Good for over $1 billion at the box office, Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie is probably this year's most anticipated home video release (The Avengers next week may have something to say about that) and now Warner Bros. has given us a trailer for The Dark Knight Rises on Blu-ray. Previous movies in the series have always delivered on Blu-ray, as well as his other recent hit, Inception. Unfortunately the video maxes out at 480p, but we don't need any additional resolution to see the release date listed for both disc and digital download is December 3rd. Rumors have flown about different releases dates and possible extras like a director's cut, but recently sources have indicated no such extended offering is in the works. Whether you think the flick was long enough (or even too long), you can press play to check out the clip embedded after the break...and clear the first Monday in December on your calendar for a trilogy viewing marathon.
The result, in Christopher Nolan's conclusion to his Batman trilogy, is an ambitious superhero movie with two surprises: It isn't very much fun, and it doesn't have very much Batman. I'm thinking of the over-the-top action sequences of the earlier films that had a subcurrent of humor, and the exhilarating performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. This movie is all serious drama, with a villain named Bane whose Hannibal Lecterish face-muzzle robs him of personality. And although we see a good deal of Bruce Wayne, his alter-ego Batman makes only a few brief appearances before the all-out climax.
The Dark Knight Rises 1 Bluray Download Movie
This is a dark and heavy film; it tests the weight a superhero movie can bear. That Nolan is able to combine civil anarchy, mass destruction and a Batcycle with exercise-ball tires is remarkable. That he does it without using 3D is admirable. That much of it was shot in the 70mm IMAX format allows it to make that giant screen its own. That it concludes the trilogy is inevitable; how much deeper can Nolan dig? It lacks the near-perfection of "The Dark Knight" (2008), it needs more clarity and a better villain, but it's an honorable finale.
Several publications called The Dark Knight the best comic-book hero adaptation ever made. Roger Ebert said it, alongside Iron Man, had redefined the potential of superhero films by combining comic-book tropes with real world events.[ai] Some appreciated its complex moral tale about the effects of vigilantism and terrorism on contemporary society. Emanuel Levy and Manohla Dargis praised the depiction of the characters as possessing both positive and negative aspects, such as Batman's efforts to end crime provoking unintended consequences and a greater response from criminals; Dargis believed The Dark Knight's exploration of chaos, fear, and death, following the September 11 attacks in 2001, represented "that American movies have entered a new era of ambivalence when it comes to their heroes or maybe just superness."[aj] Others criticized the dark, grim, intense, and self-serious tone as lacking any elements of fun or fantasy.[ak] David Denby said The Dark Knight was a product of a "time of terror", but focused on embracing and unleashing it while cynically setting up a sequel.[210] Stephanie Zacharek and David Edelstein criticized a perceived lack of visual storytelling in favor of exposition, and aspects of the plot being difficult to follow amid the fast pace and loud score.[232][233] Christopher's action direction was criticized, especially during fight scenes where it could be difficult to see things clearly,[227][228] although the prologue bank heist was praised as among the film's best.[al]
The atmosphere of Miller's world is translated perfectly to the screen, making The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 one of the darkest and most disturbing Batman movies in any medium. This is a story in which we first got a truly frightening image of Batman as a violent, obsessive, semi-psychotic vigilante, and that's exactly what we get in this animated film. Scenes of Batman breaking criminals' bones (or literally beating their faces to a bloody pulp) are fantastic for the crowd that prefers a grittier and more adult version of the character; however, the film is definitely too intense for children under double-digit age.
I am not a huge comic book-based movie fan, though I see most all of them. That's because my daughter is nuts for comic book movies and we always seem to see them. Some I have loved ("Scott Pilgrim", "The Dark Knight" and "Captain America" come to mind) and some I didn't ("Daredevil")--but mostly I do enjoy them. While I am sure I am bucking the tide here, I was NOT especially thrilled with "The Dark Knight Rises". This doesn't mean I disliked it--it just left me a bit flat. Now the problem was NOT the movie's length--I like longer films and my butt didn't fall asleep during the film (which is a very good sign)! My problems were more about the incredibly dark tone of the film. Unlike "The Dark Knight", "The Dark Knight Rises" really lacked fun and was 100% devoid of any humor to break up the dark mood. In fact, I kept hoping Tony Stark ("Ironman") would do a crossover from the Marvel films and lighten the mood! Stark (Robert Downey) managed to do a Bruce Wayne-like character but infuse him with energy and likability--Christian Bale just seemed tired and limp and humorless. This was more obvious in this film as opposed to the last because there was no Joker-like villain to provide comic relief (albeit darkly comic). The closest they got was Catwoman (Anne Hathaway)--who was a GREAT character but who wasn't really necessary for the plot. As for Bane and his friends, they were scary and nasty...and nothing more. When the film was over, I realized I had a reasonably good time but nothing more. If some other director and actor pick up the franchise, my advise is work more on the characters--make them more likable and interesting--even the villains.
In a dark time, an epic adventure begins as evil slowly envelops the world! The forces of darkness are pursuing the lost art of Alchemy, and as they draw ever closer to their foul purpose, mankind's future hangs in the balance. You and your companions are the last hope: armed with noble weapons, mysterious Psynergy and a host of elemental creatures, you must find a way to stem the evil tide. Your ordinary life is over, as a Golden Sun rises above you and forever broadens your horizon!
Hi, I saw the Hunger Games last Friday and I absolutely loved it, usually when I like a film, any film I will it on to do well, critically and commercially, which it has, that's why I have a slight problem with something you said that the Hunger Games had mixed reviews, to me mixed is usually 50/50, I know that you said not everyone likes it which is true, but I think the critical acclaim is more mixed to positive at least, more 75%. I apologise for being a bit picky.As I said before I absolutely loved the film, Jennifer Lawrence's performace was amazing, loved her in Winter's Bone and in X-men:First Class. I felt that Jennifer Lawrence was very believable as Katniss and made us root for her. I felt that there was this against all odds story in the backdrop as Katniss rises against this tyranny. Especially when President Snow gives his motives, I felt that she wasn't meant to win and it made me root for her more. I also like many of the characters such as Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, he was very entertaining and good, I also loved Stanley Tucci as the host, I enjoyed all the scenes when Tucci interviews the candidates, I thought it was done very realistically like something from a reality tv show. I thought the film was pretty intense and it was quite volent but I like the intensity and without the violence the film wouldn't be what it is? Was I shocked by some of the violence in the film? Erm, yes and no. I've seen many violent films, some use violence very well some just use it for the sake, but two scenes that made me stop and think were the beginning of the battle when the tributes are released as this very violent frenzy erupts as the tributes kill each other, I felt here that the shaky camerawork here was very effective in creating this chilling effect yet not focus too much on the blood. Another scene was when a spear plunges into Rye, at first I was in shock, as Rue was so small, innocent and cute then a spear flies through her. However after I let my thought settle I felt that the violence was absolutely necessary. These kids, young men and women are in a fight for their lives, all of it is very primitive, event the weapons on the battlefield aren't very advanced. All this made me think to a different film I was watching which was an 18, City of God when Lil' Ze and his gang kill these small kids, the runts, that was also violent and intense, but it's all about survival, when you are pushed I think that you do what you have to, to survive. Have I read the book, well as much as I loved the film, I haven't read the book, but the trilogy will be landing on my doorway very soon. Did it bother me that the movie was trimmed? I really enjoyed the film, did it bother me, not really, but I would of liked to see the untrimmed version. I believe that when a film is released though, it should be the same version worldwide as I think that the tiniest cut could be of significance and change the film and how people see the film. I will be looking forwards to see how you think Mark if you see both the American version and the version released in the UK. I believe that it's marketing as the distributors had a choice, but I would also liked to have seen the distributors try and push the censors to include the trimmed parts, I mean in Casino Royale we see James Bond naked and tortured. I also believe that most things nowadays is about money and it's very important especially in film, so I can understand why they trimmed it and if it was me I would of done the same to reach a wider audience, I think that it's totally acceptable, if you don't like it why not with each film release a director's cut.
2ff7e9595c