MC 117's Top 10 List

[Dracula]

This topic seems a bit broad....

[JBond]

Hah, I was thinking the same thing. It's more personal. It's fun, lighten up.

[MasterChief117]

Originally Posted by Dracula

This topic seems a bit broad....

Not really? My favorite movie characters. Pretty straight forward. I am sorry it is not more 'abstract' or something. I was just trying to have fun with it.

[MasterChief117]

4. Darth Vader from Star Wars




One of the greatest villains ever created in my honest opinion. Darth Vader is the futuristic version of Death or the Grim Reaper. A walking tin can, with the components of a machine, beneath it all is a man with inner turmoil, struggling to find himself, but was pushed too far. Darth Vader is the great fallen knight, with incredible power, incredible intellect, unfortunately fallen to the wayside, and becoming something else entirely. He is a tragic villain, so well done, so entertaining with his over powering, menacing approach to everything and that is what makes him such a great character. Not to mention, James Earl Jones absolutely makes this character more dynamic.



3. John McClane from Die Hard




Next to Burgundy, this might be another pick that is HIGHLY scrutinized because of the declining quality in films. Regardless, John McClane is one of my all time favorite characters because of his charming attitude, his cowboy demeanor and overall incredible on screen presence. He is hilarious, in a dry wit way, bad ass in a brawler way, and well, just freaking bad ass. All of his lines are quotable, and really, at the end of the day, he is a normal cop, in the middle of a really bad situation, trying to make the best of it.



2. Red/Andy from The Shawshank Redemption




These two, I cannot have one without the other. When reading lists, and finding what everyone considered to be their 'favorite' characters, Red usually appeared on most of them, without Andy. Fair enough. Red narrates the story, and really you feel him more as a character, than Andy, who is really a wildcard throughout majority of the film. However, these two, and their evolving chemistry through decades is too great to just include one and not the other. Red is made better because of Andy, and Andy is certainly made better because of Red. Together they share one of the greatest on screen bromances ever, embracing a fantastical idea of hope through friendship in the toughest of times. I really, really enjoy the ending, which serves as a great payoff to a film with stressing tensions throughout.



1. Indiana Jones from the Indiana Jones films




My number one favorite film character is Indiana Jones. Brave. Courageous. Smart. Cunning. Witty. Smart ass. Bad ass. Dangerous. He is a man's man, going on incredible adventures that any man wishes they could go on. He embodies the fantasies of a man wanting more out of their simple lives, and challenges the idea of being both intelligent AND bad ass. Who says you have to be JUST one? Sure, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a farce of epic proportions in insane levels of stupidity, but Harrison Ford tried his best with the material at hand. Ford makes this character.

[Dracula]

Originally Posted by MasterChief117

Not really? My favorite movie characters. Pretty straight forward. I am sorry it is not more 'abstract' or something. I was just trying to have fun with it.

There's nothing wrong with it exactly, it's just that there have kind of been a lot of characters over the years, sorting through them all seems like a pretty difficult task to me.

[MasterChief117]

Before I name my next list let me start by saying, EVERYONE KNOWS I LOVE THIS MOVIE. I watched it yesterday, and I enjoy it, just as much as I did the first time. However, my 10th viewing left me with the want, perhaps the need to create this list. The items will probably agree with most, maybe disagree with some and some will want other things to be included. Regardless, these are my issues. Enjoy.




My Top 9 Complaints With The Dark Knight Rises



9 Jumpy Narrative/Story




Original reports stated that Nolan brought his vision of the film to the editing room at 4.5 hours long. Obviously, this is way too long. Apparently the original , Director's Cut had a bigger Bane back story, more Foley story, further developed plot lines and another action sequence. The thing is, we will never truly know since Nolan is a dedicated, but stubborn man to his craft. Regardless, the narrative is really jumpy and you can tell quite a lot of scenes have been cut, especially the first hour. The story does not seem to flow as well as The Dark Knight, and scenes just appear, rather than go together organically.



8. Characters Just....Die




Bane. Talia. Foley. Barsad. The Mayor. No, not every character has to have a 'meaningful' death, but in a period of 5 minutes, four characters die without a great resolution/conclusion, they just die. Bane gets blown up. Dead. Okay. Barsad gets shot, and falls down, kinda thrown to the side. Foley is shot and then muddled over, despite the story making a big deal about him overcoming fear. Talia's death might be the only death that has some sort of conclusion, or proper resolution. The Mayor...he just explodes. We are built up to see these characters, and definitely felt like something was missing here. Oh well.



7.Lack of Morgan Freeman/Michael Caine




One could make the case that their screen time in the previous films was never that much to begin with, or maybe they had plenty in TDKR. Regardless, to me, it didn't feel that way. Both actors are phenomenal, generation defining actors and it just did not feel like the script did them justice. Michael Caine, in my opinion, did a bit more but did not feel as well used as he did in The Dark Knight.


6. Daggett




To be frank, the Daggert character ****ing sucked. He was one dimensional, undefined, boring, basic and a douche bag. His entire job was to branch the connection between Wayne Enterprise/Bane/Gotham City. It was a giant reach that I think the film could have went around, especially if they further utilized Talia, and saved the screen time to develop HER over HIM. Daggert is an annoying ******* from the very second he appears on the screen. I understand, maybe that was the intention of the Nolan brothers, but usually they're better in defining their villains, IE The Joker/Bane/Talia/etc. Daggert was just weak.



5. Pacing




It does not help that this film is already 2 hours and 45 minutes long, but it is only 12 minutes longer than The Dark Knight. However, I feel like the length is far more noticeable here than The Dark Knight. Which is weird because I found myself extremely entertained by both films, but the incredible peaks that The Dark Knight Rises had, followed by incredibly long droughts of nothing going on dragged the film in spots (2nd and 3rd act, especially, although one could make the case that the 1st act dragged entirely). Once Batman was broken, everyone else ran out of things to do. So much of the film was based around Bruce that it really brought down the characters, story and pace. Oh well.



4. Lack of Character Balance




The Dark Knight did such a great job of balancing characters, story line and pacing. Every character was weighted, and had an importance to the plot. Their respective actions pushed the plot, and other characters to do what they did. There was an organic feeling in the film. The Dark Knight Rises struggles with that, perhaps because of the flooded amount of characters demanding screen time. Commissioner Gordon is basically non-existent, sharing screen time with Foley and JGL. As previously mentioned, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are reduced a lot, to make room for a hefty Bruce Wayne story. Bane's henchmen Barsad, while interesting, only has like two lines of dialogue and is nothing more than a mindless peon. Characters like this are not interesting, and their lack of investment in the plot makes it hard to follow them, or their actions.

[Neverending]

This is, by far, your best list, MasterChief.

[MasterChief117]

Originally Posted by Neverending

This is, by far, your best list, MasterChief.

I figured you of all people would probably love this list. The next few things I pick on are my BIGGEST gripes, a couple of these I reached on because they did not bug me THAT much...However, the next few ones are giant annoyances that bugged me since day one.

[PG Cooper]

So far so good. My biggest issue with Dagget is that I thought the actor playing him was awful.

[MasterChief117]

Originally Posted by PG Cooper

So far so good. My biggest issue with Dagget is that I thought the actor playing him was awful.

I should have clarified that with a NC esque rant.

[MasterChief117]

3. Story Too Big For Batman




Now there have been relatively large (in scope and in overall meaning) stories told in the Batman universe about the character. One of my favorites, of course being lightly referenced in this film is No Man's Land. Regardless, Batman was more of a supporting character, this better defining the character as needed but still being one man, in moral boundaries. In The Dark Knight Rises, he is almost made to be like Neo or Master Chief. That his importance to everything is so overwhelming that the entire city collapses. Now from a criminal stand point, you could say crime went crazy but to the point of a city wide collapse is truly extensive. When Bane fought Batman in KnightFall, he ran amock of Gotham, unleashing every 'bad' criminal in Arkham, but even still things were not gridlock like they are in The Dark Knight Rises. Batman is a man, a mere mortal and cannot support stories of this size or scope because of the qualities that make him GREAT. Superman can, but that's because he is omnipotent, he is a God and things like this make sense.




2. Robin/JGL




This is a flip flop with me, between the second biggest problem and biggest problem in The Dark Knight Rises. For starters, I do not like JGL's character. The entire speech he gives to Bruce Wayne about knowing how he is Batman feels so extraordinarily flimsy that I eye rolled. Secondly, with the character, like Daggett, there is a general sense of laziness in the writing. "You should use your real name, Robin." made me groan so much. No character that played Robin, was named Robin. That would be like, "You should use your real name, Batman." WHAT!? It's so people seeing the film wouldn't have to be like who is Dick Grayson/Jason Todd/Tim Drake. I'm of the mindset if the person sitting next to you, and the person next to that person, does not know at least ONE of the half a dozen Robins, the you should not be seeing this film. Simply put, Robin was a lazy throw out to fans done by the Nolan brothers, something I felt to be incredibly surprising. If you are going to throw an Easter Egg, make it worthy. Blake was not a worthy character because frankly, I didn't give a damn about him.



1. "The point of Batman was that he could be anybody."




In a car scene with Blake, Bruce has a 'deep' conversation with the meanings of Batman. He describes the character, the legend of Batman as stating, "That he could be anybody." I have been reading Batman comics since I was old enough to read, enjoying cartoon canon and of course watching the movies (when they're great). Nothing seemed more wrong to me in this movie, than this entire scene. Christopher Nolan has done such a great job of defining the character as a martyr, a selfless character giving up his own life in the means of absolute justice for the unrealistic idea of peace. The way Bruce Wayne states it, it takes away meaning from him as a character, and belittles the character as a whole. Hell, I think even Batman and Robin defined Batman as BEING Batman. Hell, the line "It's not Batman and Robin, it's just Batman." Bruce Wayne is Batman and Batman IS Bruce Wayne. When Jean Paul Valley took the suit from him in KnightFall, he was against the idea, because of the power and the fact that he was the one that lost everything. It was his sole mission against crime, and the thought that Blake could do it, because his parents just randomly died frustrates the Hell out of me. It felt as if two movies worth of quality were thrown down the drain in one scene.

[PG Cooper]

3. Story Too Big For Batman

The first time I had an issue with it, but I was more fond of it on my second watch.

2.Robin/JGL

Agreed.

1. "The point of Batman was that he could be anybody."

I'm actually torn on this. On one hand, I have the same interpretation of Batman as you do; that Bruce Wayne IS Batman. So I do inherently disagree with how Nolan treated it in TDKR. In fact that was one of the biggest deal breakers from me at first. But as time as gone by and I've given it a re-watch, I've softened my position. Right now I'm of the opinion that just because Nolan's interpretation is different from mine doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, even if my knee-jerk reaction is negative.

It's like people who hate Stanley Kubrick's The Shining just because it's different from Stephen King's novel while ignoring all the merits of the film.

[Deexan]

In the realistic(ish) Nolan universe, Bruce Wayne cannot be Batman forever, he barely lasted a few years. His injuries at the beginning of TDKR are evidence of that (though one might say they were fixed rather too neatly).

I think you may have misunderstood what he meant by "Batman could be anybody" though, I'm sure he was just referring to the fact that it could be a random guy off the street as far as the rest of the world were concerned. I don't think he meant that anybody could take up the mantle. I haven't watched it since the beginning of this year though so I may be completely wrong on that.

Also, Blake doesn't necessarily have to become Batman anyway; who's to say he wouldn't take on a different moniker?

[Neverending]

Batman can't be anybody. It has to be someone qualified. You can't just hand over the keys to the Batcave to a rookie street cop. That's asinine. This is also what killed Batman Beyond for me. But at least on that show, Bruce Wayne was still around to supervise. Here, he runs off to Europe with Catwoman. Just wait 10 years and another popular Batman series. Chris Nolan is gonna be vilified just like Tim Burton in 2005.

[FranklinTard]

yea anyone can be batman, as long as you have a multi million dollar trust fund as well as a (very large) company in your own name (blood is the best way to get ahead in this world after all), that you don't have to run (this part is important), so you have time to train and study your enemies.

[MovieBuff801]

7. I have no issues with the lack of Alfred, personally, given Bruce Wayne's character arc in the film; it made sense, given the point Nolan was going for. Plus, it proved to be a very emotional part of the film. Morgan Freeman...he at least was utilized well with the screentime he DID have, so again, no issue here.

3. I don't get where you're coming from with this. Third movies in action trilogies like this are usually the biggest, or just final movies in franchises of any length, for that matter, so not only did this make sense given the story being told, it also helps add to the overall enjoyment of the movie. I personally love the epic scope of TDKR; it helped bring me into the story.

2. Seriously, I have no problem with the character or JGL's performance.

1. I get what you're saying here, but I'm of the mind that what Nolan was going for with this was pretty bold, and he at least stayed consistent with it, given how the idea was introduced in Batman Begins, and at the end of the day, I like it.

[MasterChief117]

Originally Posted by MovieBuff801

7. I have no issues with the lack of Alfred, personally, given Bruce Wayne's character arc in the film; it made sense, given the point Nolan was going for. Plus, it proved to be a very emotional part of the film. Morgan Freeman...he at least was utilized well with the screentime he DID have, so again, no issue here.

I felt like this was a stretch to put on there, but it still bugged me.

3. I don't get where you're coming from with this. Third movies in action trilogies like this are usually the biggest, or just final movies in franchises of any length, for that matter, so not only did this make sense given the story being told, it also helps add to the overall enjoyment of the movie. I personally love the epic scope of TDKR; it helped bring me into the story.

It was still too big. Again, there have been generally 'big' Batman stories, but this one borderline had him doing the John McClane/Space Jesus nonsense.

2. Seriously, I have no problem with the character or JGL's performance.

Personal preference. I am one of the few people who just find JGL to be okay. I am usually not generally wowed by him.

1. I get what you're saying here, but I'm of the mind that what Nolan was going for with this was pretty bold, and he at least stayed consistent with it, given how the idea was introduced in Batman Begins, and at the end of the day, I like it.

I actually completely disagree with the notion that Nolan has been consistent with how Batman has been dealt with. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, maybe, yes, but The Dark Knight Rises. No. In Batman Begins, Ra's describes Bruce Wayne as being more than just a man, a legend but uses who HE is rather than who Batman is. Then when Bruce tells Alfred what he is to do (Batman) he uses 'I' to describe what he wants to do with Batman. "I can become a symbol." It was not, "He can be a symbol. He can be anyone." The final point I make with this is the beginning of The Dark Knight. If Bruce was 'okay' with anyone being Batman, then why did he beat up the ones trying to be him. Technically they were doing the right thing, right? Why did Batman decide to stop them? Because they were using guns in the intention of killing, rather than to stop them. Blake used his gun several times, and killed a few people in the process.


So, no, I cannot agree that it was 'consistent'. At least in my mind.