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

[zDBZ]

I thought, after a few weeks, it was time to have a thread for full reviews by board members. Mine is taken, word for word, from my post on BOF, so references to my being tired and it being late can be explained thus.

I really tried to avoid spoilers for Rises. After the first trailer hit, I went into lock-down; I didn't watch any of the other trailers, I didn't follow news on the film, I didn't go to this section of the forum (or really to the forum in general) - I had it out of my mind. When the film finally premiered, I still kept away; I'm the kind of guy who'd rather wait for the crowds to die down than rush out on opening day, and I didn't want to run into spoilers while I waited. But sadly, this was not to be. I stumbled upon a thread in another forum, and all the major surprises were blown for me, though the details were still to be discovered by a proper viewing. I can't say that I had a positive reaction to all that I read in that thread, but I tried to keep an open mind going into Rises.

And with that open mind, and having seen the film once (I will see it again, though that may not be possible for a while), I'd give the picture a "C-" grade. It falls somewhere between Begins, which I don't really care for anymore, and Dark Knight, which I like very much despite some (often overlooked IMO) weaknesses. The following review may be harsh at times, and may give the impression that I'm less impressed by the film than I actually was; I think it's fair to say that the praises of Rises have been sung plenty and loudly by others, so I'm trying to offer a different look at it.

The Bruce Wayne/Batman of the Nolan trilogy has never been "my" Batman. If you want to know "my" Batman, look at the Burton films, TAS, and the Loeb/Sale collaborations, and find the point on the graph where they all meet. I've mentioned this in past discussions about the Nolan films, Begins especially. But this is the first time - in any Batman film - where the portrayal of Batman himself is my chief complaint against it. This is in part a simple matter of preferring a different take on the character, but I do think there are inconsistencies within the film and the trilogy with the Batman they chose to depict.

Throughout the Nolan films, we have characters stating, through dialogue, that Bruce is consumed by Batman, that Batman is his true face, and that the day will never come when Bruce won't need the mask. Most of these lines are said by Rachel, and let's set aside for a moment the fact that Rachel is never privvy to any incident or conversation that would provide evidence to support this opinion of hers. Whoever was saying the lines, I never felt that the films supported them. The Bruce Wayne of the Nolan films, upon his return to Gotham, has IMO always come off as a rational, sane, idealistic person who has come to terms with the deaths of his parents (if not right away, then by the end of Begins), and simply defends his city and honours his family's legacy in his own way. Batman is not who he truly is; it's a disguise, it's a choice, and something he could hang up whenever he wanted to, in fact makes plans to do just that. As Batman, he keeps a sense of humour while on the job. While I don't prefer the character this way (why not become an activist instead? You can become a symbol without creating a disguise), I don't consider it invalid and I don't hate it. Unfortunately, there's all that dialogue claiming that this isn't the case, and there are also statements from the filmmakers. From Christian Bale: "He's a messed-up individual, as well. He's got all sorts of issues. He's just as twisted and messed-up as the villains he's fighting, and that's part of the beauty of the whole story." "You couldn't pull it off unless you became a beast inside that suit." From Christopher Nolan: "Batman is a marvelously complex character-somebody who has absolute charm and then, just like that, can turn it into ice-cold ruthlessness (emphasis mine)." If this was the type of Batman they wanted to portray, then I'm afraid to say that I think they failed. I've rarely felt the beast in Bale's Batman, nor has his Bruce ever seemed as disturbed as Ra's, or Joker, or Bane. And I don't get any sense that these sorts of contradictions between the dialogue and the performance are intentional; they just seem like contradictions.

This makes it very hard to know whether or not it's believeable that Bruce would hang up the cape and cowl for eight years. If this Bruce is the sane man who does this by choice, it's more believeable (if not acceptable, but more on that in a minute); if he's the man lost inside his monster who can't cope without the suit, it's not believeable at all. But either way, I just cannot accept this premise. The only story told thus far that has Bruce hanging up the cowl that I've bought is the one told in Batman Beyond - in his old age, with his allies all gone and his heart very bitter, he's left with the choice of retiring or resorting to measures he despises. Giving up the mask because he made himself a public enemy doesn't cut it IMO. Even with the Dent Act taking care of the Mob - after Scarecrow, after Ra's, after the Joker, why on Earth would Bruce assume that some other threat like that wouldn't rear its head one day? But that's what the plot says has happened, and it also says that, after the loss of Rachel, Bruce felt that there was no hope for him to lead a normal life and so withdrew from the world into his manor. This is rather hard to reconcile with Batman's comic history, full of dead and tortured friends and loved ones, but we're not talking comics, we're talking films. I never got into the romance between Bruce and Rachel. I felt it was very poorly established in Begins, which affected how much weight it carried in Dark Knight. I've never liked Rachel as a character, and I don't think Bale had much chemistry with either actress who played her. So this notion fell like a lead balloon in my eyes. Though I will say that Bale's performance as the Howard Hughes-type Bruce was very good, and it did a fine job of selling Bruce's broken-down state (making Alfred's exposition rather unnecessary.)

The decision to pick back up the mantle - strange goings-on and the pleas of Blake and Gordon and the prodding of Fox - was alright, but Alfred's fear that Bruce wanted to fail seemed to come out of nowhere. If I may shift gears for a minute to Alfred, the decision to have him leave was a bit of a sticky spot for me as well. I realise that there is some precedent for Alfred leaving Bruce in the comics (in Knightfall no less), but the decision in the comics to have Alfred leave Bruce after he's crippled and still continuing to push himself made much more sense IMO. Alfred's attitude toward Bruce's life has varied considerably throughout this series. In Begins, he's concerned that Bruce is losing himself in Batman and damaging his father's name while helping him create Batman. In Dark Knight, he encourages Bruce not to give in to the Joker's demands to reveal himself, defends Bruce to Rachel, and advises Bruce to remember what "we" stand for. Some time has passed between Begins and Dark Knight; I don't consider this change in outlook a flaw or an inconsistency. But in this film, Alfred seems to view Gotham as a place of misery, without a chance of rising above its checkered past. I'm not sure why he thinks bringing up Rachel would deter Bruce from what he thinks is a suicidal course. I won't go so far as to say it rang false, but his decision to leave did not feel entirely earned.

Back to Batman - I hate the notion that "anyone can be Batman," and I'm rather surprised at some of the support and defences this concept has gotten. If the symbol is what matters, if anyone can be the man inside the suit, then why didn't Bruce recruit the imitators from Dark Knight, train them, instill in them the rejection of firearms (more on that later), and enhance the mystique of the symbol by spreading this army throughout the city? This whole notion of interchangeable mantle-bearers seems not unlike Batman, Inc., or the decision to have Dick in the cowl for such a long time. This notion is strikingly at odds with the fact that Batman came into being through a very specific set of circumstances happening to a very specific person. Saying that this is a more realistic take on the world, that realistically this Bruce would have to retire at some point, doesn't cover the flaw in this line of thinking. Bruce is Batman; the latter isn't just a costume to be passed along to another person. I don't think this is a case of me projecting my preferences; any version of this character must inherit this notion or lose a huge piece of his core. This is why I cannot accept Bruce's retirement at the end either. On this issue we go back to the contradictions in this trilogy's depiction of Bruce - it's more believeable one way, if not enjoyable. But I don't understand why Bruce lies about the auto-pilot in the Bat. Why not fill Lucius, Alfred, and Gordon in? Lucius especially - as important as Fox has been to Batman in this series, why wouldn't Bruce at least leave word that Fox should work with Blake? How's Blake supposed to maintain all that equipment? Why leave Gotham at all? It's his home, and he's saved it, brought it back like he planned in Begins; couldn't he stick around to enjoy it?

On the subject of Blake - I'm sorry, but "Robin" was corny IMO. I hesitate to say that they should have named him after one of the Robins, as that would mean a drastic re-working of the origins of any of them. Maybe "Terry McGinnis" could have worked as his moniker. Hell, Jean Paul Valley could have worked. But for all the reasons listed above, I couldn't get behind the ending to his arc. And I'm not sure his disgust and rejection of institutions like the police is entirely earned. His anger at the Dent cover-up and the idiot army guy are palpable, but I just don't know if it was enough. I'll have to look for that thread again next time I see the film.

(Speaking of that idiot army guy: this is more of a nitpick, but after the exhibition of goodness by the people on the boats in Dark Knight, I kind of wish we would have seen the army display such morality when it came time to decide whether to blow up a bridge full of children.)

Not much I can say about Gordon, except that I wish he had a bit more to do. Had the Blake character not been in the film, he could have. And I don't know why they needed to lose his family.

Bane. I don't really agree with the complaints that he was hard to understand; in a few spots, maybe, but I found his voice pretty clear and more intelligible than Bale's Bat-voice. I did think his accent sounded like a bad Sean Connery impression at times, and this led to my laughing at inappropriate moments in the film. One of those moments was the first Bat/Bane fight, which I have to say I found underwhelming. The image of Bane breaking Batman was powerful (and a pleasant surprise, that Nolan would choose that staging), but as a whole the battle wasn't all that impressive IMO. Part of that was due to the music, and part of that was the lack of visible damage to either combatant. I wasn't expecting or wanting a bloodbath, but we could have at least seen some scuff marks and grime get on the suit or Bane's arms. The second fight was an improvement. This Bane is rather prone to megalomaniac-type speeches, which sometimes are quite eloquent and entertaining and sometimes hammy and hokey. With the changes made to his origin story and the absence of Venom, I'm tempted to say that Bane could have been swapped for an original villain. However, I'm not a huge fan of Bane in the comics, and in many ways I'd call this version of the character a step up. It makes it all the more disappointing, then, to learn that, for the second time, Bane is ultimately the henchman of the villainess in live action, albeit a much, much, MUCH better henchman this time 'round.

I am actually surprised that Miranda ended up being Talia, but not because the film did a great job in setting up a shock. I'm surprised by it because, as soon as that character was annnounced, so many people guessed who she was, and it seemed so obvious, that I figured she had to be someone else. Turns out, she wasn't, and I agree with anyone who's objected to the way the legend of "The Child" was told and to the length of time it took to get the secret out.

The villains' plan, if I remember right, was this: first, break the Bat and leave him in prison. From prison, he would watch as the League siezes control of Gotham. They would instill a false hope of liberation in the people, encouraging them to commit lawlessness and therefore prove Batman's failure. At the end of the five months, that hope would amount to naught as the bomb would detonate, destroying Gotham. Then it becomes Bruce's turn to die. This is fine, except for the fact that we never see the general populace buying into Bane's deception. The whole "class" issue of the film has very flimsy support. The only Gothamite who expresses a distrust and hatred for the rich is Selina, and she does this at a charity hosted by Miranda, who paid for it out-of-pocket. The only poor that we see suffering are the kids whose orphanage isn't getting the funds it needs - from Bruce Wayne, who doesn't have the money because of something started by Miranda. We see some rich jerks, but we also see Bruce, Lucius, and that one Wayne board member who was also in Begins. Given that a big part of the plan was breaking Bruce's spirit, it's really shocking that Nolan devoted no time to showing the populace accepting or rejecting Bane's temptation. We're just left with the League, a bunch of criminals, and the cops. And I do wonder why Bane would've kept Lucius and the cops alive, given the danger they could pose.

Now, on to some positives. Anne Hathaway was wonderful as Selina. At the end of the day I might still prefer Pfeiffer, but Hathaway was tough, charming, dangerous, sexy, and compassionate, and even I'll concede that her interpretation has more comic support than her predecessor's did. The relationship between Selina and Bruce in this film had echoes of Hush, and while I think that story as a whole is a mixed bag, the Bat/Cat stuff was fantastic IMO, so I'm always happy to see that side of their relationship. I like the Newmar-esque costume, though seeing her alongside the very armoured Batman made for an odd mixture of looks. I can't fault anything in her performance, I thought she got her fair share of screentime, and for the first time, I think Bale has chemistry with his leading lady. I don't know that the story really provides a reason or a moment where Selina falls for Bruce. Romance is Nolan's great weak spot as a director IMO. The Stephen King criticism of Kubrick - that he thought too much and felt to little - I feel can be applied to Nolan, or at least to his films and to his handling of anything heartfelt and emotional in particular. His is a very cerebral style, and it doesn't handle love well. The way she casually disregards Batman's "no guns, no killing" rule - without reprimand - seemed a bit iffy to me as well (and for a guy who doesn't like guns, Bats sure has no qualms about letting Fox stick them on every single vehicle he uses.) And, as a minor nitpick - couldn't someone have said "Catwoman" in the movie? You could have just had it as a throwaway comment by a cop or a news reporter. You said "Two-Face" aloud in the last film!

(Another nitpick: the abundance of daytime scenes in Dark Knight was disappointing, but it just doesn't feel right to see Batman himself spend so much time in the daylight.)

The production design this time around is more interesting than previous Nolan entries, and the more "epic" plot and such elements as the Bat gave this film a touch of that wild, lavish, ludicrous fantasy that permeates so much of the comic. I was happy to see that. The music never really struck me at any point in the film; Hans Zimmer is just not my guy. The film throughout suffered from a tendency to explain too much in chunks of exposition, and the actors couldn't always deliver it without sounding stiff, but when they weren't reciting explanations for everything, they did very well. If you lost a lot of the dialogue, the final third of the film could have been the best climax out of any of the Batman films (aside from the ending). And for a good-as three hours' film, it moves along at a brisk pace.

I'm sure I've forgotten to mention certain things, but this has taken me two hours to write as it is, and I have an appointment in the morning. I may expand further, but for now, I repeat: a C-. Not bad, but I had a lot of problems with it, chiefly the depiction of the main character.

[thecolorsblend]

I've never been hip to Nolan's movies. I'd give Begins a C-, no question about it. TDK... eh, C, I guess. But honestly, even though I've only seen TDKRises once, I think it's maybe a B-. Or a C+. Maybe the formula is finally soaking in for me, I dunno. But you giving TDKRises a C-? Seems a bit harsh.

Anyway. I guess one major thing I liked about TDKRises is the conclusion. Not just "the ending" but the CONCLUSION. I think everybody comes up with how they see things ending for their favorite characters. Superman? Once he outlives all his peers, friends and family, I gotta go with the Grant Morrison school that says he'd leave Earth. That's it. Hasta la vista. Spider-Man? If ever there was a character who was destined to die in the line of duty, it'd be Spider-Man.

But Batman to me is the guy who'd wake up one morning somewhere in his early 40's and experience what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. He'd realize that his parents would never have wanted this life for him. He's done a lot for this city, he's saved it from threats innumerable and Gotham City is fundamentally a better place for him having been in it. He's fought the good fight, he's finished the race. I firmly believe he'd marry some chick (Selina seems like a good candidate), move away from Gotham and take his shot at happiness. He may or may not appoint someone to take his place as the city's protector but he'd be out of there one way or the other.

Granted, that's not precisely what we see in TDKRises, I get that, but it still brings Batman and, more importantly Bruce, to a place of completion.

Whatever problems the film may have (too much this, not enough that), the conclusion of the movie cuts through a lot of BS for me. A lot.

[zDBZ]

I've never been hip to Nolan's movies. I'd give Begins a C-, no question about it. TDK... eh, C, I guess. But honestly, even though I've only seen TDKRises once, I think it's maybe a B-. Or a C+. Maybe the formula is finally soaking in for me, I dunno. But you giving TDKRises a C-? Seems a bit harsh.

Well, I'm harsher on Begins than you are too - I give it a "D."

Anyway. I guess one major thing I liked about TDKRises is the conclusion. Not just "the ending" but the CONCLUSION. I think everybody comes up with how they see things ending for their favorite characters. Superman? Once he outlives all his peers, friends and family, I gotta go with the Grant Morrison school that says he'd leave Earth. That's it. Hasta la vista. Spider-Man? If ever there was a character who was destined to die in the line of duty, it'd be Spider-Man.

But Batman to me is the guy who'd wake up one morning somewhere in his early 40's and experience what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. He'd realize that his parents would never have wanted this life for him. He's done a lot for this city, he's saved it from threats innumerable and Gotham City is fundamentally a better place for him having been in it. He's fought the good fight, he's finished the race. I firmly believe he'd marry some chick (Selina seems like a good candidate), move away from Gotham and take his shot at happiness. He may or may not appoint someone to take his place as the city's protector but he'd be out of there one way or the other.

And I prefer a more self-deluded Batman, someone who regards his childhood vow as one that can only be broken by death and never fully accepts the damage being Batman has done to his life.

[The Dark Knight]

As I've said in other posts, the ending didn't do it for me. He lied about Dent 8 years ago, then lied again about his own death. Narratively that doesn't cut it. The 'end' is really only the last few minutes of the movie anyway - even if I did like it, it doesn't make up for the great majority of the runtime beforehand.

The rest of it is dominated by Blake and co, with Batman and Bruce reduced to being a side character. I'm not chomping at the bit to rewatch Blake deliver gas bottles, Gordon visit Foley's house, Blake arguing on a bridge and so on.

They could have cut out half of the stuff in there and y'know, given it to characters we care about. I'm fine with a long runtime if it's interesting to watch and not focused where I don't want it to be.

The movie felt like a John Blake set-up, as if he's going to get a movie after this. That's how much time they devoted to him. I don't really care about the what ifs, I'm more interested in the here and now, wrapping up Bruce's story that started in Begins. Instead of getting time dedicated to Bruce in prison, instead we're treated to a character introduced just in this movie driving around and running with shotguns.

I've seen it twice now, and second time around you really notice how little Bruce/Batman is in this. Both times when it came to the 'grand finale', I didn't care. The whole movie is about building things up, and it just left me saying get on with it already. First act - Batman hasn't been seen, will he come back? After a long while he comes back and is bashed. Second act - Batman's gone again and they build up Bane's terror. Third act - Batman's back for some brief, unsatisfying scenes and then it's over. And the last shot of the trilogy is Blake rising up on a platform. Oh joy.

To me, there's one word that describes the movie, and it's underwhelming.

[riddler]

here's the nostalgia critic review;

For the most part i actually agree with his entire analysis on the Nolan films.
He liked the first half of Batman Begins but not the second, I feel the other way around. We both loved the dark knight and dislike the dark knight rises.

There's plenty of plot holes through the entire film. Including the fact that Bane's motivation is leaky and seemed to have a plan similar yet inferior to the Joker's.  I was also bored out of my mind in the final sequence I stopped caring or cheering for Batman.

[The Dark Knight]

I agree with Nostalgia Critic. He is in line with my thinking on the matter.

[riddler]

It was interesting because he also did a 'Chester E Bum' review and usually those are actually only on good movies. But he did a good job illustrating the plot holes;

-any way you cut it Batman taking the rap for Harvey Dent is weak. Nolan defenders will claim that they had to cover up Dent going crazy but why would they? The guy's fiancee dies and he loses half his face, it doesn't undermine anything he did before hand. Even if he went crazy on his own without that, it doesn't undermine any previous convictions he got unless it's proven he tampered with evidence. Even though he was willing, the fact that it's proven Gordon framed Batman for those murders undermines gordon as now it's shown that he's no longer the 'good honest cop' he built his career on.
-What is the basis for Bruces physical health deterioration. He suffered no visible injuries in the dark knight and hadn't fought crime since. Now he can barely walk? And then once they no longer need that plot point, he magically heals going right from needing a cane to walking perfectly fine?
-as mentioned the Bale voice got worse in every film. You can go on all day about him masking his voice. Keaton did it fine and nobody complained. Even Kilmer did a decent job of it.
-Blake barely saw Bruce Wayne or Batman up close yet immediately deduces on his own that they are the same. Yet Gordon, Selina, and Dent never do?
-as mentioned they practically could have called the film 'John Blake' as he got more screen time
-the only character who's true motivation seemed legit was Selina Kyle's; a cat burgalar who is good at what she does. Alfred supported Bruce as batman the entire time, he knew Bruce was the best shot at saving the city against Bane, Bruce obviously picked an appropriate time to return to the cowl, why abandon him after all that?
-Bane's motivation for causing so much chaos is unclear. So the league of shadows needs to destroy a civilization to rebuild a new one from the ashes? Or is it about attacking Bruce Wayne?
-why is Tate/talia needed? Bruce seems to be driving his own company into the ground on his own.

[The Dark Knight]

"So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it." - Apparently he can't.

[Batman333]

Looks like Nolan couldn't stop the threequel curse. 

Rises was a fun movie, just not a good Batman movie.  Plot Holes, weak villain deaths, a ton of crap to complain about...  Its just that this movie was hyped up as as good or better than The Dark Knight despite Heath Ledger not being in the fillm, but the movie was mediocre.  It was a fun popcorn movie.  It didn't 'move' me in any way shape or form.  And it felt like a different genre than the last one.  TDK was a crime drama.  TDKR was a comic book movie.  Honestly, the main problem besides Batman being barely in the film, was the fact it took place mostly in the DAY.  Batman is a night movie.  Thats what I loved about Burton's movies.  He is a creature of the night.  Not a costumed hero like Watchmen!  He comes out in the night and fights crime.  Not save the world.  And whats up with the bomb plot.  Wasnt that the same plot as the Adam West Batman the Movie plot, 'SOME DAYS YOU JUST CANT GET RID OF A BOMB'.  It was cliche.  Felt like Rocky 3 meets Braveheart meets Die Hard meets The Simpsons Movie. 

Batman 1989: A+
Batman Returns: A+
Batman Forever: B-
Batman & Robin: D-
Batman Begins: B+
The Dark Knight: A-
The Dark Knight Rises: B-

[The Dark Knight]

Apart from saying Nolan uses 3D, David Cronenberg gets it in the sense the movies are quite dull and are still about a guy dressed as a bat.

''I don't think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it's still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don't think it's elevated. Christopher Nolan's best movie is 'Memento', and that is an interesting movie."

''I don't think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they're 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he's shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That's really tricky and difficult to do."

''I read about it in American Cinematography Magazine, and technically, that's all very interesting. The movie, to me, they're mostly boring.''

''A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, ''Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art.' I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about.'

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/david-cronenberg-nolans-batman-trilogy-is-mostly-boring_1392838