The Dark Knight Rises

[Danecho1967]

Saw it this morning.  I predicted a few of the twists, but that's okay.  It's Batman, after all.

Like Kete, I have a quibble over one thing, but it's a huge spoiler, so I'll save it for later.

Edit:  I forgot to say that I really liked the movie.  I'm happy with it as an ending to the trilogy.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Alright, finally kinda-sorta collected my thoughts. This was written for another site, so it's a bit broad and likely touches on things already mentioned in here. Also, I do some hardcore rambling (but try to avoid any actual spoilers), so heads up:

I've given it two watches, several days to think, and read over many scores of pro/con arguments and discussions with others. I think I'm about ready to start my rambling.

So. Batman. Specifically, Nolan's Batman. Starts out hot with Batman Begins, makes everyone's-favorite-movie-ever with The Dark Knight, and walks into the third and final entry with expectations that skip the border and head deep into the heart of extreme. Did he deliver a worthy capper to one of the most critically acclaimed, genre defining, and audience loving trilogies ever made? Or did he finally drop the ball, coming down off that high he's built up since he first burst into wide view with the masterpiece that is Memento (I still haven't seen Following. Working on it).

In some ways, yes, absolutely. In other ways, no, not so much. But, let's back up. I'm going to work as hard as possible to stay spoiler-free for those of you who haven't seen it yet (you're out there, I know you are!), so please bear with me if things get a bit vague. I can't say that the comments will be spoiler-free, though, so watch what you read past that.

The movie opens to find Bruce Wayne something of a reclusive shut-in. Following the events of The Dark Knight, he is now considered a murdering outlaw, wanted by the cops and hated by the citizenry. As he needs to keep this image around to protect that of the late Harvey Dent (and all the good it did), Wayne has retired from Batmaning it up. But with Rachel gone, and following some massive and costly energy project setbacks at work, he now has nothing to really do with his life. He's in a deep rut, stuck spending his hours acting self-loathing and letting his wounded body fade away.

Enter Bane. A terrorist leader from half the world away has come to Gotham, started building an army, and commits general acts of mayhem while preparing some large, dastardly plan. It's just the sort of thing that Wayne needs to jump back into the swing of things, and start doing some active good again (even while his reputation still stands). He may be older, weaker, and not as determined as Bane is, but he's still Batman. What could go wrong?

I'll end the synopsis here, since it gets rather dull. But I will say that this movie goes to come very, very ambitious places with its plot, and on that I must give it some serious kudos. The movie goes, for lack of a better word, "epic" in both the scale of the story and the manner in which he shoots it. I haven't had a chance to watch this in Imax yet (I'm waiting to get an opportunity to get it on a real 70mm projector), but from what I understand, it gets quite jaw-dropping at times. The effects are fantastic and the general production design is top-notch. Nolan has crafted a big world here, and should be applauded for the effort.

But that scale is also where the movie hits some rather serious roadblocks, and also a question of tone. The logistics of Bane's plan, for instance, is very stretchy. You can poke holes in pretty much every aspect of it, especially how well it goes off. The very nature of it is much more comic-bookish than people might be expecting, and Nolan has actually made the film like that. The "super realistic look at Batman" thing has always been more a product of marketing than in the actual films, but it definitely doesn't apply here. As far as blockbusters go this is still more well-thought-out and intricate with its story and plot than most, but how hard you decide to look at it also depends on how you're looking at it as a whole. If you want something like a straight crime film that happens to have guys in costumes running around, a la The Dark Knight, you will be disappointed. This movie, in spirit and in plot points, is much more direct from Batman Begins. That middle entry seems scarcely relevant at all about a third of the way through the movie, even.

And then there's the cold, solid fact that the writing of this movie isn't all that great. I don't mean from any sort of individual line aspect, but overall this movie has a messy feel to it. Many things happen offscreen, the entire middle act is essentially one long montage, which then inverts in the final act to compress tons of big events into a short amount of time. There's a whole lot of "Character A shows up in the right place at exactly the right time", and the new characters are just sort of shoehorned into the start of the movie. There's a ticking clock element in the finale that also feels rather cliche, and much like the logistic problems with the scale, it leads to a lot of extra questions, some events that are just rather goofy when you think about them (Back Surgeons of the world, take notes in this movie). To say nothing of a few last-minute twists that feel particularly half-baked. They may be better supported on a second viewing of the movie, but they still feel somewhat needless in the end (and make a rather significant character seem much less important than they were for the rest of the movie at the very last second).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there doesn't seem to be any big "reason" in this movie. There are smaller arcs that weigh in (which I'll get to below), but overall this movie feels like a big batch of ideas that never quite come together. The politics are all over the map, and seem to only be paid lip-service in some scenes, while just conflicting with themselves in others. Bane's plot, for instance, uses a bunch of populist rhetoric, that he seems to believe in and know is a complete load all at once. It's especially jarring when you compare it to the solid, post-9/11 feel of The Dark Knight. That movie had plenty of logistical problems and dangling plot threads (even worse so than Rises), but it had a solid, underlying feel the entire time that helped bind it together and made it work. Seriously, I did the trilogy marathon on opening night, and it was striking to see how well the middle one flowed and the third entry lurched about.

Ultimately this new movie feels too reliant on coincidences and sloppy ideas, and as I'm never one to accuse Nolan of laziness (the man is too good and dedicated to what he does), so the basic notion that he's not totally infallible will have to be accepted. If anything, he's just continuing experimenting with some of the tricks he tried with Inception, and while they worked all well and good there, here they feel more like tics. A significant instance of this is his constant desire to do scenes In medias res, or just get to the middle of things. It leads to a somewhat rushed feel (despite the movie itself being kinda bloated), since you're always trying to catch up as it keeps skipping ahead. This, combined with the heavy time compression later in the movie, leads less to some things feeling like a mystery and more like them being plot holes. That bit about characters always being where they needed to be that I mentioned earlier, for instance, is a heavy offender here. So, all in all, it seems like a lot of this movie doesn't work, or at least doesn't work as well as it should.

But, and here's the important part: the movie still works pretty damn well (almost in spite of itself).

Let's start with the characters. The acting is absolutely solid all the way across the board. Folks like Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman may not have quite enough screentime, but they totally deliver with that they've got. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's new character has some meaty plot points and exposition that might not bode with some people, but he plays the part too well for people to care. Ditto Anne Hathaway, who's Catwoman pretty much shut up the doubters from frame one. For real, she's one of the highlights of the movie.

As is, in my opinion, Bane. Some may have trouble understanding him through the mask (not me, although when I did, it was more the soundtrack refusing to take it down a notch than anything else), or that his accent is somewhat lighter than you might expect (my brother compared it to a dainty Sean Connery), but for me, the dude works. An absolute beast of a man, he's more than a match for Batman physically and just as much mentally. He dominates the screen from his very firs scene (the airplane hijack, which has been somewhat spoiled b the advertising but is still a blast to watch. And I love love love the piece of the score that accompanies it). He is cold, calculating, and, perhaps best of all, he absolutely loves what he's doing. Tom Hardy acts the hell out of this guy (which is impressive when all we really have to work off is his eyes), and has a ball filling him with little character quirks and the inflation of his voice in his many monologues. Bane is something of a Bond villain even, and considering where the plot goes, it is entirely appropriate. He's a solid foe in a trilogy that's set the bar very, very high for that role.

Finally, we've got Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne, and I think it's safe to say that this is Bale's best outing yet as the character. He shows a character that's filled with regret (heh), and who wants to keep doing the right thing to the point that he deludes himself that he still can. And then his final arc gets moving, and the movie does something that one would never imagine possible when it comes to Batman: it gives him an ending. A real, honest, totally proper and fitting ending. The rest of the movie may have been tonally all over the map with his ideas, but Nolan absolutely nailed the Bruce Wayne/Batman story. One gets the feeling that it is the true purpose of the movie, it just had the misfortune to be surrounded by so much fat. This trilogy is, at its heart, Bruce Wayne's story while he struggles with what Batman is to him and the city of Gotham. It always has been. And with this ending (for real, the last few minutes were good enough to make up for a lot of quibbles), his story (that is, the story of Nolan's Wayne) is done.

So, that's pretty much what I've got, because I've prattled on long enough. I'm sure I've forgotten to mention some things, and people are more than welcome to discuss stuff in greater detail down below. The movie as a whole feels messy, and I would probably put it as the weakest of the trilogy, pure-quality wise. But with enough small elements that work, enough underlying themes that manage to break through in a coherent way, a collection of fantastic actors doing great work with characters you love, and an ending that feels right, I feel I can confidently call this a fitting end to the trilogy. Whatever happens next in the property is up in the air right now; reboot's the buzz word of the year, and I hope they move away from the Frank Miller era Batman next (Give us the hyper-competent, always-has-a-backup-plan-for-the-backup-plan's-backup-plan detective). But whatever they do, they have some massive shoes to fill. For now, I want to say Thank You Christopher Nolan. You've given us plenty of downs and bits to poke at, but all those ups you brought in with them made it more than worth it.

Now, go make some more original movies. You've got a knack for them.

[pezdrake]

You come across as a little harsh, but given the precedents, I guess its okay to hold Nolan up to a higher standard.  My overall impression was that this was a fantastic movie and not in any way a letdown like we have seen on the third outings of other superhero trilogies. 

I agree that he definitely "gets" Batman.  The only character issue I had with the film was that Bane is far too independent and smart to be taking an order to remain behind and die in the explosion.  Well... that and I thought Alfred was a bit off-character by walking out on Bruce. I just can't see that.  While Alfred has always hoped that Bruce would give up Batman, he always understood it had to be a choice. Plus, I think it would have been quite easy to leave the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character unnamed throughout – calling him officer, sir, or detective – then revealing him as Dick Grayson or even Terry McGinnis instead of making up a new character with the name "Robin". 

Sure there are a few strains of credulity.  But saying that the second film was more realistic – how does someone like the Joker inspire people to organize behind him? That's the hard part to understand in the second film.  I was thinking about the back injury issue – he goes untreated for years then gets it fixed fairly easily. I think it may have been that Bruce was quite aware that it was easily fixed all that time but kept it broken as a self-sentence for screwing up and leading to Harvey Dent's death (and Rachel's).  There were a lot of things that were not explained on screen, but it does not mean that they were not explainable.  I think that it's fair to assume viewers are smart enough not to have everything explained to them. 

I have to give credit, even though I am a fan. I didn't see Talia's presence until she revealed it and didn't see that the "child" was a girl or even notice that they continued to say "the child" and not "the boy".  Well done. 

Third outings tend to have a serial problem where too many characters – generally too many villains – are jammed in because the expectation is that every movie has to outdo the one before it and that's most easily done through doubling up the numbers of villains. That did happen a bit here.  Catwoman, Talia and Bane (not to mention the peripheral villains – nice bookend seeing the Scarecrow again!).  It's not that all of these actors were not fantastic but the character deserved more exploration than the length of the film allowed.  I'd almost rather have seen the past two films fleshed out and made three or four films but whatever.

In any case, I loved the movie, definitely going to be going back to see it.  Two fantastic superhero movies in one summer? Please please please don't disappoint me Man of Steel!!

[Relaxing Dragon]

The better the filmmaker, the higher the standards by which they are judged. Nolan is damn good at what he does, and even the stuff he isn't good at (like filming a fight sequence) he's getting better at (and, every once in a while, delivers something like the Big Rig Flip or Spinning Hallway Fight, bits that are so crazy good it makes everything else seem better just by being near it).

Yeah, Bane's last second downgrade of status is part of the problems brought on by that twist. We just spent over two hours having this guy lord over us, and then in less than five minutes his overall importance is shot to hell (along with the rest of him). On the other hand, this is actually quite in style with what we saw of the League in Begins. Hiding the true leader, and having more of a figurehead (in this case, a very charismatic one) take center stage. Fitting, if not as satisfactory.

I think Nolan intentionally handled Blake the way he did. It was his way of shutting the naysayers down in regards to Robin (since that was a common "worry" that he would put Robin in, as everyone kept saying it would never work in Nolan's Batverse). He takes the character, turns him into a Robin proxy, but doesn't name him until the end, after we've all come to support and understand him. Had Nolan called him that from the start (or any of the traditional Robin names as a tipoff), folks would have, in at least some way, been against it. As it stands, they were able to give him an unbiased chance first and judge him by his actual character, not his historical character.

And I don't mean that The Dark Knight is any more realistic. Far from it, actually; it's plot has just as much magical technology and amazing coincidences. The Dark Knight just manages to hold itself together better (and it also more strongly written, even with the constant dropped plotlines), and thus it seems to work better. I do agree that the things unexplained can, for the most part, be understood through some extra thought. It's not a stupid movie or anything. However, it always gets tricky with all those moments that require fan theories and hypothesizing to fill in because, at the end of the day, they're all just that. Theories. Some things a movie just needs to put in the actual text, and leave the guesswork to other points.

Also, Nolan's films have always been pretty stuffed with villains. First one had Ra's and Scarecrow, then Joker and Two-Face (plus the mob), and now Bane and Talia (I'm really on the fence about calling Catwoman a villain). If anything, the latter two tone it all down a notch. Two-Face doesn't enter the picture until very late in the running time, Talia's the third-act twist, and the Scarecrow just has cameos later on. Much better than movies trying to divide space and lines between multiple villains for the entire runtime. Better to have one central one to focus on (Joker in TDK, Bane in TDKR), and let the other peripheral ones come into play when necessary.

[lassieface]

Considering Nolan = box office gold, they'll probably let him make whatever he wants to next.

[Russell]

I am more than slightly worried about what's in store next for the Batman franchise. It's not a question if Warner Brothers is going to do more Batman films, it's a question of when, and I'm sure the when will be sometime in the next 3 - 4 years at most, since it's such a cash cow. You know, I think it would be great if they could get Paul Dini to pitch a story.

[RoninFox]

I am more than slightly worried about what's in store next for the Batman franchise. It's not a question if Warner Brothers is going to do more Batman films, it's a question of when, and I'm sure the when will be sometime in the next 3 - 4 years at most, since it's such a cash cow. You know, I think it would be great if they could get Paul Dini to pitch a story.

Considering the fairly giant pile of money the Arkham games made, who knows, this might be a possibility.

[pezdrake]

I'd love to think that WB saw the $$ that came in from the Avengers movie and Marvel franchise movies and is interested in a drive towards a Justice League movie in the same way - building individual movies and characters up in their own films, and the next Batman outing will be part of that.  However, things are so disorganized with the DC properties I think it's unlikely that it would come together well unless someone like Dini was involved in developing all the pieces.

[a pretty girl is like]

I'd love to think that WB saw the $$ that came in from the Avengers movie and Marvel franchise movies and is interested in a drive towards a Justice League movie in the same way - building individual movies and characters up in their own films, and the next Batman outing will be part of that.  However, things are so disorganized with the DC properties I think it's unlikely that it would come together well unless someone like Dini was involved in developing all the pieces.

Marvel is going to get Rocket Raccoon in a major motion picture before WB can get anything going for Wonder Woman, The Flash, or another Green Lantern.  Someone at WB really needs to get fired for this.

[D.B. Barnes]

Here's some fodder for speculation.

Anne Hathaway on Catwoman spin-off: 'It would be lovely to see more'

Speaking to Digital Spy, the actress admitted that she would embrace a solo Catwoman movie if her Dark Knight Rises director Christopher Nolan was involved in the project.

"I think it would be lovely to see more of her but only if it's with the right people," Hathaway said. "She lives in this Gotham City and so it would have to be established by the people who have made this Gotham City. For me, at least."


Nolan previously said that Hathaway deserves to have her own Catwoman film based on her performance in Dark Knight Rises.

The helmer, who has now concluded his work on the Batman franchise, described the actress's performance in the film as "incredible".

He told Access Hollywood: "Anne is incredibly precise and articulate about the psychology of the character. She's really built it from the ground up, it's just a delight to watch her perform, the things she does in those heels is not to be taken lightly."

When asked whether Hathaway's Selina Kyle should be given her own film, Nolan added: "I certainly think she deserves it, she's incredible."

[gbeenie]

I'd love to think that WB saw the $$ that came in from the Avengers movie and Marvel franchise movies and is interested in a drive towards a Justice League movie in the same way - building individual movies and characters up in their own films, and the next Batman outing will be part of that.  However, things are so disorganized with the DC properties I think it's unlikely that it would come together well unless someone like Dini was involved in developing all the pieces.

My worry is, if The Avengers ends up outperforming TDKR, that WB will hastily make a full-court press to get a Justice League movie out there, caution about doing it well be damned; that sort of thinking is what gave us Green Lantern.

[RoninFox]

Lets not forget that it will take INCREDIBLE care to make a balanced film out of the Justice League.  One of the biggest pieces of praise for the Avengers was that none of the characters seemed superfluous.  Every one of the Avengers had a place and a role to fill.  Can we really handle that in The Justice League?  When you already have Superman, how do you make the rest of the characters feel needed?  Not saying its impossible, but it will be an incredible challenge.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Lets not forget that it will take INCREDIBLE care to make a balanced film out of the Justice League.  One of the biggest pieces of praise for the Avengers was that none of the characters seemed superfluous.  Every one of the Avengers had a place and a role to fill.  Can we really handle that in The Justice League?  When you already have Superman, how do you make the rest of the characters feel needed?  Not saying its impossible, but it will be an incredible challenge.

Anything's possible with the right forces behind it. Avenger's had Whedon to pull itself together. WB just needs to find someone who really understands the comics and players involved to make it all work. And probably a few intro movies for them; they may just have to straight up copy Marvel's formula, but that was a formula that worked, so it's not like that's a bad thing.

[RoninFox]

Lets not forget that it will take INCREDIBLE care to make a balanced film out of the Justice League.  One of the biggest pieces of praise for the Avengers was that none of the characters seemed superfluous.  Every one of the Avengers had a place and a role to fill.  Can we really handle that in The Justice League?  When you already have Superman, how do you make the rest of the characters feel needed?  Not saying its impossible, but it will be an incredible challenge.

Anything's possible with the right forces behind it. Avenger's had Whedon to pull itself together. WB just needs to find someone who really understands the comics and players involved to make it all work. And probably a few intro movies for them; they may just have to straight up copy Marvel's formula, but that was a formula that worked, so it's not like that's a bad thing.

As I said, not impossible.  Don't discount the huge advantage of having an ongoing series as opposed to a movie though.  With a series you can pick and choose which characters to bring into the forefront as they are needed, for a Justice League movie no one will be satisfied unless everyone has their time in the sun.

[Darth Geek]

I am hoping that DC & WB DON'T try to do the opposite of Marvel and start out with a Justice League movie. They have talked about that in the past, and it just would mean having to do tons of exposition to explain all of these characters.