'The Dark Knight Rises' Negative Reviews Watch
The muzzle came off critics at midnight on Monday, and The Dark Knight Rises reviews are loose.
The movie currently has a Tomatometer of 85% percent over at Rotten Tomatoes with total of 118 reviews counted. I expect the final percentage to be between 94%-96% when it's all said and done (which is becoming increasingly clear that's not the case). Although a few may disagree, the general sentiment is that The Dark Knight Rises is the best Batman movie out of all of them.
But as with any movie, it's not going to please everybody. There will be those who won't like it and their opinion is legitimate as well. I've collected some of those reviews below.
This is not to push any agenda (other than clicks, of course), and is provide as a service to those who wants to know why The Dark Knight Rises may not work for some. So play nice and don't go giving anyone listed here death threats like some have already done and heed what The Tomato said about not lynching those who have an opinion that differs from yours – online or otherwise. We want and encourage minority opinion, 'kay?
If you want to direct your anger at anyone, direct it at those are knowingly trolling the fanbase just to prove a point.
Here are the negative reviews. More will be added as they are known.
Hollywood & Fine's Marshall Fine compared the latest Batman movie to Transformers. “At times, the action is so massive and thunderously clunky that I might as well have been watching one of the Transformers movies,” he writes.
Christy Lemire of the Associated Press gives The Dark Knight Rises 2 stars out of 4, saying the movie is "boring at times" and ultimately, "a letdown."
The Daily Mail's Chris Tookey says Bane makes a "boring villain" and at 2 hours 45 minutes, the movie is "astonishingly bloated – and unforgivable in a film that spends a long, ponderous hour getting started." Tookey gives the movie 2 stars out of 5.
Badass Digest's Devin Faraci didn't see what the big deal is about the Batman movies, writing "[a]fter being profoundly disappointed by the way Batman Begins turned out, and after really enjoying most of The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises evokes no strong feelings in me. It’s large and busy and convinced of its own profundity, but in the end it's a big shrug."
Urban Cinefile's Andrew L. Urban & Louise Keller both didn't like the movie, with Andrew calling it a "over-complex film" and Louise saying it's a "tediously overlong, disappointing final chapter of Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy."
Village Voice's Nick Pinkerton says the movie is just "a shallow repository of ideas, but as a work of sheer sensation, it has something to recommend."
Sky.com's Elliott Noble has issues with the running time too. The movie "often feels overblown and samey," he writes.
Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips gives the mvoie 2.5 stars out of 4, calling The Dark Knight Rises "more of a 164-minute anxiety disorder than a movie."
SBS.com's Simon Foster also complains about the running time. He calls the movie "a bum-numbing chore."
The critic from Down Under, Sydney Morning Herald's Paul Byrnes, says Catwoman is the bright point in a movie that's "slow, bombastic and crepuscular."
Chicago Reader's J.R. Jones says the movie takes itself too seriously, and it " mainly revives the ponderous psychodrama of the first movie."
Culture Catch's Brandon Judell says "this Dark Knight will supply you with at least 20 minutes of sound amusement. Just bring your knitting for the rest of it."
Boston Herald's James Verniere is right on the border on this one, calling it "a dark, surprisingly topical, state-of-the-art pop-movie apocalypse for our times."
The Observer's Rex Reed is certainly not a fan of Christopher Nolan's work. "Like all previous flicks directed by Christopher Nolan and written by his brother Jonathan, this one defies logic and reeks of repulsive, bloated self-importance," he writes.
Time Out New York's David Fear gives the movie 3 stars out of 5, says the movie "feels like a blockbuster on autopilot more often than not, curiously detached and self-importantly somber even by the director’s standards—and without the cerebral heft of his best work."
San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle agrees with other critics calling for Nolan to trim the running time. "For about half its running time, it's reasonably entertaining, but the other half - inevitably, the second half - is something of a slog," he writes.