The new Batman movie is an entertaining superhero saga and is certainly worthy of the excitement it has generated after the absolute masterpiece that was 2008’s The Dark Knight. However, where that movie derived breathtaking drama and genuine emotional weight from its comic book heroes and villains, the new Batman often falls short when it tries to reach those heights.
The film wisely begins with a high-altitude action sequence in which the film’s central villain “Bane” is introduced but it lacks the clarifying details and impact of The Dark Knight’s riveting opening. On a positive note, Tom Hardy as Bain does a commendable job filling the role of Batman’s arch nemesis. Like Heath Ledger’s “Joker” in The Dark Knight, Bane is a grotesque figure born of pain and motivated not by financial gain but by the desire to inflict his inner anguish on the world at large. In The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan and Ledger stripped down the comic book villain of the Joker to his tormented core. He was not slick and perversely charming like Nicholson’s Joker but a mad dog with tattered clothes, greasy hair and grossly smeared lipstick, haunted by demons that seemed all too real. In many ways Bane is cut from that same gritty cloth with his grubby leather garb and sinister metal mask that looks like it could have been pulled from a museum of medical oddities. The voice given to Bane by Hardy is truly that of a comic book villain but it communicates a palpable malevolence and coldness that gives his villainy some real weight. He is never as fascinating a creation as the Joker but how could he be? With only his sinister vocal inflections, hulking frame and sharp eyes to work with behind his mask, Hardy’s Bain is more interesting than half a dozen other super-villains swathed in colorful costumes, brandishing magical powers and elaborate weaponry. Bain is not opposed to employing a few modern-age weapons now and again but mostly he relies on his superhuman strength to crush his foes like bugs underfoot. The official DC comic book explanation for his concrete-shattering strength is a mysterious steroidal drug constantly inhaled through his mask but the film touches on this explanation so briefly that you are apt to miss it the first time around.
The other new masked arrival in Nolan’s Batman universe is Catwoman (referred to in the film only as ”Selina Kyle”) who is played with great wit and sex-appeal by Anne Hathaway. I have never been a huge Hathaway fan as she so often plays obnoxious characters in obnoxious movies but she won me over as a master-thief in deadly high-heels. Also, it’s hard to imagine anyone looking much better in the shiny black body-suit she dons once the action heats up, particularly when she carefully mounts the bat bike- an image I won’t soon expel from my dirty mind. Christian Bale too is as good as ever as the brooding defender of Gotham but he doesn’t have quite as much to work with as he did the last time around. We first see him gimp onto the screen with a cane and rumpled robe to confront Hathaway at a Wayne Manor soiree from which he keeps a Gatsby-like distance. Despite being a recluse who has apparently lost the will to shave or dress himself and requires a walking-stick to get around, he still looks like he works out eight hours a day but I won’t fault the film for that. After all, it’s not long before he’s stepping back into the Bat-suit (with the help of a new robo-knee) and it’s not a moment too soon.
Bane with his band of loyal thugs and sleazy business associates are getting the ball rolling on a brand new scheme to destroy Gotham. His plan involves detonating a nuclear device that Wayne had intended to use to create clean energy for Gotham. Things start to get a bit convoluted there but the point is made that Wayne wants to save Gotham while Bane wants to blow it up. Also, the film uses this opportunity to take a jab or two at greedy business interests that mock any real efforts to improve the world. Obviously when you introduce the idea of clean energy in this day and age along with references to economic disparity and terrorist tactics you are heading into political waters. Unfortunately however, the film doesn’t always succeed in its attempts at political or social relevance. Certainly that is not a requirement of an entertaining superhero movie but The Dark Knight was so strong and cohesive in the area of socio-political commentary that Rises sometimes seems a bit muddled by comparison. Having said that, I commend Nolan and the other filmmakers for wading into those waters even if they get a little too murky at times.
More detrimental to the impact of the film are the numerous scenes which either try to plug back into the emotional resonance of Begins and Dark Knight and unsuccessfully strive to give dramatic weight to the comic book characters and struggles inhabiting Nolan’s grand stage. The more the film tries to provoke shudders of emotion from the audience with scenes of Alfred beseeching “Master Wayne” to “come back to the world” or not put on the Bat-suit again (you know the drill) the more the film sags with bloated melodrama. In the first two Nolan-directed Batman installments, Michael Caine as the loving and lovable Alfred got laughs and stirred emotions with his dry wit and deep caring for Wayne but here he just gets laughs and they are not always intentional. Too often he comes across not as the sharp-witted and big-hearted character he is known as but as a blubbering pest who wants to turn everything into a three-hanky soap opera. One actor that does get plenty to sink his teeth into and makes the most of it is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who is rarely less than excellent in his film performances and does not disappoint here. He previously worked with Nolan on Inception and under his direction again here delivers a highly effective portrayal of a ”hot-head” rookie cop driven by the same anger and burning desire for justice that motivates Batman.
Despite its many strengths and the exceptional pool of talent involved, The Dark Knight Rises spends a bit too much time trying to create weighty drama while the bubble of excitement deflates and the tension uncoils. It relies heavily on a powerfully ominous soundtrack by Hans Zimmer to create its dramatic impact but the thundering score is not always matched by the drama on the screen. For a three hour movie about Batman there just don’t seem to be enough ‘Bifs’, ‘Bams’ and ‘Pows’ and his time spent hovering around in his new Bat-copter doesn’t make up for it. I appreciate the poignancy of Batman as a Rocky-like underdog rising up against the odds but it seems to me he spends too much time having his ass handed to him. Then, just when he gets into the swing of things he is sidelined again. On the bright side, there are plenty of scenes for you ladies of a shirtless Bale performing push-ups and sit-ups as he puts himself back together. Again, there is poignancy in his struggle to Rise yet again and foil the evil scheming of his foes, it’s just that somethimes the clock stretches out a bit too long.
The Dark Knight Rises is every bit as ambitious as its predecessor (for which I salute it) but it does not always live up to its lofty ambitions. It is however a highly entertaining action/drama and is certainly a respectable final chapter to Nolan’s trilogy. That said, if you want to see the superhero genre raised to the level of cinematic art I recommend The Dark Knight.
I have not seen the film yet but I am not surprised by your reaction. "The Dark Knight" was a special kind of action film experience that may not ever be matched again. Who knew that Heath Ledger would give such a unique, charismatic and somehow soulful performance? I still want to see the film although I don't have high expectations (I didn't have them before reading your review either). What most excites me about seeing it would probably to see what Gordon-Levit does and of course Catwoman is usually interesting.
The movie's not that good, but it does have Batman in it, so I kind of liked it. The Catwoman scenes were fun, I like the chemistry there, wish they'd put her in it more. I thought the villain, Bane, was dull – - poor decision to have him wear a face mask, nothing for the actor to do. I resented the film's constant 9/11 allusions, the Wall Street occupy movement non- comment, as well as a Jesus moment when Batman's getting dragged away barefoot (give me a break, this is a Batman movie). Not to mention bad twists and repeat information aimed at a lowest common denominator audience; the script is not very good. It's a sequel, made for the sole purpose of generating revenue, and it feels like it. Yet I still enjoyed it. The action sequences were fun, the last stretch is exciting. I'm a push over for Batman movies, it's nostalgia I guess. As long as he's not riding rollerblades, I'm going to like it.
I actually thought the movie was great. Cat Women was lame In nearly every scene. Bane has a mask in dark knight comics and every other I think. Nolan's take on his mask is much better than the comics. It forced Tom Hardy to express himself with subtext in his eyes and body language. To be honest it was possibly the best acting Tom Hardy has ever done. The story was actually quite good and the art of the story was likely not understood by the layman. I have not heard anyone yet that understood the art in the story or even the real meaning of the story. Of course everyone says Nolan's stories are dumbed down for the masses. Oddly enough he has masters in English literature and most people can't grasp his dual narrative timelines. Never the less I think you should really study all three dark knight movies as a film maker and not as a critic that comes across as though they per judged the movie. You can learn much more from a Nolan movie about narrative story, relationships, conflicts, cinematography, building the moment, and metaphor which you pointed out but seemed to have held in contempt. It never ceases to amaze me how truly epic stories are defined as dumbed down for the masses because they apparently don't understand what an epic is or what is defined as complex narrative stories. No offense man but your opinion or prejudice of this genre has prevented you from understanding the complexity of the story and the EPIC (actual definition not opinion) structure of the narrative and execution. Sorry if this was harsh. I mean no disrespect. The Seattle film makers self aggrandizing art house click has really been but ing me out for the past two weeks. Directors that don't know about lenses and camera movements affect on the audiences emotions and the never ending belief in their terrible pointless scripts that have no structure because to follow a structure isn't art. They fail to realize what art actually is. I am down for a debate if you have a logical argument.
We all have different tastes but most of us like Batman. I saw the last one three times in the theatre I liked it so much. I might even go see this one again, it's fun… The term 'Art House' means different things to different people. Some people picture annoying, boring films or something confusing, but to me art house means good films or at least movies that are different and not too Hollywood. Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Sofia Coppola, Spike Lee – they could all fall under the term 'art house' but they often make really accessible, warm movies. We all have our own taste, and if you think Batman 3 is some kind of Art, we do disagree. You at least didn't think it was perfect – I liked Catwoman way more than you! Thanks for visiting WilltheFire Kilo.
Contrary to popular belief Arthouse is actually a clearly defined and quantifiable type of movie. Also contrary to popular layman belief Art has clearly defined rules and the first rule isn't there are no rules. That's ignorant BS put together by people who found a way to break the rule and did not understand why it worked. This is most commonly done in the rule of thirds and the 180 degree rule. According to the rules themselves you can diverge from them given the proper circumstances. In reality the rule of thirds is about balance. So if your scene is symetrical like many from Dark Knight you must center your subject. This does not actually break the rules since the subject is in the center third. But people think Nolan break the rule of thirds. They don't understand balance any more than they understand english literature which Nolan has a Masters degree in. Of course that does not make his films artistic. His adherence to the exploration of the structure you mock in your review makes his films artistic. You see the structure of art is not left up for opinion. My child smearing paint around on paper is not art. There is no reason for it. There is no composition, no purposeful texture, patter, balance, there is no exploration of these rules. No it's just paint smeared on paper. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
Dark Knight Rises is artistic and that is also not an opinion it's a definable fact. In fact it's an Epic. Oddly enough the very points about metaphors that you made are what define Dark Knight Rises as an Epic. By definition an Epic is artistry of the highest form. Now your opinion may be that this movie was very poor art. That would be a very valid point of view. You can't however make a case based on your opinion that this movie is not artistic since you clearly don't understand that art is not defined by opinion. I am sure there are many people who will ignorantly argue art has no rules and it's subjective blah blah blah. That won't change the fact that they are completely ignorant of the subject and wrong. I am no master of writing or film making however my very basic level knowledge obtained from film school has at least provided me the skills to find the art in Dark Knight Rises and notice that it is in fact an Epic.
One can further make the argument that anytime a story can be told with visuals alone the art form of cinema is present. Only the prejudice and self aggrandizing arthouse hacks will call a movie too Hollywood as if that is some how a clearly defined or quantifiable term. Most Hollywood movies are actually both artististic and Epic in nature. It's possibly no coincidence that Epic movies rank highest at the box office and that art house film critics say they are popcorn. There is a lot of pop corn movies but I have seen that term attributed to Inception, Batman Trilogy, Bourne trilogy, and many others which are actually Epic's and the highest form of writing. I won't say they were the highest quality art ever made. But to say they are mindless and popcorn shows the total lack of knowledge and subsequent denial of the reviewer. Strange that most audiences gravitate towards Epics and they always bring home the biggest box offices despite the fact that they are too Hollywood. In contrast most art house films are devoid of proper artistic structure and suffer from a lack of proper art. But because they are unique and experimental they are labeled artistic. This is not always the case but it seems to be the majority of the crap in art house movies which is why most people just don't want to watch them.
I encourage you to watch whatever films you want and make whatever films you want and wish you good luck doing it.
I don't understand who you are directing these comments to. It feels like you are venting to an audience that does not exist here. The points that you are bringing up didn't really even exist in the article. I believe Bobby Switchblade was saying that the film did not, in his opinion, live up to the previous Batman film. You seem to be reading a whole slew of stereotypes into his views on "arthouse" films verses "entertaining films". Enjoy the films you enjoy and enjoy them passionately. If you thought "The Dark Knight Rises" is a great film than that is fine. No need to take it personally and criticize the author of the article so much.
After seeing the film again (because I’m cool) I had to go back and revise my review a bit. I was a bit too harsh in some of my criticisms and also inaccurate about one or two things. My bottom line is that despite its flaws, Rises is actually pretty great and every bit as entertaining as the first two flicks. Still not as great as Dark Knight but I never expected it to be. Huge nerd out.
After seeing the film again (because I’m cool) I had to revise my review a bit. I was way too harsh in some of my criticisms and inaccurate about one or two things. My bottom line is that despite some weaknesses it is actually a great movie. Still not as good as The Dark Knight but that would have been damn near impossible.
In reply to Kilo Sieras comments I think you may be right that I am using the term “art” a bit too loosely. I am really using it as a measure of quality as opposed to what technically defines something as art. I view The Dark Knight as a work of art not because it is an epic that adheres to certain rules but because it has such a strong and fully realized artistic vision which I don’t feel the new film lives up to. I understand that you believe that is an inaccurate use of the word but by common defintion what constitutes art is entirely in the eye of the beholder as it is with beauty. Art is what is appealing or significant according to one’s own principles which are as much opinions as they are laws. You could make the case that anything created with artisitic intention is automatically a work of art whether it be a cotton ball with a toothpick stuck through it or a three hour movie about Batman. To me, what defines art is a never-ending conversation.
Art can be quantifiable (hence the existence of art schools), but the place where it originates from is purely qualitative. Art comes from some nebulas space in the middle of both brain hemispheres, originating from the past and present, all the while calling out to the future. Masterpieces can be recreated by people skilled with the brush, some day robots will recreate these paintings. Art needs to simply reflect what it means to be human; hollywood does reflect this, but is more a business, the perfect marriage of art and capitalism.
Preach it! art school students will never match the honesty in their artworks of a self-art-educated-artist
I finally viewed “The Dark Knight Rises” and enjoyed it very much. My expectations weren’t super high which probably helped me enjoy the movie even more than I would have otherwise. I was able to buy into the emotional drama because I found Bane to be truly scary. Seeing the streets of a major American city turn into chaos is a terrifying idea. The scene when Bane brutally beats Batman is really hard to watch. The middle of the film is so despairing that it’s hard to imagine any light at the end of the tunnel.
I agree with you Bob that the highlights of the film are Levitt, Hathaway and the Bane character. I liked the Bruce Wayne performance a bit more too in this film as well.
If anything the profound darkness in the middle portion made my own personal problems seem a lot smaller. I got goose bumps when Christian Bale is scaling the wall while the prisoners were chanting “Rise!”. It may sound cheesy but I was kind of saying that to myself with my own challenges and struggles in life. So I guess the movie actually inspired me.