In the absence of a "your review here" thread...(SPOILERS)

[greggbray]

My review originally posted elsewhere. 

"Some years ago, Dennis O'Neil made his first appearance at SUNY New Paltz, where I teach media courses. I invited him to discuss writing across media for select writing and production students.

Mr. O'Neil was asked about the current Batman comics, and he bemoaned, "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad -- but it has moved beyond my sensibility." Despite this, during a follow up visit, he referred to Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT as the best comic book film ever made.

At the time, I certainly agreed that TDK was the best scripted live-action Batman film to date -- no question about that whatsoever. The end of the film left us watching Batman making his escape on the Batpod, toward an uncertain future -- possibly residing in the shadows, protecting the Dent legacy.

Going into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I had some concerns -- mostly predicated on my own interpretation of Batman. For instance, when the premise of the film was revealed, that it takes place a whopping eight years after the events of TDK, I gasped. "Batman wouldn't give up the cape that easily, would he?" The chief concern, which I will unpack here for a moment, has to do with his eight-year absence. After, rather than a blow-by-blow of the plot and characterizations (I imagine everyone has seen the film by now), I would like to focus on a message the film seems to send out.

In the much (and in broad strokes, justly) maligned Jeff Matsuda animated series THE BATMAN, the protagonist utters the quotation above and finally gives the character an added sense of meaning. Though a more-often-than-not WEAK program, the fourth season as helmed by Alan Burnett with visitations from Timm-Verse alum Paul Dini and Kevin Conroy, proved to be something special -- and short lived.

There is a key episode that takes place in the future -- it's a bit of a frame narrative. The essential point is this: Batman is old. He climbs out of his THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS tank, assisted in the flesh by Nightwing and virtually by a wheel-chair-bound Oracle (Barbara Gordon) to square off against a nearly all-powerful Mr. Freeze. Seeing Batman a big wobbly, Nightwing gently suggests the old man sits this one out and allow he and Babs to finish off the frosty villain. But the mission isn't over. And Batman will continue. This is my Batman. One who does not so easily call it quits.

The notion of Batman hanging up the cape is not entirely new. In the aforementioned THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller (one of the basis of this current franchise), Batman hangs up the cowl. He is old. The world has outgrown him. There is an element of social-satire throughout the work, and new threats emerge at both a local and national level. Batman must return. In the Timm-verse, Batman retires shortly after his heart condition compels him to turn a gun (the established object that is the ire of all of his hostility) on a perpetrator during BATMAN BEYOND's preamble. Realizing what he has resorted to in order to be effective, he turns off the Bat-Cave's lights and utters "never again."

In order for Batman to retire -- hang up the cape and move on, there must be one of two scenarios. Scenario 1, the Mission is Over (and really, the mission is never over) or Scenario 2, he is too old to continue. Thus the conundrum of RISES premise: it has been 8 years since Batman donned the cowl.

Wait, what? The end of TDK implied that Batman would become what Gotham needed, and in this case took the fall for Dent's crimes. The Batsignal was shattered, and Batman went into hiding while Gordon and company had to chase him. The implication, it seemed, was that Batman would continue working from the shadows until such a time he needed to, well, rise.

The eight-year stasis as a recluse just doesn't jibe with me. We have seen Batman train (BATMAN BEGINS), become Gotham's Guardian (TDK), and protect the city's symbol of hope it's its hour of need--but the Mission Is Not Over.

That said, within the first hour of the film, this concern was well put to rest. During the exciting first act, I bought into the world of story, bought into his controversial retirement, bought into Alfred's concerns, and emotionally devoured every moment the vibrant Anne Hathaway was on screen. Man did she sink her claws into this role, and remains the film's highlight throughout

Congratulations to Nolan and company -- my main concern was put to rest nearly immediately, as the film move forward.

But this is where the trouble starts for me. The second half of the film -- a fusion of KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND does not quite hold together. It is here where I find myself echoing Dennis O'Neil. "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad. But it has moved beyond my sensibility."

A confession: I have never been a fan of the Bane character. It was an interesting experiment in the comics -- a character called Bane would free all of the inmates in Arkham Asylum. Batman would wear himself out bringing him to justice, and once he had done so, and was exhausted from his non-stop mission, Bane would show up and break The Bat once and for all. Interesting -- but the story on the page was a bit of a letdown. For a while Bruce was out of commission, but he returns and saves the day, and in the end what have we learned? It wasn't bad -- it was just clear that Bruce Wayne would never stop being Batman, so it was a bizarre little detour.

That said, I recognize these comics are close to 20-years-old and for many Batman fans Bane has grown to be an essential nemesis in the universe. I never saw him as anything other than a ploy to get Bruce temporarily removed from the cowl. No matter. Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance in the role, and is quite an imposing threat to Batman and Gotham City. While I would have preferred The Riddler or The Penguin, or even Black Mask, Nolan does do Bane's character justice.

The chief concern I have with the film walking out is entirely different than I had anticipated: I didn't mind Batman's eight-year absence, I had no problem at all with Nolan selecting Bane as the key villain. The concern I have is the message embedded in the second half. First of all, the McGuffin is a bit strange. The McGuffin involves a green energy device that in the wrong hands could be a weapon that destroys civilization as Gothamites know it. Much like the arc-light reactor in THE AVENGERS. In Tony Stark's hands, it could light up the city on renewable energy. In the evil alien's hands? It means an alien invasion and destruction. Why all this concern about destructive renewable energy as the thing that will destroy us? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the materials we currently use for energy?

In addition, there is a gross simplification in the second act, mixing both the War on Terror and the Occupy Wall St. movement/class warfare. When Bane appears and "liberates" Gotham, he invites the poor to attack the rich. Which they do. We see doormen and others attack people, drag them from their homes, and take their valuables. This seems like an over-simplistic and a bit crass critique of ...well, America. As though class warfare is nothing more than the have-nots waiting for somebody to give them permission to attack the haves. This nihilistic and xenophobic world, where brother turns on brother, cops turn on cops, is such a misfire -- though I suppose it gives a visualization to Frank Miller's assertion that the occupy movement is like the Taliban.

The third act takes place over a period of months. Bane rules the city and everyone cowers in fear -- except for some brave souls taking part in an underground movement. Nearly all of the city's police are imprisoned in the sewers underground except for a few good cops (specifically Gordon and Blake). Batman eventually returns to Gotham after being locked away in a foreign prison. How? His voyage back to Gotham is not shown, and stands out a bit given how much time they devoted to telling him his fate is inescapable. When he returns it's open warfare pitting Batman and the cops against the League of Shadows and their followers.

The strange message here seems to be that if terrorists invaded, the have-nots would side with them, and then it would be up to the haves (including the police) to defeat them all and restore order, so that the wealthy can return to their homes. It's not the intended message, perhaps, but it is there. Then there's the mishandling of the Miranda Tate character. For those who clearly understand her origin from the source material, you might be surprised that she has something rather violent in store for her "Beloved."

I had been prepared to leave the film disappointed that we would never see Dick Grayson, The Riddler, The Penguin, and a number of other characters in the Nolan-verse. After the magnificent TDK, I was prepared for an endless series of films that featured Batman as a detective -- analyzing crime scenes, finding material that the police may have missed, and then locating the costumed villain and bringing him/her to justice. I was prepared for a series of taught mysteries with twists, turns, and exciting third acts. I had hoped for Batman-as-mentor, as father figure to Richard Grayson -- giving him the childhood he never had. Yes, there are a few moments that attempt to substitute this, but Nolan keeps them at arms' length and attempts to substitute an easily missed (if your theater volume isn't set right) Easter Egg as a way of tossing some of us a bone.

Instead, I left the film pleased that Nolan's run with Batman is over. It's time for it to be in other hands. I'd very much like to see a trilogy that focuses on the elements I have mentioned above and does not keep its comic book origins at arm's length. Batman does not need to exist in a xenophobic nihilistic world -- he can exist in any world that requires a detective to see things from a different perspective. Somebody who notices things that the police may not notice, or may not have the resources to resolve. Somebody with a code of justice, a magnificent brain and brawn to match -- who takes in allies to the cause to save others the dark fate he has suffered. I don't need a war movie. I need a Detective Comic. Maybe next time.

That said, Nolan has some incredibly well-crafted action scenes, and has cast his entire series quite well. He is also the first filmmaker to extend his Batman film-making streak beyond two entries (as was the case with both Burton and Schumacher). He should rest easy knowing that the majority of fans will be well behind him. The rest of us will look to the horizon, speculating with great anticipation for the next series, when Batman begins again. This time, maybe with Grayson in tow. - Gregg Bray

GRADE: B- "

_________

Back again.  To be honest, while I stand by my grade, I think I've played down how off some of the elements in the film are to me.  Bane doesn't work at all.  I could look past Batman's 8 year absence during the first viewing, but the more I digested it, the more it bothered me.

I still greatly enjoyed The  Dark Knight and like BB well enough.  It took some time as my aesthetic preference is Tim Burton, but I ultimately really warmed up to the films.  TDK in particular--I felt that had captured the 'one bad day' message from TKJ with how Joker destroyed Dent.

But so much of this was undone in TDKR.  I probably will not sit through it again, though I certainly bear no ill will to folks who enjoyed it.  Like I said, again evoking O'Neil, "I'm not prepared to say it's bad. It's moved beyond my sensibility."  I hope (perhaps selfishly so) that I am part of the intended audience for the next film.

[Paul (ral)]

Great review Gregg.

[zDBZ]

My review originally posted elsewhere. 

"Some years ago, Dennis O'Neil made his first appearance at SUNY New Paltz, where I teach media courses. I invited him to discuss writing across media for select writing and production students.

Mr. O'Neil was asked about the current Batman comics, and he bemoaned, "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad -- but it has moved beyond my sensibility." Despite this, during a follow up visit, he referred to Christopher Nolan's THE DARK KNIGHT as the best comic book film ever made.

At the time, I certainly agreed that TDK was the best scripted live-action Batman film to date -- no question about that whatsoever. The end of the film left us watching Batman making his escape on the Batpod, toward an uncertain future -- possibly residing in the shadows, protecting the Dent legacy.

Going into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I had some concerns -- mostly predicated on my own interpretation of Batman. For instance, when the premise of the film was revealed, that it takes place a whopping eight years after the events of TDK, I gasped. "Batman wouldn't give up the cape that easily, would he?" The chief concern, which I will unpack here for a moment, has to do with his eight-year absence. After, rather than a blow-by-blow of the plot and characterizations (I imagine everyone has seen the film by now), I would like to focus on a message the film seems to send out.

In the much (and in broad strokes, justly) maligned Jeff Matsuda animated series THE BATMAN, the protagonist utters the quotation above and finally gives the character an added sense of meaning. Though a more-often-than-not WEAK program, the fourth season as helmed by Alan Burnett with visitations from Timm-Verse alum Paul Dini and Kevin Conroy, proved to be something special -- and short lived.

There is a key episode that takes place in the future -- it's a bit of a frame narrative. The essential point is this: Batman is old. He climbs out of his THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS tank, assisted in the flesh by Nightwing and virtually by a wheel-chair-bound Oracle (Barbara Gordon) to square off against a nearly all-powerful Mr. Freeze. Seeing Batman a big wobbly, Nightwing gently suggests the old man sits this one out and allow he and Babs to finish off the frosty villain. But the mission isn't over. And Batman will continue. This is my Batman. One who does not so easily call it quits.

The notion of Batman hanging up the cape is not entirely new. In the aforementioned THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller (one of the basis of this current franchise), Batman hangs up the cowl. He is old. The world has outgrown him. There is an element of social-satire throughout the work, and new threats emerge at both a local and national level. Batman must return. In the Timm-verse, Batman retires shortly after his heart condition compels him to turn a gun (the established object that is the ire of all of his hostility) on a perpetrator during BATMAN BEYOND's preamble. Realizing what he has resorted to in order to be effective, he turns off the Bat-Cave's lights and utters "never again."

In order for Batman to retire -- hang up the cape and move on, there must be one of two scenarios. Scenario 1, the Mission is Over (and really, the mission is never over) or Scenario 2, he is too old to continue. Thus the conundrum of RISES premise: it has been 8 years since Batman donned the cowl.

Wait, what? The end of TDK implied that Batman would become what Gotham needed, and in this case took the fall for Dent's crimes. The Batsignal was shattered, and Batman went into hiding while Gordon and company had to chase him. The implication, it seemed, was that Batman would continue working from the shadows until such a time he needed to, well, rise.

The eight-year stasis as a recluse just doesn't jibe with me. We have seen Batman train (BATMAN BEGINS), become Gotham's Guardian (TDK), and protect the city's symbol of hope it's its hour of need--but the Mission Is Not Over.

That said, within the first hour of the film, this concern was well put to rest. During the exciting first act, I bought into the world of story, bought into his controversial retirement, bought into Alfred's concerns, and emotionally devoured every moment the vibrant Anne Hathaway was on screen. Man did she sink her claws into this role, and remains the film's highlight throughout

Congratulations to Nolan and company -- my main concern was put to rest nearly immediately, as the film move forward.

But this is where the trouble starts for me. The second half of the film -- a fusion of KNIGHTFALL and NO MAN'S LAND does not quite hold together. It is here where I find myself echoing Dennis O'Neil. "I'm not prepared to say that it is bad. But it has moved beyond my sensibility."

A confession: I have never been a fan of the Bane character. It was an interesting experiment in the comics -- a character called Bane would free all of the inmates in Arkham Asylum. Batman would wear himself out bringing him to justice, and once he had done so, and was exhausted from his non-stop mission, Bane would show up and break The Bat once and for all. Interesting -- but the story on the page was a bit of a letdown. For a while Bruce was out of commission, but he returns and saves the day, and in the end what have we learned? It wasn't bad -- it was just clear that Bruce Wayne would never stop being Batman, so it was a bizarre little detour.

That said, I recognize these comics are close to 20-years-old and for many Batman fans Bane has grown to be an essential nemesis in the universe. I never saw him as anything other than a ploy to get Bruce temporarily removed from the cowl. No matter. Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance in the role, and is quite an imposing threat to Batman and Gotham City. While I would have preferred The Riddler or The Penguin, or even Black Mask, Nolan does do Bane's character justice.

The chief concern I have with the film walking out is entirely different than I had anticipated: I didn't mind Batman's eight-year absence, I had no problem at all with Nolan selecting Bane as the key villain. The concern I have is the message embedded in the second half. First of all, the McGuffin is a bit strange. The McGuffin involves a green energy device that in the wrong hands could be a weapon that destroys civilization as Gothamites know it. Much like the arc-light reactor in THE AVENGERS. In Tony Stark's hands, it could light up the city on renewable energy. In the evil alien's hands? It means an alien invasion and destruction. Why all this concern about destructive renewable energy as the thing that will destroy us? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the materials we currently use for energy?

In addition, there is a gross simplification in the second act, mixing both the War on Terror and the Occupy Wall St. movement/class warfare. When Bane appears and "liberates" Gotham, he invites the poor to attack the rich. Which they do. We see doormen and others attack people, drag them from their homes, and take their valuables. This seems like an over-simplistic and a bit crass critique of ...well, America. As though class warfare is nothing more than the have-nots waiting for somebody to give them permission to attack the haves. This nihilistic and xenophobic world, where brother turns on brother, cops turn on cops, is such a misfire -- though I suppose it gives a visualization to Frank Miller's assertion that the occupy movement is like the Taliban.

The third act takes place over a period of months. Bane rules the city and everyone cowers in fear -- except for some brave souls taking part in an underground movement. Nearly all of the city's police are imprisoned in the sewers underground except for a few good cops (specifically Gordon and Blake). Batman eventually returns to Gotham after being locked away in a foreign prison. How? His voyage back to Gotham is not shown, and stands out a bit given how much time they devoted to telling him his fate is inescapable. When he returns it's open warfare pitting Batman and the cops against the League of Shadows and their followers.

The strange message here seems to be that if terrorists invaded, the have-nots would side with them, and then it would be up to the haves (including the police) to defeat them all and restore order, so that the wealthy can return to their homes. It's not the intended message, perhaps, but it is there. Then there's the mishandling of the Miranda Tate character. For those who clearly understand her origin from the source material, you might be surprised that she has something rather violent in store for her "Beloved."

I had been prepared to leave the film disappointed that we would never see Dick Grayson, The Riddler, The Penguin, and a number of other characters in the Nolan-verse. After the magnificent TDK, I was prepared for an endless series of films that featured Batman as a detective -- analyzing crime scenes, finding material that the police may have missed, and then locating the costumed villain and bringing him/her to justice. I was prepared for a series of taught mysteries with twists, turns, and exciting third acts. I had hoped for Batman-as-mentor, as father figure to Richard Grayson -- giving him the childhood he never had. Yes, there are a few moments that attempt to substitute this, but Nolan keeps them at arms' length and attempts to substitute an easily missed (if your theater volume isn't set right) Easter Egg as a way of tossing some of us a bone.

Instead, I left the film pleased that Nolan's run with Batman is over. It's time for it to be in other hands. I'd very much like to see a trilogy that focuses on the elements I have mentioned above and does not keep its comic book origins at arm's length. Batman does not need to exist in a xenophobic nihilistic world -- he can exist in any world that requires a detective to see things from a different perspective. Somebody who notices things that the police may not notice, or may not have the resources to resolve. Somebody with a code of justice, a magnificent brain and brawn to match -- who takes in allies to the cause to save others the dark fate he has suffered. I don't need a war movie. I need a Detective Comic. Maybe next time.

That said, Nolan has some incredibly well-crafted action scenes, and has cast his entire series quite well. He is also the first filmmaker to extend his Batman film-making streak beyond two entries (as was the case with both Burton and Schumacher). He should rest easy knowing that the majority of fans will be well behind him. The rest of us will look to the horizon, speculating with great anticipation for the next series, when Batman begins again. This time, maybe with Grayson in tow. - Gregg Bray

GRADE: B- "

_________

Back again.  To be honest, while I stand by my grade, I think I've played down how off some of the elements in the film are to me.  Bane doesn't work at all.  I could look past Batman's 8 year absence during the first viewing, but the more I digested it, the more it bothered me.

I still greatly enjoyed The  Dark Knight and like BB well enough.  It took some time as my aesthetic preference is Tim Burton, but I ultimately really warmed up to the films.  TDK in particular--I felt that had captured the 'one bad day' message from TKJ with how Joker destroyed Dent.

But so much of this was undone in TDKR.  I probably will not sit through it again, though I certainly bear no ill will to folks who enjoyed it.  Like I said, again evoking O'Neil, "I'm not prepared to say it's bad. It's moved beyond my sensibility."  I hope (perhaps selfishly so) that I am part of the intended audience for the next film.

Nice review, though it's interesting that you don't plan to view it again. I gave it a lower grade than you did, and I would be more than willing to give the film a second look. I also didn't get the same political message you did; my impression was that the film wanted to have a story where not just Batman, but Gothamites would rise, and that it failed to support that by hardly showing average Gothamites at all. I completely missed the doorman; the only clear shots of Bane's supporters that I can remember were of the Blackgate inmates.

[thecolorsblend]

For whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure Bray and I are of vastly different ideologies... and I get a very similar political vibe from the movie. The movie was scripted and going into production before Loiter Wall St ever took shape so obviously it's not completely intentional. I'm saying that I'm not sure how appropriate it really is to connect it to TDKRises insofar as authorial intent is concerned... but at the same time I find it impossible to ignore what I truly think is political commentary (unintentionally timely or not).

EDIT- I should add that the political ramifications of the movie are partly why I think history won't look back favorably upon TDKRises.

[riddler]

Never say never but I can't imagine seeing it again for a while. Even films which i have on DVD/blu ray i see max once per year. And unless I get it as a gift it will NEVER be a part of that collection.

Looking at all 3 films collectively, has batman had a positive impact on gotham? What would gotham been like had Bruce never dawned the cape and cowl?
In Begins the scarecrow's fear gas could have given him more power.
In between begins and the dark knight, the mob does seem to be slightly less powerful and get 'scared' to work at night. Also as we see early on, the symbol including the bat signal scares off plenty of small criminals. You could easily argue though this causes the mob to use their inside resources (cops and the DA's office) more and use more of their own resources towards corruption.
The Joker likely still would have happened without Batman but his power was amplified in part due to Batman. The mob doesn't like him but in fear they go to him, without Batman they likely wouldn't. And of course quite a few of the Joker's terrorist attacks including the attack on the hospital and general slaughtering were to 'call out' Batman.  Not sure if the Harvey Dent/Rachel kidnappings would have happened without Batman. Dent got into that predicament due to taking the fall for being batman.
In the dark knight rises, most of Batman's impact is negative. Yes he saved batman at the end but seems Bane and Talia's entire attack on gotham were revenge against Batman. Also Batman himself coming out of hiding forces the police to chase him over Bane. All those deaths would not have happened without the Bat.

[BatmAngelus]

I thought I had replied to this thread, but it looks like I haven't, haha.

I agree hands-down with zDBZ and greggbray's interpretation of how Batman's career would end.  To me, I didn't have a problem with it being against my interpretation of the character as much as I felt annoyed that the film never gave compelling reasons for Batman to quit in the first place, making it feel like he quit just 'cause Nolan wanted this to be the final story.

As for giving the movie a second viewing, I'm with gregg in that I really don't have much desire either.  Which is a shame considering that it was kind of my tradition to see the Batman movies a second time with my father in IMAX.  We did this for both Begins and The Dark Knight.  But I feel that I have much better things to do with my time and money than watch this in theaters again.  And, after hearing my opinion of the movie, my dad's in no hurry to see it at all.  Same goes for the rest of my family, barring my aunt and uncle, who saw it already and disliked it as much as I did.

I'll rewatch certain scenes, such as Bruce's climb out of the pit, but a full repeat viewing?  Not going to happen for a long time, if at all.

[thecolorsblend]

I can definitely see buying the DVD. I'd want the complete set. I know me and this is how I think. "I bought the other two so by St. Bray I'll buy the third one!"

But it's really the Bruce/Batman stuff from the beginning and end of the movie that I'll come back to, I think. The last, oh, four'ish minutes? They also work for me.

The hour or however long in between... well, yeah, there are some good moments in there but that's the troublesome stuff.

Maybe what I'm talking around here is that this movie has a ton of fat that could've been cut out. Example? The Blake/Gordon scene about Dent's "murder". It's a good scene by itself but is it really necessary to the plot of Bane taking over the city? I don't think we needed another five minutes of screen time taken away from Batman.

I guess in the final analysis, Nolan didn't make Bruce the through line of the movie. Love or hate BB and TDK, Bruce provides all or most of the through line of those films. True, TDK could be viewed as more of a Joker movie but it still revolves around Bruce even if it's not completely about Bruce. But TDKRises... Bruce is lonely, Bruce gets laid, Bruce returns as Batman, Bruce gets the hell beaten out of him, Bruce is put in prison, Bruce escapes, Bruce saves the day, Bruce fakes his death. Call me old fashioned but I don't think it should take only 33 words to sum up the "arc" of the supposed main character of a three (?) hour movie like that.

[riddler]

I can definitely see buying the DVD. I'd want the complete set. I know me and this is how I think. "I bought the other two so by St. Bray I'll buy the third one!"

But it's really the Bruce/Batman stuff from the beginning and end of the movie that I'll come back to, I think. The last, oh, four'ish minutes? They also work for me.

The hour or however long in between... well, yeah, there are some good moments in there but that's the troublesome stuff.

Maybe what I'm talking around here is that this movie has a ton of fat that could've been cut out. Example? The Blake/Gordon scene about Dent's "murder". It's a good scene by itself but is it really necessary to the plot of Bane taking over the city? I don't think we needed another five minutes of screen time taken away from Batman.

I guess in the final analysis, Nolan didn't make Bruce the through line of the movie. Love or hate BB and TDK, Bruce provides all or most of the through line of those films. True, TDK could be viewed as more of a Joker movie but it still revolves around Bruce even if it's not completely about Bruce. But TDKRises... Bruce is lonely, Bruce gets laid, Bruce returns as Batman, Bruce gets the hell beaten out of him, Bruce is put in prison, Bruce escapes, Bruce saves the day, Bruce fakes his death. Call me old fashioned but I don't think it should take only 33 words to sum up the "arc" of the supposed main character of a three (?) hour movie like that.

I don't necessarily believe the hero has to have the entire film centre around him but generally comic films are a battle of good vs evil. I don't know if there's ever been a comic film with so much time spent away from the hero AND villain as this one. Add that to the fact that they only cross paths twice in the film and that's an awful lot of time spent on side characters. I'd compare this to Ang Lee's Hulk, seems an awful lot of 'when is this going to get started?'.... "oh it's over already"

[thecolorsblend]

Coming back to this. I usually loathe fan edits. LOATHE. Yeah, you're so GD "creative" that you can tear someone else's art to shreds, badly glue the pieces back together and, hey, that makes you an "editor", right? Asswipes.

Still, one fan edit I could possibly get behind is merging TDK and TDKRises into one movie. Yeah, TDK is arguably bloated and over-long already but, hey, what the hell. Basically flash forward eight years right after the cut to black of TDK, pick up with TDKRises but arrange it in a way that it looks like Batman confronting Bane in the middle of the police/Occupy Gotham battle is their first and only battle, and run it through to the end as it is. That's what, 30 or 40 minutes added onto TDK? An hour tops? It's doable.

[Travesty]

*Here is my review I made after my second viewing. I posted this on SHH around the time the movie released. Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes. If I remember correctly, I was about 7-8 vodka tonics deep. I'll just cut/paste*

Let me get this out of the way right now: I'm completely split with this movie, I really am. When I love it, I really love it, but when I hate it, I really detest the thing. It almost reminds me of Batman Forever, again with the example of "when its good it's good, but when its bad....oh, it's rotten!". If you're already rolling your eyes at what I just said, and screaming "HYPERBOLEEEEEEEEE", do yourself a favor, save yourself some time and stop reading.

So, let's get the easy part out of the way: the things I like/love about it.

-First and foremost: Catwoman. I love Hathaway in this. She not only nailed the role, she blew it out of the water. I don't care what people say, but she is my favorite character in this entire trilogy. Yes, I just said it, I think she was better than Ledger. Was the character commanding all of the attention and trying to get most of the limelight during the movie like The Joker was in TDK? No, but I think she pulled off something truly magical and downright brilliant with what she had....which sadly wasn't much. But when she was on, goddamn, she was ON! When I was watching her, not once did I think "this version doesn't remind me of her counterpart", in fact, much of the opposite. Which may be why I love her the most, because it feels the most faithful out of all of Nolan's characters in his Bat-trilogy, and like I said, Hathaway performance blew me away! The very first encounter with Wayne completely extinguished any doubt I had with Hathaway, and that was her first few seconds on screen. Oh, and the score that accompanies her by Zimmer? Again, amazing! I could probably go on for hours about how much I lover her in this movie, so I'll just end it here...she's perrrrrfect!

-The fight/action scenes: Much of an improvement compared to the others! Anytime someone was fighting, I was totally invested into what was going on. That first fight with Batman vs Bane was BRUTAL, and I couldn't look away, cause I didn't want to miss a second of what was going on. It was fast, it felt natural....it was probably some of the best fight scenes I have seen in a CBM, let alone any movie for that matter. WOW! Top notch, IMO. And the action was just as good too. Whenever The Bat was flying around dodging missiles, or when the Bat-pod was rolling it's wheels, etc, I wanted more. Great stuff all around!

-Batman: I still have some minor issues/nitpicks with some things(which I'll get to in a bit), but overall I think Bale was great in this. And again, the same thing with Catwoman, there just isn't much of him on screen. But when he's on, I'm grinning from ear to ear. His first time back to Gotham - which is also his first appearance in the movie - was any fanboys wet dream. I couldn't get enough of Batman in this...but maybe for a reason?

-The gadgets/vehicles: LOVED them! I was never a huge Bat-pod fan in TDK, but after watching it in TDKR, I'm sold. That vehicle is so much fun to watch. The Bat? Another great vehicle in this trilogy, and is right up there with The Tumbler and now the Bat-pod. I also loved Batman's little Bat-shaped darts he used. I rather he used his batarangs, but when they pulled out the dart, and it was in the shape of a bat, I was very pleased with that. Also, the EMP guns he used throughout the entire movie was a great addition, and something I kinda wish was in the other movies. Good stuff all around.

-Bane: I have some issues with his voice, but overall, I like what Hardy brought to the character. I thought all of his fights were excellent, and I liked how much attention he was commanding. I'm not gushing over him as much as Hathaway, but he was good, nonetheless.

-Most of the acting: I think almost everybody in this movie did a good job with what they had. There's only a few things I didn't like, but again, I'll get to that in a minute.

<cracks knuckles>

Alright, now that the easy part is out of the way, I'm gonna get to the stuff I didn't like/hated about the movie. If you've hated what I've said so far, and got this far, again, just stop reading now. It's about to get ugly.

-Bane's voice: I was never a fan of what we heard in the original prologue, but wow, I wish that's what they stuck with. I would sometimes chuckle at how he sounded. Sometimes it worked, but for the most part, it was just off. And like many have said, the ADR was too apparent in it. When he was speaking, it's like he was on a loud speaker, while everyone else sounded natural. It was very odd how they mixed it.

-Minor aesthetic nitpicks: Still not a fan of the Batsuit, but I think it looks better in this than TDK. Not a fan of Catwoman's mask/goggle ears. I pretty much hate Bane's mask.

-Gordon: I hate to say this, but what happened with Gordon in this movie? He has been my favorite thing about these movies, but somehow, they wrote him in as a very weird/underused character in this. I wasn't really happy with how they brought up his wife, but never even explored it. What was the friggin point of bringing it up, if you're not going to brush up on it!?!? And why did I keep hearing Oldman's accent slipping throughout the entire movie? One minute he's an American, the next he's clearly screaming like a Brit. Did Nolan just say, "ummmm, Gary, we're trying to save money cause we used it on all of these IMAX cameras, so you only get one shot with your scenes....good luck"?? Remember how is accent slipped during the rooftop scene in TDK? Yeah, well, that's how he sounded during the entire movie! Maybe cause he had a lot of scenes where he had to scream/yell? I dunno......

-Foley/Holly: Can anybody seriously tell me why these characters were even in this movie to begin with? About a good 5-7 minutes were used on Foley, and he ended up not being integral to anything in this entire movie at all. And Holly? Cool, Selina has a friend, but at the same time, who cares, we didn't need to know that, when she brought absolutely nothing to the story whatsoever. Did Nolan loose a bet in poker, and in turn had to shove these actors in a role somehow? All that time wasted, could have helped advanced other character arcs, which this film desperately needed, even though its already running at 2:45.

-Bat-screen time: Wow, I don't know if it's an illusion, but Batman really felt shafted in his friggin last movie from Nolan! I seriously think there may be a total of 10.....maybe 15 minutes of Batman in this movie. And again, the running time is at 2:45. Could you not put in more Batman in a Batman movie? All the scenes you had with him were great, and I LOVED 'em, so why skip out on him so much in this movie?!?! His character is extremely vital, and yet, feels like he got put on the back burner throughout the entire movie, other than nods from Gordon or Blake about how much they love Batman. But that's not showing us The Goddamn Batman on screen! I'm not saying he needed to be in every scene, but damn, he was almost nonexistent in it!

-Miranda/Talia: Wow, I think I have a bruise on my forehead for how much I had to facepalm with this character. Underused, underdeveloped, and overall, extremely weak in any kind of real execution! Especially with the incredibly obvious plot "twist" at the end. Is it Nolan-101 to make any twist revolve around a character who's name is different, but at the end "SURPRISE! That's not the actual characters name. Fooled you, huh? I'm sooooo smart, aren't I"?!?!? Oh, and her death scene! If you thought Katie Holmes was bad in BB, just you wait until you see THE worst death in cinematic history! If Katie Holmes started out as a lead on Dawson's Creek, I wouldn't be the bit surprised if Marion started out as an extra on that show. Horrible horrible performance all around! I was seriously thinking she would pull a Scooby Doo at the end, and say something like, "I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids".

-Alfred: It feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone for saying this again, but what happened? Caine pulled off a GREAT performance with the scenes he was in, but the scenes he was in were puzzling to me. It completely contradicted EVERYTHING we knew about him in BB and TDK! In those other movies, he's telling Bruce that he needs to endure and push past any doubts he has of not wanting to be The Batman. But in this, he immediately starts off with "dude, why are you trying to be Batman? This isn't right. Being Batman is preposterous!'. And yes, I get it, time has passed, but the very last time we saw him, his character was the complete opposite of this! If Nolan wanted it to feel natural, he should have had him be adamant about Bruce being Batsy in BB, and then start to question his motives in TDK, then it leads into TDKR where he's against it. But we didn't get any kind of character arch with that! So to the viewers, it feels like one minute he supports him, and then the next he doesn't. It just feels wayy out of character from what we know about this series. A complete 180! Oh, and what happened there in the middle of the movie? He just upright leaves Bruce to try and prove a point, but we never see any reaction from him when Bruce is presumed missing or dead? Hell, not only do we not see a reaction, but we don't see him at all until the VERY end! For someone who is supposed to be loyal to Bruce, and even steered him along the way when Bruce doubted himself, he really jumped ship when it was his time to doubt. It felt completely selfish on his part, which didn't feel true to his character, yet, there it is.

-The plot: Do I even have to get into this? It's plagued with many many plot holes and contradictions. I could seriously ramble on forever about this, but basically, let me break it down for you. Have you seen BB? Ok, well, that's basically the same story, only different encounters and different villains. Oh, and let me tell you how much I HATED Bruce being retired at the beginning, to only retire at the end. How much more could you rehash a rehash with this goddamn plot? It's like the Nolan bros got bombed in a B&R drinking game when coming up with this script. "Heyyyy, mannnn, you know what would be original and cool? If the LOS tried to destroy Gotham! But in the beginning Bruce is retired, and at the end, Bruce retires. I mean, just give me an award right now, brahhhhhh...aaaaaaand drink". And as far as contradictions are concerned, does anyone else see the obvious ones throughout this series with what we got in TDKR? Apparently, Batman hated copycats in TDK with "that's not what I had in mind", yet, that's exactly what he had in mind with Blake or anyone in TDKR! From TDK's "What's the difference between me and you?", to TDKR's "I'm just a symbol, anybody can be Batman".....what the living **** is going on here?


-Blake: Again with all of my ranting, it seems odd to put these people down, cause they all did a great job of acting their role, but damn. Again, let me just say, it's the friggin scripts fault, not the actors(besides Cotillard), and Blake is a PRIME example of just that. Butttttttttttttt, let me just say, his first encounter with Wayne: HORRIBLE! For a second there I thought I was watching SM3 when Harry's Butler was explaining to him how his father died. Ok, cool, you sly detective, you! You figured out who Batman was, because you were an orphan too, and you have a face and he has a face, and everybody has a face face, now you can realize what is what. My only reaction to this would be-


Should I be "surprised" that he took up the mantle? NO! It was obvious with how much attention he had on him in the previews and how much he attended any kind of live event that had anything to do with the movie. Yeah, sure JGL just has a minor role, that's why he's standing next to Bale, Oldman, and Nolan at all the awards shows....cause you know, his role is minor.

-The ending: So let me get this straight! The nuke had a blast radius of 6 miles, and Batman was in The Bat with the nuke and there was 5 seconds to spare, and yet, he made it out alive?


I'm sorry, but that's the worst ending I have ever seen in my life! I seriously can't think of anything more stupid than that. At least with something like The Room, you know for sure that the character is dead. Now, if he shot himself in the face, and everybody was crying, yet, at the end, he was still alive, I would give it to The Room, just for being a horrible movie altogether. But a Nolan Movie? 5......5 seconds....FIVE seconds to spare, and somehow he bailed out of The Bat, and traveled out of the blast radius of the nuke to be free in 5 seconds?

What else could I say about the ending?


Now, with all that said, and I'm sure there is MUCH more I could get into about how much this movie was a disappointment, but I'll leave it as such. Do I still stand behind my comparison of Batman Forever to TDKR? Yes, I think I always will. Is the quality exactly the same? No, BF is different in execution, and so is TDKR, but I view them in the same "I love/hate them" category regardless. Sooooo much wasted potential, to an otherwise really good Batman movie underneath. So close, yet, soooooooo far.

6.5/10 for me.