Slashdot Mirror
Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises
Unless you've managed to not watch anything in the past three weeks, you're aware that Chris Nolan's final Batman movie is out. With Christian Bale as the low-talking caped crusader, The Dark Knight Rises is two hours and forty-five minutes of of fun. While it lacks a stand-out personal performance like Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, it is still a decent ending to this round of Batman movies. There are plenty of familiar faces, and a few new ones as well. Read below for my take on the movie, but be warned: there might be a few spoilers.
The movie starts out eight years after The Dark Knight. Batman has taken the blame for the death of district attorney Harvey Dent, and has disappeared from the public eye. Thanks to the passing of "The Dent Act," organized crime has been wiped out in Gotham, and the police find themselves increasingly obsolete. That all changes with the arrival of the villains. Since it was decided at some point in the 90s that all comic book movies needed at least two villains, in The Dark Knight Rises we have Bane and Catwoman.
Bane is played by Tom Hardy. Despite what Rush Limbaugh suggests, Bane is not connected to Mitt Romney, but was introduced in January 1993 and is best known for breaking Batman's back during the Knighfall comic series. He was even played terribly by a professional wrestler in 1997's Batman & Robin. I must admit that I was worried after reading reviews about how hard it was to hear Bane speak that the movie would degenerate into a low-talking competition between Hardy and Bale. They must have fixed the audio issues, because Bane's voice is certainly loud, if not the clearest at all times. To get an idea of what Bane sounds like, imagine Bill Cosby speaking with an English accent through a Darth Vader filter. The Bane in the movie shares little with the Bane from the comics, so he might not be to the liking of the purists, but he does a decent enough job of being a moderately intelligent juggernaut, and is the main villain in the story.
Ann Hathaway dons the cat ears as Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. All to often, female characters are little more than Kung-Fu cliched eye candy in comic movies. Nolan avoids this with Hathaway, but barely. Instead of a hot chick in a skin-tight, black leather outfit who is one bad fall from becoming the headliner at the local furry convention, Hathaway is a hot chick in a skin-tight, black leather outfit who plays a small but important role in the overall story arc.
Plenty of old characters reprise their roles, including Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and Michael Caine as Alfred. Some old villains even show up for this final installment. New to the mix this time are Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matthew Modine, who play the cop everyone likes to love and the cop that everyone loves to hate, respectively.
For those of you who like the military look of Nolan's Batman vehicles over the more stylized Bat-vehicles of past movies, this one does not disappoint. The Batbike gets plenty of air time, as well as multiple Batmobiles driving around the city. This time around, the Batcopter makes its debut. While I think it looks more like something the Space Marines would fly around while fighting Aliens, it is consistent with the franchise's aesthetics.
Overall, a large portion of the story reminds me of a post-apocalyptic movie, with a Gotham that has existed in anarchy for many months. There are some decent fight scenes, including a small army of mercenaries fighting thousands of police in the streets while Batman and Bane duke it out in front of City Hall. There aren't a lot of surprises, and there aren't any stand-out performances, but there isn't a lot to dislike either. This was supposed to be the last of Nolan's Batman movies, but the ending leaves the possibility of another wide open, and I would not be surprised if another was made (assuming Rises makes enough money). So many movies — comic movies in particular — degenerate quickly with each sequel, and having to exist in the shadow of Heath Ledger is a daunting task. The Dark Knight Rises does a good job of stepping out of that shadow, however, and delivers for me, the best story of the series.
Bane is played by Tom Hardy. Despite what Rush Limbaugh suggests, Bane is not connected to Mitt Romney, but was introduced in January 1993 and is best known for breaking Batman's back during the Knighfall comic series. He was even played terribly by a professional wrestler in 1997's Batman & Robin. I must admit that I was worried after reading reviews about how hard it was to hear Bane speak that the movie would degenerate into a low-talking competition between Hardy and Bale. They must have fixed the audio issues, because Bane's voice is certainly loud, if not the clearest at all times. To get an idea of what Bane sounds like, imagine Bill Cosby speaking with an English accent through a Darth Vader filter. The Bane in the movie shares little with the Bane from the comics, so he might not be to the liking of the purists, but he does a decent enough job of being a moderately intelligent juggernaut, and is the main villain in the story.
Ann Hathaway dons the cat ears as Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. All to often, female characters are little more than Kung-Fu cliched eye candy in comic movies. Nolan avoids this with Hathaway, but barely. Instead of a hot chick in a skin-tight, black leather outfit who is one bad fall from becoming the headliner at the local furry convention, Hathaway is a hot chick in a skin-tight, black leather outfit who plays a small but important role in the overall story arc.
Plenty of old characters reprise their roles, including Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and Michael Caine as Alfred. Some old villains even show up for this final installment. New to the mix this time are Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matthew Modine, who play the cop everyone likes to love and the cop that everyone loves to hate, respectively.
For those of you who like the military look of Nolan's Batman vehicles over the more stylized Bat-vehicles of past movies, this one does not disappoint. The Batbike gets plenty of air time, as well as multiple Batmobiles driving around the city. This time around, the Batcopter makes its debut. While I think it looks more like something the Space Marines would fly around while fighting Aliens, it is consistent with the franchise's aesthetics.
Overall, a large portion of the story reminds me of a post-apocalyptic movie, with a Gotham that has existed in anarchy for many months. There are some decent fight scenes, including a small army of mercenaries fighting thousands of police in the streets while Batman and Bane duke it out in front of City Hall. There aren't a lot of surprises, and there aren't any stand-out performances, but there isn't a lot to dislike either. This was supposed to be the last of Nolan's Batman movies, but the ending leaves the possibility of another wide open, and I would not be surprised if another was made (assuming Rises makes enough money). So many movies — comic movies in particular — degenerate quickly with each sequel, and having to exist in the shadow of Heath Ledger is a daunting task. The Dark Knight Rises does a good job of stepping out of that shadow, however, and delivers for me, the best story of the series.
This was awesome clahbpah
too many guns and killings. I fear that some impressionable youth will try to imitate batman and get himself hurt. Or even worse, someone will imitate the villain and kill innocent bystanders will guns.
The government needs to step in and forbid such violent movies that glorify guns and violence. PG-13 ratings by MPAA isn't working. And guns need to be banned, period. Only military and police should have guns.
I didn't like it much.
It felt like the script needed another good once-over and a trim. It's a thematic mess and takes about twice as long as it ought to to introduce the characters and (poorly, repetitively) present their motivations. Some of the delivery was pretty wooden, especially in the first half, but that may have been the result of mediocre editing (there were also a couple awkward cuts, IMO, so maybe that was it) or the piss-poor dialog. Filled with painful talking-to-the-audience exposition that's so bad it was comical—again, a writing issue.
For the entire first half I was worried that I'd walk out hating the movie, but fortunately improved somewhat, nearer the end.
The audio was poor. A fair bit of the dialog (not just Bane's) was hard to pick up. Bane sounded like he wasn't even in the same room—more like a voiceover— an effect which, it seems to me, can only be called an outright mistake on the part of the filmmakers.
The ending's OK I guess?
Are we ready for frank discussions of people getting shot at the theatre, and the likelihood that their traumatized kids will turn into becaped vigilantes?
for Warners to make a Batman movie as good as Mask of the Phantasm
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Way too soon. Not even a CAM release available.
oh man, imagine if there was a bootlegger in the theater caming the shit?
100 people die per day on our roads.
We cannot review cars?
And you should have been in your English classes.
And why not? It's just a movie. Do you refuse to listen to Led Zeppelin I because there's a picture of the Hindeburg on the front?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Naw, it's a great time. There's a whole other thread for you to angst in.
And that he managed to switch the night vision mode on ...
Yeah, I bet they'd get years in jail once the MPAA got involved.
Saw it yesterday after the the Citrix Wow to How 3 seminar (great job on that Brad Peterson, very informative and well done presentation!). (PS: To any Slashdot geeks support Citrix, sign-up for next year to get an early preview of whatever movie is going to come out then.)
The movie was pretty good. It had a nicely flowing narrative with the main story and plenty of other side stories to keep it flowing nicely. Christian Bale performed as expected with a top notch performance, Tom Hardy did a great job as Bain showing a completely calm and serene villain standing up to anything that Batman threw at him and then outmatching him. Great performance there, hope to see more of Tom Hardy in future movies. The audio from Bain's filtered voice mask was very loud and clear and fully understandable with a very nice English accent. The mask did cover a lot of Tom Hardy's face and you really had to look down at his neck to even notice that he was actually the one talking because you can't see any movement. The performances of the other cast members were also very good with great character play.
There were of course a few plot issues and unbelievable things that you had to ignore with the police being trapped underground for 3-months and then finding out that it was only 3,000 officers. I grew up in NYC and I know that the NYPD has 36,000 officers so it was very hard to imagine so few out there in Gotham as the GPD force. That didn't jive with me. Also if you're trapped underground for 3-months without light and no access to clean water and food things don't go very well for you. Also NYC (Gotham in the movie) has so many access tunnels into the underground that it seems far fetched to be stuck down there without a way out.
Anyway, like the movie overall and am looking forward to the next set of Batman movies in the future. I don't mind this franchine being remade every few years because it attracts a lot of money from the studios and talented actors. (Heath Ledger being the most memorable, damn those Olsen twins!)
I hear the special effects in Colorado were killer.
I am so going to hell for that one.
How was the film?
Does the whole world have to stop every time some crazy person snaps? If you knew the victims, I'm sorry for your loss. I didn't, so I'm more interested in the review.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Okay so one of the theaters got shot up by an unnamed WhackADoodle killing 12 and wounding 50 (some of whom may be dead later). Life Must Go On (for those that survived).
If we downplay His Name (focus on his victims and the recovery of the wounded sure) then the next guy might not think this is a good idea.
otherwise
[putting on a green wig and purple suit] WHY SO SERIOUS???
and besides how many folks in that theature did NOT get injured??
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I am intrigued by your comment and wish to mail-order your Asperger's Handbook.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I always thought that all of Nolan's Batman movies sucked badly.
And what my dear sir, is gained by doing that? You've just become worse than the worst criminal yourself.
Are we ready for frank discussions of people getting shot at the theatre, and the likelihood that their traumatized kids will turn into becaped vigilantes?
I never thought of that - the irony of this whole incident.
Usually when shit like that happens, people blame the object of the killing and not the individual.
Kid dies from a drunk driver? Not the driver's irresponsibility! It's the fact that drunk driving laws aren't strict enough and we need to search everyone randomly at checkpoints regardless of probable cause. And if you protest then you approve of drunk driving!
More than likely, those kids who lost their parents or other loved ones in that ridiculous incident will make them life long proponents of gun control and even the elimination of our Second Amendment right here in the US. They won't blame that individual - they'll blame our gun laws and our gun "culture".
I'm sure if the nut case used molotov cocktails, they would be screaming at the ease of getting gasoline or some such.
We always want to blame the one thing that "caused" the problem. The trouble is that there are always a multitude of reasons and causes. Time will tell if the killer was mentally ill, a member of some sort of anti-movie militia, neo-NAZI, or just some very angry person that needed to "get back at society" or any combination of those and then some. And then there is the issue of why he felt that way. What primed the pump? Was he abused as a child? Did he grow up in an alcoholic family? And so on.
It's easy to blame an individual or his methods but we should really ask ourselves why is our society producing these people? Or why aren't we discovering ill folks and getting them the help they need or if necessary confining them? We can eliminate the methods (guns, gas, fertilizer, CO2, car exhaust) but these disturbed folks will find a way. And some folks in the past of convinced their countrymen and their military to do it for them.
That is the compassionate conservationism that bush always claimed, good job on your astounding ability to remove yourself from others feelings. I am sure you could of found a review without immortalizing your lack of compassion.
Batman is probably the biggest anti-gun superhero around. He knows the dangers. His parents were killed by a gun. And he beats the people with the guns. Does he use violence? Sure, but it's only when he has no other choice.
Yeah, I bet they'd get years in jail once the MPAA got involved.
The mass murderer, or the bootlegger? Since you mentioned the MPAA, I'm going to guess you meant the bootlegger. The shooter would probably get out of jail decades before the guy filming the movie.
For me, the villian is the most important part of a batman comic. Joker & Bane have been portrayed really well, that I cant complain about anything else.
If you can't write a review without spoilers, why bother?
Spoiler alert: The alien bursts out of Batman's chest and kills Bane as his first victim :-)
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Sup dawg, I herd you liek batman, so I killed your parents.
No, we're acting like the world has come to an end because one lunatic committed a heinous crime. We need to stop living in a climate of unnecessary fear. I've read stuff on twitter today where people are saying things like "Who knew there were so many crazies out there?" There aren't so many. There was one. In a country with 300 million people. One. Others saying what a terrible world it is where you can't even go to the movies in safety. You can. Nearly everyone did. Nearly everyone does, every day.
This is not to say this wasn't a heinous crime. It was.
It's not to say this isn't a horrible tragedy for anyone who knew the victims. It was.
It's not to say we don't all share their sadness. We do. Well, most of us do. I do. I considered seeing this movie last night. I've taken my kids to midnight shows. As they say, there but for the grace of God go I.
It is to say we need to continue living our lives. It's entirely inappropriate to make jokes about the shooting. It's fine to like the movie, and it's fine to talk about the movie.
Most "neurotypicals", as you call them, realise that this review is badly timed and shows insensitivity. Sure, it may not make logical sense to those with no emotional intuition, but the air needs to be cleaned about this piece of shit killer before discussing the movie. Especially as it's only been one day.
And once the "air is clean", people with "emotional intuition" will find a review here that, quite conveniently, has already been written. Or to put in other words, the time period in which this review will be useful to people without emotional baggage (many years) will be much longer than the period in which overly touchy (*) people will bicker, so why wait?
. . . . . .
(*) Some of us, i.e. so-called "people without emotional intuition", do in fact realize that those who haven't been there actually aren't hurt that much to be offended by this - unless they are oversensitive - and that those who *were* actually present at the massacre couldn't care less whether someone writes a review on an obscure site they will most likely never visit, since they're damaged regardless.
Ezekiel 23:20
We were never ready for frank and open discussions.
Where the hell do you think you are?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nooo..... Joker was portrayed excellently.
Say what you will about the first movie, but Heath Ledger made the 2nd movie stand out all on its own with his performance. It was eerily good.
Stay away from any movie theater I attend, Mr. Rambo Q. Sociopath.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Make a violent movie where people shoot each other, advertise it 24/7.
It hasn't yet been established that the fact that it was a Batman movie was relevant.
Maybe it was circumstantial, e.g. he knew the guy that stole his girl would be there, or something.
Maybe it was coincidental: e.g. he wanted to kill some random people, and noticed from the media buzz that a full house was expected for opening night.
And even if the movies batmanness was relevant, his acts might not have had anything to do with the movie's violence. Maybe he's just a member of a cult that thinks movies and comicbooks are the ultimate symbols of degenerate society.
So save your moralizing until we actually know something about what happened.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The thought of sitting next to some mentally deficient maniac who might just as quickly draw fire from police as from the shooter fills me with some dread. I'd hope I had the presence of mind to beat you into unconsciousness before you did much more harm than good.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I thought he was about to have a conversation with the characters from Peanuts.
Too soon, why?
This is a horrible tragedy, but it's not like the movie is to blame.
Rottentomatoes.com contains 200-odd reviews (mostly positive), quite a few of them posted after the shooting. Another question, of course, is whether a movie review belongs on Slashdot's front page, and not even on the Idle section.
Also slashdot is mostly pro-guns. So I would advise you to avoid slashdot until gun nuts are under control.
And I would like a source for the statements "He apparently thought he was the Joker" and "disarming the booby traps in his apartment".
Kid dies from a drunk driver? Not the driver's irresponsibility! It's the fact that drunk driving laws aren't strict enough and we need to search everyone randomly at checkpoints regardless of probable cause. And if you protest then you approve of drunk driving!
One of the problems with drunk driving deaths, in the past, was that prosecution wasn't strict enough. They'd just say, "the alcohol made him do it, it wasn't his fault" and the killer would walk free. Our (USA) culture used to be extremely tolerant of drunk driving and the inevitable accidents that resulted. This may be part of what caused certain groups of citizens to push so hard for strong measures to combat drunk driving.
I doubt this guy, like any other mass shooter, is going to be treated very leniently like that.
And you're right about the molotov cocktails. There isn't much that would stop some nut from throwing a bunch of those into a crowded theater, though I doubt it'd be quite as effective as firearms. But there's plenty of other ways to go on murderous rampages, such as just driving your car into a crowd of people. Some old guy did that in California about a decade ago, and last I heard, they basically let him walk free, even after he blamed the pedestrians (in an open-air market) for not jumping out of the way fast enough.
Jack.. is that you?
Do you read news? The release was headlines on google news.
Most "neurotypicals", as you call them, realise that this review is badly timed and shows insensitivity.
Huh? Do you really think nobody is going to go see Batman this weekend out of some sort of twisted feeling of moral obligation to societal guilt?
Plenty of people will appropriately separate the movie from the atrocity and go see it because they've been wanting to.
Actually, if I were WB, I'd pledge all of Sunday's profits to a victims' fund, just to keep the ball rolling.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Bruce Wayne is the mask
That's the most important thing you could say about it. The big failing of the Nolan movies for me is that Bruce Wayne is toying around with the idea of being Batman, and he thinks he likes it.
That said, I enjoyed the second one as a good film, if not good Batman.
Ah, well - maybe they'll get JMS to pen the next reboot.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Twelve years on...still relevant.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/
No, we're acting like the world has come to an end because one lunatic committed a heinous crime. We need to stop living in a climate of unnecessary fear. I've read stuff on twitter today where people are saying things like "Who knew there were so many crazies out there?" There aren't so many. There was one. In a country with 300 million people. One. Others saying what a terrible world it is where you can't even go to the movies in safety. You can. Nearly everyone did. Nearly everyone does, every day.
This is not to say this wasn't a heinous crime. It was.
It's not to say this isn't a horrible tragedy for anyone who knew the victims. It was.
It's not to say we don't all share their sadness. We do. Well, most of us do. I do. I considered seeing this movie last night. I've taken my kids to midnight shows. As they say, there but for the grace of God go I.
It is to say we need to continue living our lives.
For sure. When stuff like this stops being a major story then we'll have a problem. Even in countries i'd be too terrified to visit mass shootings still make the news. I think the fact that this stuff happens so rarely means we are doing something right.
It's entirely inappropriate to make jokes about the shooting. It's fine to like the movie, and it's fine to talk about the movie.
It's a terrible thing that happened. Making jokes is one way that people deal with it. Making the joke in front of someone directly affected by the issue would be inappropriate, but otherwise it's just one of the ways people cope with stuff like this and stop the unnecessary worry that could drive further people insane.
I would like a source for the statements "He apparently thought he was the Joker" and "disarming the booby traps in his apartment".
CNN: "The suspect in the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film early Friday had colored his hair red and told police he was "the Joker," according to a federal law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the investigation."
Denver Post via Mercury News -- "Aurora shooting suspect left apartment "booby trapped," music blaring": "Oates said Holmes made a statement to officers about possible explosives in his home. That prompted police to evacuate five buildings nearby and begin searching his third-floor apartment using a police robot and camera attached to a long pole. Inside, officers found trip wires attached to 1-liter plastic bottles that contain an unknown substance. Police Chief Dan Oates said the explosive devices were "pretty sophisticated." "We could be here for days," he said at midday."
The MPAA might send in somebody to shoot you during the movie!
At least it didn't mention that.
Probably because I made it up of course.
...
And you're right about the molotov cocktails. There isn't much that would stop some nut from throwing a bunch of those into a crowded theater, though I doubt it'd be quite as effective as firearms. ...
Oh really? The shooter had four loaded guns, no opposition, and only killed about a dozen people in a full theater. Think about that. He wounded what? 70-something?
Toss a few large molotov cocktails in that situation and you'll probably burn a lot of people to death - a death that's a lot more painful than getting shot, probably. And never mind the ones with massive burns over significant parts of their body that survive.
Now, imagine how much worse that would be if with a bit of soap added to the gasoline to make some napalm...
I dont understand this logic. Where you trying to punish yourselves by not going to the movies? Or where you trying to help someone who was affected by 9/11. Or where you trying to help prevent another 9/11? If not why would you not go to the movies?
Use poison to attack poison, use evil to fight evil.
New Economic Perspectives
No, don't think I can bring myself to see it in a theater. Maybe on Blu-Ray. Maybe.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Considering the incident occurred at the midnight showing, what they hell did the other reviewers watch?
Well, this is all conjecture of course, but I'm thinking if someone threw a handful of molotov cocktails into a crowded theater, people would run for the exit; it would take a minute or two for the room to be engulfed in flames most likely, so most people would escape. Of course, some people would get burns, and some people might get injured in the stampede, there might even be a couple deaths from those two factors, but I'm thinking the death toll would be lower than with guns. Also, I'm not sure how well molotov cocktails would work in a crowded theater anyway; aren't they basically glass bottles filled with gasoline? Well, to break them open, they'd have to hit something hard, like the concrete floor, and they have to hit it hard enough to actually shatter. Some glass bottles are surprisingly strong these days (probably to avoid shipping breakage). And a crowded theater is full of human bodies, which are fairly soft; hitting someone with a molotov cocktail isn't going to engulf them in flames, it'll just give them a bad bruise, so you'd have to make sure your bottles actually hit the floor directly with high speed, rather than bouncing off a nice soft person or a padded seat instead. With the tiny amount of space between rows in a modern theater, that could be pretty challenging; you'd probably have to settle for just throwing the bottles in the aisleways.
Thanks at least for Walpole paraphrase. Learned something new.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Agreed. As much as I loath his actions I do not wish him harm. He had probably endured a great deal of suffering up to that point. Not to say he will not or should not be dealt with, it is just that it is strange to genuinely feel like you want to do this to anyone.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Grow up.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Hatta, your mom is calling! Your chocolate cake and cheetos are ready. She's waiting at the top of the basement steps.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
First of all, don't call people mate if they are not your friends.
Second, don't assume someone who doesn't share your view of mandatory empathy has Asperger's.
Most people can discuss a movie and not let a tragic event control their life or prevent them from enjoying something they have been waiting for.
Asshat.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Yes, explosives would probably be move devastating. As for modifying the bottle, I don't know if I'd expect some moron like this to try that. People who pull these things off usually aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer; just look at this guy, he had 4 guns and a bunch of ammo and he only managed to kill 12. Obviously, he wasn't the best shot (thankfully).
I don't know whether or not I believe you. Why?
This guy would would be dead at my hand simple as that
You repeated this phrase twice. To me, that implies someone who still attaches some importance to the idea of killing people, and/or is trying to impress others, with how badass they supposedly are.
Psychopaths often can try and impress people, of course; the psychopathic modus operandi is all about justification for viewing yourself as superior to everyone else around you. The World of Warcraft forums taught me that.
So it's possible that you are a genuine psychopath; but it's equally possible that you're just trying to look "cool."
I'm autistic. Autism has no inherent relation to lack of empathic response.
Psychopaths don't feel at all, and so don't express it. We feel, but we generally don't know how to express it in ways which are consistent with social norms, and so end up offending/upsetting people as a result.
There's a big difference.
Ah, the self-righteous defender of all that is noble and proper by lecturing others about how to socialize on the blogs. Welcome!
When you're done with your self-imposed vicarious victimhood, I sincerely hope you enjoy the movie.
Then again, something like 300 people died today in Syria, and I'm sure there'll be more tomorrow, so, remain vigilante against anyone having any fun.
What'd y'all think of the Lazaras Pit?
as a juggalo, i take offense to that. while I do feel he did a great job, ( i assume that is what you meant) there was nothing really juggalo about him
Personally of all the batman movies, batman returns is my favorite
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The only thing worth seeing at the moment? when I eventually see it i'm guessing it wont live up to the hype.
At the end of Batman Begins, Zsasz (Tim Booth) was shown walking out of the opened jail, and is (for all we know) still at large, doing unspeakable things to the children of Gotham. Won't somebody think of the children?
(this is not a
For Nolan, Gotham City looks like one of those maps of LA or NY that shows the rest of the World as being about the same size. Some dude is in Hong Kong that has information you need, that's like a day trip for Batman. If you were to squeeze the events going on globally into a city, and scale down the wars being fought, it would be just like a Batman movie.
I have lived in 5 countries and visited even more. In every single placed I've lived and visited, there were bad parts of town you knew were not safe and even the good parts of town were not always safe. My Dad missed an IRA pub bombing by about an hour, when he caught an earlier train to get home. When we lived in Greece, there was a coup. In Belgium, 5 of my friends lost their Dads and it seemed suspicious to the rest of us. I don't have any illusions of safety anywhere.
What I don't understand is how this guy was able to walk out and back into an emergency exit. I don't understand how he was able to go to his car and retrieve everything without someone seeing him. If someone had closed the door behind him, this might be a totally different story.
Like the TSA fiasco, we will do the stupidest thing possible in response.
You have just repeated the same mistake that liberals have been making since the 60's, that somehow making it harder for criminals to get guns is going to affect this. First, he wasn't a criminal until he did this. Second, there are over 250 million guns in American society, so trying to prevent access to them is about like trying to prevent access to acorns in an oak forest. Not happening.
The REAL way to keep this from happening is EXACTLY the opposite. What you do is to make it EASIER for the LAW ABIDING to have guns, esp. carry them in public. A friend of mine's son is an ex Army Ranger, and absolutely deadly. Had he been there with a weapon, this guy would have been very unlikely to have gotten off a second shot. And myself, I learned from qualifying to go to Iraq last fall as a civilian sci/tech support to the Army, that I'm not a half-bad shot myself, and would have at least tried. Get people shooting back at this creep and it'd be all over in a couple seconds, like the 71 year old man that recently took out the robbers in the internet cafe. Self defense with a firearm works best.
Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I have nothing against guns myself... but picture yourself there:
Dark theater, loud sounds from the movie itself is playing, smoke suddenly appears out of nowhere, then someone dressed up like a good percentage of the other patrons starts going on a rampage.
Now people are panicking, you still can't see shit and aren't sure what's going on, and your response is to whip out your firearm out your firearm and start shooting in a room full of innocents. Puh-leeeze...
There are programs that I actually want to watch, but I get caught up in doing other things, mostly net-related, and I forget. I don't have a DVR and refuse to use the one Comcast "provides", plus I would forget to watch things that got recorded anyway, so I end up watching on Hulu or iTunes or YouTube. Watching TV is a habit, and like other habits I've kind of gotten out of it, not deliberately but just because other habits took its place.
So, I don't watch TV, not because I'm a TV snob, but because I'm a TV slob...
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
But isn't a tragedy about some inevitable fate such as Oedipus fucking his mother and then becomes blind as a punishment, whereas this shooting could have been easily prevented by investigating why an ordinary guy needs to purchase 4 guns and 6000 rounds of amunition within 60 days?
I don't know why I keep coming here, holy shit. MOVIE REVIEWS? And not for something like Primer which everyone may not know about, but for a superhero movie that the whole goddamn world is going to see. I have an idea, let's take it further off-topic all talk about how people got shot at a theater that was playing this movie and the merits of gun control! I guess next I'll go and comment on some YouTube videos
If someone comes into a theater holding a gun to people you should not yell 'Fire' !
If you don't have a shot, then you don't have a shot, and you don't fire. But if you can identify the target, then you take it out. Nobody that knows what they're doing fires wildly.
Used to be?
Most people I know still don't think twice about having some drinks and hitting the road....maybe what you describe is more regional in the US...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't know, it might be. But one big difference I see, at least in my region and in other regions I've lived in, is that enforcement is very strict these days. Back in Virginia, they even used to have checkpoints on certain roads at late hours. Here in Arizona, cops are very zealous about arresting people for DUI, and then they go to the infamous Sheriff Joe's "Tent City" and spend a weekend there in the sweltering heat. It seems to be a pretty big money-maker too from what I've heard from people who've been nabbed. There isn't that much enforcement of speeding laws here in Phoenix (people drive 85 all the time on the freeways), but you're really asking for jail time and thousands of dollars in fines if you're caught with any alcohol on your breath.
However, from what I hear from older people, back in the 70s, 60s, etc. there was little to no enforcement of DUI laws, if they even had any, and when someone was killed in a drunk-driving accident, the mentality was that "it was just an accident". These days, when someone gets hurt or killed by a drunk, people want to get torches and pitchforks (and rightfully so), even though oddly, a significant percentage of the population still engages in impaired driving, though it's hard to tell if there's much overlap in those two groups.
Before the second tower fell? We started before the planes even took off!
It's easy to blame an individual or his methods but we should really ask ourselves why is our society producing these people? Or why aren't we discovering ill folks and getting them the help they need or if necessary confining them?
So you are suggesting that everyone should be psychologically profiled and, if his profile doesn't match "normal" standards (too quiet, not social enough), we put him behind bars? Without a trial of course, just based on the opinion of the psychologist. Because he might be dangerous.
Slashdot would become a pretty quiet place...
Besides, I heard the movie was to die for.
The arch foe.
There's only like three people in Heaven.
Didn't they say it's 144k?
Only catch is, they're all Jews...
As for modifying the bottle, I don't know if I'd expect some moron like this to try that.
Well, he did seem to spend some time preparing - and put enough thought into it to don a ballistic vest, helmet and a gas mask, and use gas to disorient the crowd.
Make it legal for weirdos to buy assault rifle and tear gas.
An assault rifle is a weapon that is capable of firing more than one bullet while the trigger is held (also known as "burst"). Those are illegal in many states, and where legal they are incredibly hard and expensive to obtain.
The rifle used by the murderer was your average civilian legal semi-auto rifle. A semi-auto rifle is not an assault rifle by definition, even if it looks like one.
As for tear gas, it or some rough equivalent (like pepper spray) can be legally purchased in most countries - in those countries where that is regulated, you can still buy it so long as it's labelled "bear spray" or some such.
If you expected people to conform to strange norms where 100 people dying from unnatural causes every day is business as usual so long as it's not reported in mass media, while 15 people dying is a national tradegy because it's on every front page, you probably shouldn't be reading Slashdot. At least on these kinds of days.
Maybe, but it doesn't look like he spent any time at the shooting range (thankfully).
True, 15 kills in 15 minutes is really bad. That said, if he was really shooting as fast as he could, I find it hard to believe that this could be a result - rifles (unlike handguns) are pretty easy to use efficiently even with minimal skill. Most people, even shooting for the first time in their life, can group bullets within a couple inches at 10-15 yards, which is quite enough to kill. I think it's more likely that he was deliberately taking his time picking specific targets based on some obscure criteria.
Fuck the MPAA, and those who watch and promote this movie giving them fuel.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Hmm, that is a possibility. You're right, long guns are a lot easier to shoot accurately than handguns, even for people with relatively little skill.
I don't know that I've ever SEEN a dwi checkpoint. Good thing too...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People ask, it tends to come up, should we just throw our nose up, turn on our heel and walk away?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
So you're suggesting that what we have now is working so well that we don't need to look any further for a better solution?
Locking people up based on just a psychological profile seems to me to be a bad idea. And this particular person, a very bright student, probably would have aced such tests anyway. Psychiatrists are notorious for misdiagnosing people, locking up sane people and letting pedophiles and serial killers walk free. And when would he have been tested anyway? Should all people have such a test once a year?
The way I see it, the biggest problem is that anyone can walk into a store and buy an assault rifle. Not just a hunting rifle or a handgun for personal defense (which already require a license in most countries), but the kind of weapon that is intended for actual warfare. I'll probably get modded down for this, but for Europeans this is quite unbelievable. So if there's anything you want to change to what you have now, maybe start there.
Sure, there are other ways of causing damage, there was a weirdo here in Belgium who attacked a day care center armed only with knives, but I don't think there's a sensible way to screen people to avoid this sort of thing without locking up thousands of innocent people.
Like any post on any forum, it's only as trustworthy as the source and since we don't know each other we'll never know if we can trust what's being posted. That being said, trust me when I say I mentioned "6 years" only because it was a point of expanding on the effects I've been able to witness. If you go two months with no TV (September and October) and then go to Thanksgiving dinner in November and don't notice yourself watching TV commercials like I do after 6 years of no TV, then don't be surprised that you aren't experiencing what I experience. That's all I meant. The author started with, "Unless you've managed to not watch anything in the past three weeks" and so I started with how much I didn't "watch anything". I look back now and see that I may have clarified that better but I only posted the comment to both share an experience and also to draw some attention to how much the advertisements can affect people (and coincidentally, how the lack of exposure kept me in the dark about this movie).
See my post to AK Marc.
Sure would be, if I was trying to be snobbish. See my post to AK Marc. BTW, according to him, you're probably a snob too because you mentioned your time.
So if there's anything you want to change to what you have now, maybe start there.
It's perhaps a technicality but assault rifles are a specific class of weapons that are highly illegal and nearly impossible to buy legally here in the US. That said, I can see why you'd find it unbelievable. As much as gun-control opponents would like to deny it (and I'm one of them) the logic here is pretty unassailable: someone with a semiautomatic weapon will typically do a lot more damage before being brought under control than will someone with just about any other type of legal weapon. The other side of that coin is that there is a well-established black market for weapons already - so by further restricting them you only give more power to the people who will buy them anyway.
Locking people up based on just a psychological profile seems to me to be a bad idea. And this particular person, a very bright student, probably would have aced such tests anyway. Psychiatrists are notorious for misdiagnosing people, locking up sane people and letting pedophiles and serial killers walk free. And when would he have been tested anyway? Should all people have such a test once a year?
Agreed, this is a slippery slope. BUt I don't think that's what GP was suggesting.
I don't think there's a sensible way to screen people to avoid this sort of thing without locking up thousands of innocent people.
What if instead we can work on better identifying underlying root causes and risk factors? In that way we can try to address them - obviating the need to lock people up at all.
The other side of that coin is that there is a well-established black market for weapons already - so by further restricting them you only give more power to the people who will buy them anyway.
Would this person have been able to get his four guns and an enormous amount of ammo from the black market? Personally, I wouldn't even know who to talk to and would be afraid to go to the places where this black market stuff is sold. Maybe through friends who know other friends, but they'd probably ask too many questions and I wouldn't be comfortable doing it. And online on some shady site? Don't think so. If I did that in Belgium, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops showed up instead of the package. Actually, I would be surprised if I did receive the goods without problems.
Real gangsters, obviously, will always have access to this sort of weapons. But they are less likely to start shooting randomly in a theater or high school. And I know that as a home owner you might want to protect yourself from real gangsters, but a simple handgun will be more than enough for that purpose.
What if instead we can work on better identifying underlying root causes and risk factors? In that way we can try to address them - obviating the need to lock people up at all.
But what could have been done to "identify" and "address" the root causes in this case? He was a brilliant student, just a bit quiet, but lots of us are. If someone starts shooting random people because he or she doesn't like mondays, how are you going to predict and/or avoid that? Mandatory medication for quiet people? I know I'm exaggerating, but really, what can you do?
Except, maybe, making it a little harder to get those guns? A relatively low threshold might have been sufficient. Getting a licence, for example. That doesn't keep people from protecting themselves, but it may keep a relatively uninitiated student from going that extra mile, especially since it's not so anonymous anymore. Going into a shop and saying "I would like to buy that gun" is a lot easier than going to a government agency and saying "I would like to follow a course and get a licence for firearms for this or that purpose, here's my name and address" (and possibly, in that case, talk to some sort of psychologist first).