to Bruce that she only steals from those who can afford to suffer it and, more importantly, deserve it. She's literally the embodiment of the whole 99% side in the thing the film has going on in terms of themes about class warfare.

[Otter]

You know what?

I'll just leave this right here.



Yeah, that's right.

[GTAvanja]

I don't understand people who disliked Selina Kyle. She was probably the best thing about the movie. And not because she's hot. Her character was perfect.

Lacking sensual moves? Did you not see her first encounter with Bruce Wayne at the manor? That was as sensual and elegant as it gets.

[Sup3rman]

I must agree with most here, that this catwoman/selina kyle was excellent, added much depth to the story and was even a fun factor in the film with clever lines and everything.

But i wanted to show you or let you hear my impression of Bane and Batman from the fight scene. Tell me what you think. I know i have to work on it still, doesn't sound exactly right.

[LuisBellic]

Do you guys think there will be a Robin sequel?

and if there is I want Riddler as a villian.

[TheJonesy]

Let me begin this post by saying that Rockstar20124 is a complete moron and, at the same time, is stern and uncompromising with his opinions - which are wrong.

Anyway, I finally got to see the movie for a second time. I will agree that the movie is much more powerful and sensable with each additional viewing. For example, I almost teared up when Alfred mourned at Bruce's grave - which was odd. Also, my love for Hardy's and Hathaway's performances have grown stronger. The first fight between Batman and Bane is still one of the most memorable scenes of that film; I still wince at each punch because it was so brutal. In addition, Bane's execution of body language and dialogue, to me, was the epitome of the character. Lackey or not, I still applaud at Hardy's - may I say unappreciated - performance.

Though, my distaste for the Talia arc in the movie increased as well. When I initially saw the movie, I knew Miranda was Talia at the very beginning when she started blabbing about environmental bullsh*t. Then, though, I was only wondering what role the character would play. Now that I know, the second viewing loses any thrill. It just feels tacked on now. I'm not disturbed by it whatsoever or feel it diminishes the quality of the movie, but that's just how I feel.

[Robinski]

If anyone else is into this kind of thing, you can pick up a copy of the shooting script* here. All 165 pages of it. I haven't read it, but apparently there were a couple of interesting (if not exactly game changing) things left on the cutting room floor.

*Might be a screenplay, can't remember which one is which, it's it screen order and reads like the final film.

This post has been edited by Robinski on Friday, Aug 3 2012, 01:44

[Digital Murders]

QUOTE (Ronmar The Only @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 12:12)

QUOTE (Digital Murders @ Thursday, Aug 2 2012, 00:16) I saw it in IMAX twice, and standard the third. It wasn't that much of a difference, but then again I'm no fan of 3D films either. Paying $7 more dollars to see something comparable to a pop-up book is stupid to me. All your paying for with IMAX is seeing the film on a screen twice as big. You could probably get the same results if you sit in the first five rows of a standard showing.  You're not only paying to see it on a screen twice as big, you're paying to see sequences as they were actually shot. The regular version would have certain parts of the shots chopped out to fit the normal widescreen presentation that the rest of the film is in. I would say that it didn't make that much of a difference in The Dark Knight, but I'm quite certain a lot more of Rises was shot in IMAX resolution than Dark Knight.

I was totally wondering what happened to that sofa sitting in the left hand corner of Gordon's hospital room when I saw the film the last time.

@Sup3rman, pretty good. Honestly, it just makes me want to watch that scene again. Their first time they meet is so well done and (I hate to use it) epic.

[John The Grudge]

Watched the IMAX version yesterday in Edinburgh and wow. It's the first time I've seen anything in IMAX and it's mental. It's got a super sharp picture and the size takes some getting used to. The sound is so loud that your insides vibrate. Never mind 3D, IMAX is the future of cinema. It's a total assault on the senses way beyond anything 3D can deliver.

Oh and the film was excellent too.