[SHAFT]

Originally Posted by MissDexter

My original point regarding Empire has been misconstrued as a negative towards the film.
I'm sure TDKR is a 5* film.

My dig is at how predictable Empire are.

I used to love Empire, believe it or not I'm in the 100th issue, but that was when it was fun and didn't see itself as the movie bible - its not!!!!!

I stopped buying Empire a few years ago when it became obvious that some of the reviewers had not actually seen the films they wre reviewing!They were notorous for it at one point. Very lazy and unfair to the readers. Hope they have inproved since.

Looking forward to TDKR though!

[MissDexter]

I lost faith in Empire when produced a special Steven Spielberg magazine (another of their can-do-no-wrongs) and had an almost full page spread for the Jaws section which was actually an image from Jaws The Revenge.
Now, i take that as a bit of an insult to the director they're trying to pay tribute to.

I emailed them and they never responded.
Says it all.

[jamespondo]

I think this film was always going to impress critics, due to not only the quality cast but an underlying theme of rich vs poor in the wake of 2008.

Roger Ebert will no doubt give it the full 4 stars, but I'm interested in Leonard Maltin's review. He openly isn't keen on Nolan's style, giving The Dark Knight 2 stars out of 4 simply because it was unrelentingly dark. In contrast he gave Batman & Robin 2 and a half stars.

[SuperAPJ]

Originally Posted by Stupid_Head

Tom Hardy is having a tough time because they keep bringing up the Joker in comparison.

That's what I thought would be the case. Tom Hardy loses critical acclaim for not being dead.

[OnDatKryptonite]

Originally Posted by SuperAPJ

That's what I thought would be the case. Tom Hardy loses critical acclaim for not being dead.

Also you can't see a third of his face. That can limit an actor's expressive range when not only is your voice monotone but your face is partially obscured. Makes it harder to tell if he is grimacing, smiling, angry etc. Ledger had heavy make up but his full range of facial and physical expressions were available for his performance.

[Deserana 12]

Literally some reviews are just "its not great cause it doesn't have the Joker" (obviously ignoring the greatness of Begins). One woman gave a negative review and one of the main complaints is that Hardy isn't sexy in the role.

[mintchocchip]

Re: Empire being biased to studios I think it gave Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire a mediocre 3 stars on release, cranked up to 4 stars for DVD. That's a Warner Film too.

I like the Batman films but have found both previous ones flawed, I'll go see for myself next week.

[PhoenixRises]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

Literally some reviews are just "its not great cause it doesn't have the Joker" (obviously ignoring the greatness of Begins). One woman gave a negative review and one of the main complaints is that Hardy isn't sexy in the role.

Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't think Begins was such greatness as you did

[Glawster2002]

Originally Posted by jamespondo

I think this film was always going to impress critics, due to not only the quality cast but an underlying theme of rich vs poor in the wake of 2008.

Roger Ebert will no doubt give it the full 4 stars, but I'm interested in Leonard Maltin's review. He openly isn't keen on Nolan's style, giving The Dark Knight 2 stars out of 4 simply because it was unrelentingly dark. In contrast he gave Batman & Robin 2 and a half stars.

The original Batman comics are unrelentingly dark, so for Roger Ebert to mark a film down for that reason shows his ignorance of the film he is reviewing....

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by PhoenixRises

Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't think Begins was such greatness as you did

It bests TDK by a comfortable margin, much more focused and interesting.

[PhoenixRises]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

It bests TDK by a comfortable margin, much more focused and interesting.

But that is your opinion, and it may well be the opinion of those reviewers that it is not the case.

My post was a slight reference to the posters previous post in this thread where the said a similar thing when people were dismissing the Empires review. It was a tongue in cheek kind of post.

[Listentome]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

Literally some reviews are just "its not great cause it doesn't have the Joker" (obviously ignoring the greatness of Begins). One woman gave a negative review and one of the main complaints is that Hardy isn't sexy in the role.

Seriously? That's hilarious. Miss the point of Bane somewhat.

[dmuk]

Quite a few negative reviews now, but none with any real credential. BB and TDK don't have 100% reviews. Quite a few top critics have yet to publish.

Of course, come friday, the reviews won't mean jack, just like always.

[roger_50]

I'm getting the general impression from a couple I know who've already seen it that it shares some similar problems to TDK - they've tried to cram too much in and it's ended up being all over the place, albeit with some impressive scenes smattered around.

[Dai13371]

Originally Posted by Straker

Empire’s reviews have been a joke ever since they began. They depend on the major studios and distributors to fill their pages with ads and far be it for me to say in return they expect positive reviews from Empire. No.....that couldn’t possibly be the case...

Hear hear.

There is a whiff of cinematic snobbery too with the magazine and for that reason I prefer Total FIlm although I find certain online film websites far more satisfying.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by PhoenixRises

Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't think Begins was such greatness as you did

Haha well maybe . I was more talking about how critics seem to not realise how 2/3rds of the trilogy don't have The Joker and seem to ignore Begins.

Originally Posted by Glawster2002

The original Batman comics are unrelentingly dark, so for Roger Ebert to mark a film down for that reason shows his ignorance of the film he is reviewing....

It wasn't Ebert who marked it down that was the other critic. Ebert has currently given the first two both 4/4. His review should come out later today.

Originally Posted by Listentome

Seriously? That's hilarious. Miss the point of Bane somewhat.

Mmhmm this is the exact quote -

None of that is on display here. He’s all brute force. Hardy can be sexy and charismatic the role is a huge waste of what Tom Hardy can do.

[Dr. Linus]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

It bests TDK by a comfortable margin, much more focused and interesting.

To be fair, the majority of viewers would disagree with that, and certainly almost all casual viewers would disagree.

It is slightly unfair for Tom Hardy. The fact is that Heath Ledger competely made The Dark Knight - without him, it could have been a calamity (or just deathly dull). People can't help but comment on what isn't there. If there was a Star Wars Episode VII, without Darth Vader, of course everyone would comment on his absence.

Basically, Heath Ledger set the bar too high for critics to ignore. It's unfair, because Heath is something of an anomaly in that his performance is so far ahead of everyone else that even the excellent BB and DKR cast could never have matched it and there's nothing anyone can do about that, but them's the facts. Any review of an instalment in a franchise will compare it to the other instalments.

The better reviews are reviewing it in its own right, and they tend to be the more positive reviews, so it seems that the Joker's absence aside, there isn't actually anything wrong with the film. But it's a very big legacy to shake off.

[MrSuper]

God forbid whoever plays The Joker when Batman is given the reboot treatment! They have mighty shoes to fill!

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by jamespondo

I'm interested in Leonard Maltin's review. He openly isn't keen on Nolan's style, giving The Dark Knight 2 stars out of 4 simply because it was unrelentingly dark. In contrast he gave Batman & Robin 2 and a half stars.

I'm sorry, i respect people's rights to have their own opinion, but any "critic" who rates B&R above TDK really shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a professional movie critic.

[yaristaman]

Originally Posted by MrSuper

God forbid whoever plays The Joker when Batman is given the reboot treatment! They have mighty shoes to fill!

IMHO Nicholsons shoes are still waiting to be filled.

[Dr. Linus]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

I'm sorry, i respect people's rights to have their own opinion, but any "critic" who rates B&R above TDK really shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a professional movie critic.

Amen. I think anyone can pretty much objectively say that The Dark Knight is a better film than Batman and Robin. It struck me that Maltin has something of a bee in his bonnet about it, and I'm not sure why, as Nolan's series has been the darling of most other critics.

[BrokenArrow]

I've never been able to get into any of the Batman films and it really should be right up my street.

I'd never pay to go see one at the Cinema but I have watched the ones that have been on TV and all of them have been pretty ridiculously bad. OTT ham acting is the biggest downfall of the franchise.

[Densino]

Down to 87% on rotten tomatoes already...after on 40 reviews. Ouch


Some fans set the bar too high, with many on imdb expecting it to still be at 99%-100% at this point

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by BrokenArrow

I've never been able to get into any of the Batman films and it really should be right up my street.

I'd never pay to go see one at the Cinema but I have watched the ones that have been on TV and all of them have been pretty ridiculously bad. OTT ham acting is the biggest downfall of the franchise.

Which ones have you seen?

The Nolan ones don't have "OTT ham acting", at least not compared to the previous Bat-films (Jim Carrey, Arnie, Tommy Lee Jones ).

[Dr. Linus]

The only criticism that's worrying me is that apparently the audibility of dialogue, especially Bane's, is quite a big problem. They were supposed to have sorted this out... I've seen that commented in at least 5 or 6 reviews. Otherwise, the criticisms do not echo from one bad review to an other and seem down to personal taste.