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

[Azrael]

I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)

[thecolorsblend]

I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)

It's anything but clear. But even if you buy that, what, he somehow escapes the blast radius in five seconds? That part of the movie will never work for me. Ever.

[Travesty]

It's one of the worst implementations for a twist I have ever seen on film. It's laughably bad.

[BatmAngelus]

Great review, Travesty. 

I agree with a lot of things you said and thought I should address this one:

-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.

I think Michael Caine's Alfred was one of the best elements of Batman Begins and it's a shame that his role got smaller and smaller as the movies went on.  Really, if Nolan wanted to explore Alfred being opposed to Bruce's crusade, it would've made the most sense to do it in Begins when Bruce proposes the idea of beating the crap out of criminals in a Batsuit, since the average person would naturally think, "Are you nuts?" and then we could've seen Alfred won over and understand this was something Bruce needed.

I feel as if these conflicts, like Alfred opposing Bruce this late in the game in Rises, got forced in when the writers wanted them to pop up.  They weren't exactly organic or consistent with their characterizations.  The trilogy arcs for the main regular characters- Bruce, Alfred, Gordon- turned odd across the board once you get to Rises. 

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

Nolan probably thought if Alfred reacted to Bruce disappearing, as well as even having him involved in helping Bruce's return to Gotham, it might have somehow spoiled the "surprise" in the end. And this is one of the many reasons why I really have no patience for Nolan's movies. He seems so determined to use plot twists to surprise the audience that it ends up creating sudden out-of-character moments and hurts the story. Alfred in one movie goes from saying "Endure. You could be the outcast. Gotham needs you!" to suddenly having a change of heart in the next one saying "Leaving you is the only way to get you to understand...you're not Batman anymore." Why the hell would Alfred even try to talk Bruce out of coming back from retirement when a new threat like Bane appears?

The Talia subplot was laughable too, especially her inadequate attempt to destroy Bruce Wayne. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to make her plot her revenge against Bruce by going to bed with him ( ), and have him sent to prison where there is a strong chance he could escape, and not simply demand Bane to just kill him and be done with it?!

[BatmAngelus]

Better yet, she could've stabbed him when she was finally alone with him in the Manor and not have to sleep with him at all! 

WHOOPS!   

[thecolorsblend]

...

Okay, wow, so I never thought I'd see the day where I have to defend Nolan but here goes.

I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become. In TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.

If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him. Outside of those circumstances though, Alfred saw no option except to walk out and not be party to the self-destruction of the closest thing he'll ever have to a son.

Of course, that analysis makes Bruce a colossal prick for faking his death like he did but I never argued I could defend everything.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become.

I realize what I'm about to say is a little beside the point of what we're talking about, but here it goes: I thought the way they presented the idea of Batman being a symbol that people could look up to was poorly done, as far as the first two films are concerned. Batman intends to become an "incorruptible" symbol, but not only do you barely see what sort of impact he has on the city, he ends up destroying the city every time he drives the Tumbler and Batpod. At least in movies like Raimi's Spider-Man or Donner's Superman, you are shown - not told - how people react to the hero's impact they're having on their cities. Worse, Batman ends up corrupting his symbol anyway by covering up the Dent murders (which I find absurd, wouldn't there be more people like Blake questioning why would a crime-fighter turn into cold-blooded maniac despite all the times he saved the city? But that's another topic itself...)

Come to think of it, I personally have a hard time believing that Alfred would ever support Bruce's crusade in the first place, that's how much Batman's recklessness and stupidity bothered me. I understood that Batman being the "aspiring symbol" was supposed to be a theme throughout this trilogy and while the idea itself is good, I honestly thought its execution was poor. If he wasn't such a driving wrecking ball, I would have agreed with you.

In TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.

Yeah, Bruce was out of shape, but his depression was because of his belief that Rachel would go back to him, until she died. Alfred, despite knowing the truth, kept it away from Bruce for eight bloody years. And as you know Bruce fell apart and became a recluse over time, yet Alfred conveniently decides to tell the truth about Rachel just when the city is on the brink of another crisis? Why not tell him a long time ago, if Bruce became shut inside and stopped living his life?

If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him.

I have a hard time believing that because Nolan and company thought it was a good idea to have the vengeful Talia go to bed with her father's killer instead of just simply whacking him. Look, I don't mean to be snob, I know all movies have flaws and lapse in logic (I even criticize the Burton movies for this too, not only Nolan's) but personally I thought the three latest movies, not just this one, could have been better thought out, to say the least. Especially if they're supposedly "elevating the genre" like I keep hearing whenever I go. I have nothing against anyone who enjoyed these movies, but I was extremely disappointed with all of them.

[BatmAngelus]

If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him. Outside of those circumstances though, Alfred saw no option except to walk out and not be party to the self-destruction of the closest thing he'll ever have to a son.

colors, I think your interpretation is 100% valid and what Nolan was going for. 

It just seems inconsistent to me (as well as to Travesty and Laughing Fish) that Alfred would be so vocal against Bruce endangering himself in Movie #3 when, in hindsight, he seemed okay with Bruce risking his life night after night in the first place, picking up bruises and getting gassed by Scarecrow/stabbed by Ra's and Joker during the first two movies.  (This could be more of a criticism of the previous movies than of Rises).  If this was a recurring conflict that finally escalated in Rises to Alfred walking out, then I wouldn't have had a problem.

I realize they did something similar with Alfred leaving in Knightfall 'cause he couldn't take Bruce wrecking his body further, but the difference in my mind was that this was after Bane broke his back and Alfred had truly seen Bruce near death from his injuries and experienced the closest thing to his worst nightmare, as opposed to seeing him moping around Wayne Manor for years.  Bruce was in a wheelchair now and a lot more messed up than he was in the movie.  I know the Nolans were probably shooting for the same idea, but it came across differently to me.

Still, I had more of a problem with the fact that one of the best players in the trilogy was gone for most of the movie, than I did for his reasons for walking out, so this isn't as huge of an issue to me.

Of course, that analysis makes Bruce a colossal prick for faking his death like he did but I never argued I could defend everything.

Don't worry, I haven't been able to find anyone who can defend it either.   

[Azrael]

I think it was made clear that when the timer is seen clicking the last few seconds, Batman has already ejected, leaving the autopilot on. If I remember, Batman isn't seen in this brief shot, only the timer. (Don't have the movie right now for reference)

It's anything but clear. But even if you buy that, what, he somehow escapes the blast radius in five seconds? That part of the movie will never work for me. Ever.

2:09 Close up of Batman
2:14 Sea
2:19 Timer

What I meant is that this shot of the sea between these two brief shots might imply that several seconds, or even a full minute, passes between them, it's not necessarily real time, there are even shots of Blake intertwined before and after, like a montage. Yes, it's left vague, but it's not explicit that Batman sitting in the cockpit and the timer reaching 0:05 are a mere 5 seconds apart.