It's still a good film of course, but I feel that there wasn't a whole lot about it that really stood out compared to the other two. I know that a lot of people consider TDKR to be the weakest of the trilogy, but I personally think BB is a better example. The pacing felt a little sloppy at points, Katie Holmes was a pretty weak link (so much so that she got nominated for a Razzie), and honestly, I think the movie as a whole was actually more guilty of that infamous "expositional Nolan dialogue) than the other two films, particularly in the scene with the water technician explaining that the water supply is "gonna blow".
lol hell no this film is better then every mcu film ever made dude nolans batman films are the three best superhero films ever made when you say good film you insult this this by itself is better then every mcu movie an every dc film universe film an the reason is two things chirstopher nolan is one of the best directors of all time an batman is by far the best comic book character of all time this entire trilogy is like lightning in a bottle it will never be topped an hasnt even been equaled batman v superman avengers those are popcorn movies this trilogy is art it superseeds every cliche it could have became
I don't think so, I thought the movie flowed very well, in part from being centered on Batman.
Katie Holmes was a pretty weak link (so much so that she got nominated for a Razzie)
The Razzies usually attack the biggest-name movies and actors rather than the worst. She was weaker than some of the other actors but not particularly bad and more likeable than Gyllenhaal or Hathaway.
reply share
I don't think so, I thought the movie flowed very well, in part from being centered on Batman
I should probably clarify my statement about the pacing. The first hour or so of the film felt kind of rushed and jumbled together. The flashback scenes were a bit awkward, and things felt like they were moving too fast. There wasn't really a lot of room to breathe.
The Razzies usually attack the biggest-name movies and actors rather than the worst.
Not really. Razzes generally target movies that are absolutely considered terrible. There are some exceptions here and there (like Batman Begins), but for the most part, a Razzie nomination is usually reserved for the big stinkers.
I'll take "Begins" over the sequels anytime! I still haven't watched either from beginning to end! Never impressed by "TDK" which people rave so much about; esp. Ledger's performance as the Joker!
This movie succeeded in spite of itself rather than because. I thought the acting was rubbish at pretty much every level.
All the big stars looked like they were sleepwalking. Even Michael Caine was disappointing and that's really saying something. Same for Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman. But Katie Holmes definitely deserved the Razzie. She was the pits. That scene where she's on the Narrows with the little kid and she's looking around, flicking her hair...seriously? Is that her version of looking around? It looked like a bad shampoo commercial. And the scene where she's visiting Bruce Wayne and answers her phone. Worst line delivery. It's hard to imagine how it could have been much worse. She's a D.A.? Gimme a break. Christian Bale can't seem to tell the difference between drama and melodrama and while there's a certain amount of Batman Begins that's not meant to be entirely serious, this guy is touted as a seriously good actor but I saw nothing impressive here. The way they deepened his voice in post production just didn't work in some places and made him sound almost like he was on helium.
For all that, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen and I don't actually hate it but some people really needed to lift their game.