Ok, so, The Dark Knight Rises. (Serious spoilers from here).
It doesn't disappoint. Entirely. To be more specific, it's an excellent film and fitting conclusion to the series, but it's more ridiculous, bombastic and at times, and a little too 'Michael Bay'. It doesn't jump the shark, but it does bend it's knees in preparation at times. Nolan could have settled for a remake of the previous film, or worse, just make a lazy, cookie-cutter, by the numbers, 7/10 film and got away with it, but he didn't. His ambition must be praised for creating another insane spectacle that sits right at the top of the list of 'best threequels ever'. Terminator and Alien fell apart at film number 3, but Nolan has steered Batman well away from such disasters. But that's not to say he's bettered The Dark Knight. I once read a review of TDK that said Nolan may as well give up making films, because he's never top TDK. That may ring truer than expected.
First things first, Bane is excellent. Much praise for Tom Hardy, he's incredibly menacing and steals the screen. The perfect villain for the film. His performance will forever be overshadowed by Heath Ledger's Joker, and to be honest, rightly so. Ledger's performance in TDK is one of the finest pieces of acting I've ever seen. He's astonishing. But Hardy isn't far behind. Like The Joker was the perfect villain for TDK, Bane is the perfect villain for this film. He's a tank of a man, an invincible, unstoppable, almost comical monster, which suits the film better than another Joker style character would. The football stadium scene is terrifying, an amazing bit of film making which truly captures his madness and fully articulates how menacing Bane is. I wish his death was a bit less throwaway. I wonder what came first, the style or the villain? I'd be interested to know if Bane was chosen to fit the insanity level terrorism that is unleashed, or whether Bane was chosen first and the film built around the character.
Bale on the other hand, not quite so much. His Batman character doesn't get enough screen time outside the action sequences to get into his head, and as Wayne, he doesn't do much but shout in pain and get pissy with Alfred, once again played perfectly by Caine.
I was impressed by Catwoman. Hathaway's slinky, sexy performance is intriguing, exciting and, down right hot. I just wish they toned down the whole 'I am the 1%' and 'wanting a new start' things, and her 'change of heart' and dramatic last minute rescue made me cringe. It was obvious, cheesy, and lowered the film into 'ordinary' blockbuster territory.
Plot wise, I wasn't so impressed. The prologue was spectacular but daft, it viewed like an attempt to recreate The Joker's iconic introduction at the start of The Dark Knight, but didn't quite achieve it. I did take some issue with Batman disappearing for eight years due to injury. At the end of TDK, Gordon says Batman is a 'watchful protector' and all that, so I expected the time between the films to have been spent with Batman watching and occasionally intervening when things got bad, while at the same time running from the police, rather than becoming a crippled recluse, moping about Rachel.
The not-quite-sex scene was pointless and unneeded, as it didn't provide any insight to the characters and is long forgotten by the time the 'surprise' twist comes near the end (spoiler: it's not a surprise). I also felt the film spent too long in the prison, I think it would have been better if they edited it down to two escape attempts. It doesn't look good for Batman that he spends half the film with a broken back, trying to crawl out of the ground. The timing was a bit 'coincidental' as well. The bomb has five months before becoming unstable, and Batman just so happens to sneak back into Gotham the day before. Hmm.
Likewise, Oldman's subplot felt weird and Gordon was too involved, I thought. I was also uncomfortable with having him in hospital for the first half. For some reason Oldman's voice sounded weird in the second half of the film as well. More so for Fox. I don't see why Freeman's character needed to be so involved.
I'm not sure what to think about the green energy and philanthropy bits either. I thought it was a bit unnecessary emotional context, especially for Blake. The environmental bit started off pretty bad, but as it developed into the main plot it became more acceptable, even if the idea of stealing a nuclear reactor and turning it into a bomb is a bit silly for the realistic tone of the films and was already badly done by Bond a while ago (which also had an invincible baddie, but I'm sure that's unintentional).
I thought it lacked the intelligence of TDK, it didn't seem to have anything philosophical to say, compared to, for example, the issue of morality with the sonar device and having to break your own rules to succeed. But maybe on repeat watchings I'll see more of this. Instead it just seemed to be about explosions rather than the intelligent blend that the others, particularly TDK had.
I suppose though, that's maybe the point. With this film, they're bringing it to a conclusion, each film before has been more and more bold and spectacular (was anyone really threatened by Scarecrow? Was Ra's involved long enough as a villain to be worrying), so it makes sense for this film to just be balls-out ridiculous, to be the culmination of the escalation of the threat to Gotham. In this case I suppose it makes sense, but I wonder whether it will fit alongside the other films easily, my initial feeling was it doesn't quite feel like a Batman film, possibly because Batman doesn't see to be in it enough, possibly because so much is shot in daylight, possibly because it's more straightforward and silly (The Bat was just daft. Granted it serves a real purpose at several points in the film, and each one has introduced a new vehicle, but it felt like a cop out to get around certain plot issues and make it more palatable to people who thought TDK was too slow and intelligent and wanted to see a Statham film), probably a mix of all of that. It just seemed a bit too big for it's boots and too grandiose. It feels weird saying that about a superhero film, and it's probably just an initial reaction that I'll get over after watching it a couple more times. After all, the others aren't exactly The King's Speech either.
Not to say I didn't enjoy or like the TDKR. It's bloody exciting and very watchable. It seems better paced than the last film and doesn't so obviously suffer the same issue of scenes being cut short just as they get going. I really liked it from start to finish, apart from the actual ending. I seem to be a pretty lone voice in this but I thought it was annoying, obvious and cringey, but again, it was necessary to tie everything off without killing Batman off as a symbol.
So, that ending, most people have been quiet about it, but I'm nothing if not thorough (Even bigger spoilers ahead). The faked death was pretty silly and implausible. We're to believe in 90 seconds, he was able to fly his broken helicopter thingy well over 6 miles into the bay, eject at a safe distance unseen, while the bomb goes off and radiates the city's water supply. It was a bit daft, with the whole 'look at Batman's sad eyes as he goes to his death' only for him not to.
I did like the scene where Alfred sees Wayne again in the way he always hoped, again, a little sentimental, but I thought it was nice, although I'm not sure I'm happy with the fact they simply nodded at each other considering the last time they saw each other they rowed and parted company, and Alfred had thought Wayne had died. Just having Wayne mouth 'thank you' or something would have worked, but I suppose it's what Alfred wanted.
Wayne passing the mantle onto Blake was always going to happen, but I'm not sure how that works. Blake doesn't have the training or skills, won't have a mentor or an Alfred. And did they really have to call him Robin? Really? My cheeks are still glowing, I was that embarrassed and cringed that hard.
I suppose though, it's the ending it needed. Everything is tied up and set right, Batman still exists to watch over Gotham and everything is peaceful. Apart from Gordon, who's still estranged from his wife. (Obviously in films saving your family's life and twice helping stop terrorists destroy the city isn't enough to stop your wife leaving you. As much as I liked his character, I'm glad he didn't get a happy ending, as that would have pushed the cheese factor too far.) I saw something that said "it's not the ending we deserved, but the ending we needed". Not sure what the ending we 'deserved' was, but I like that.
So I'm giving it a high score. I've been very critical on it, because it had a lot to live up to and because Nolan is a genius film maker, but despite everything I've said against the film, it's still an excellent blockbuster, the final fist fight between Batman and Bane alone could once again get them the Oscar for best sound editing, and as ever with a Nolan film, the cinematography is breathtaking. The football stadium scene is amazing. As daft as the event is, it has to be seen to be believed. Possibly my favourite moment in the film. There's even a few humourous one liners, especially in the first half. The Dark Knight is still the best film of the three, but The Dark Knight Rises is still a superb film the rounds off the greatest superhero series of all time.
8.5
