I personally think they are. People treat these movies like they are some of the greatest films in cinema history when they were mediocre at best.
Talk about an extremely pretentious trilogy about comic book superhero that dresses like a bat, drives a batmobile and fights crime that took the source material WAY TOO SERIOIUSLY.
No, not for me. I loved the trilogy and 'pretentious' would be the last word I would use to describe it.
Not that I want to spend any time convincing others they should have the same reaction as me. I notice people above mentioning hardcore Nolanites or DC fans who will attack at the first criticism of the movies, but I think it's misleading to say they are the only reason the films are praised highly. Many average movie goers like myself just found them to be solid, well-made, entertaining action films.
"Many average movie goers like myself just found them to be solid, well-made, entertaining action films."
^^^This. The only way they fail, for me, is as an adaptation. Other than that; solid flicks.
The PROBLEM is. . .the justification for those changes was to make it more "grounded"/"realistic".
And this is why they fail spectacularly for me. . .they are neither. They're just unrealistic/fantasist in *other* ways. Some of which the films are tone-deaf to.
Eh. Whatever. You said it best: entertaining action films. Period.
Frankly no. The first 2 movies are good but Rises was bad imo. I have no wish to see it again. I will say though I'm in the minority liking Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Tim Burton's Batman, and Batman Returns. For people like movieuser it has to be one or the other.
shareLol this dude takes his opinion WAY TOO SERIOIUSLY.
shareYes
shareOf course it is and always was.
shareYes. They are not bad movies either, they are technically well done expensive films with ok/decent scripts.
I consider Nolan to be an overrated filmmaker, has no style.
To me no but i understand why someone would say yes
shareNope. They’re really good!!!
share