The Dark Knight Rises - A Review

The Dark Knight Rises - A Review

The Dark Knight Rises has been released with much anticipation and high hopes. How does it stack up in the eyes of this fan? Check out my review! Be warned, however, that there are major spoilers if you choose to check it out.

Review Opinion
By SoulReaver - Jul 23, 2012 12:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman
Source: My personal blog

**MAJOR SPOILERS!!!**

"The Dark Knight Rises" has had a HUGE buildup of anticipation. It is arguably one of the most anticipated movies of all-time. Now, the real question is: did it deliver? As much as I hate to write these words, I have to say that it failed to deliver in many aspects.
The acting, as usual for these movies, was great. Christian Bale did his usual great job as Bruce Wayne and Batman, and, of course, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine were their usual spectacular selves. The surprise of the movie was definitely Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. She blew away the low expectations and while she is not a perfect fit for Catwoman look-wise, her acting was incredible and Selina's attitude was spot-on Catwoman. Tom Hardy, on the other hand, does not fare so well. While his size was not a problem and he definitely conveyed Bane's physicality, his Bane voice was absolutely horrendous and was one of the worst things that I've EVER had the misfortune of hearing in a movie. It was far too cartoonish for a live-action movie and absolutely grating on the ears. I could not wait for him to get off of the screen for his voice alone. Yes, it's that bad.
Hans Zimmer's score was great and arguably the best of the trilogy. You could feel the raw emotion in the music and definitely told the story as well as the images on-screen. The score was a huge sweeping epic and I fell in love with it as soon as it started playing. Zimmer never fails to disappoint.
In terms of storytelling, the movie trips and hits the ground pretty hard. Nolan attempted to craft a large, expansive story, with the entire movie playing out over six months. However, depth was definitely sacrificed for scope. The movie has HUGE plot holes that completely defy any form of logic. Majority of them are thrown right in the audiences' faces and simply cannot be ignored. Why does Batman trust Selina Kyle even when she completely betrayed him to Bane and was the catalyst that led to his breaking? He even tells her, "You made a serious mistake." How does Bruce, who is completely broke and halfway around the world, get back into Gotham City, which is in a state of complete lockdown? He even arrives clean-shaven and looking pretty good for a guy who was nursed back to health from a broken back with a bit of bread, some water, and some push-ups and sit-ups. How on Earth did Batman somehow managing to survive a six-mile-wide nuclear explosion when he was clearly in the Bat seconds before it blew up? There is absolutely no indication that he ejected beforehand and put the Bat in autopilot. It's huge plot holes and leaps in logic such as these that really ruined the movie for me. Even the time span in the movie was poorly handled. It definitely did not feel like Bane had control of Gotham for three months. Nobody, not even the police officers trapped underground, looked like they had been down there for three months. It looked like it was only a few days, if even that. Also, why would they wait until the hour before the bomb goes off to make their move? It's poor and contrived writing, which is far from expected from Nolan and company. Other scenes could have been cut out entirely. The small arc with the government's agents being sent into Gotham, only to be killed by Bane two minutes later, was essentially a waste and added nothing to the story. I would liken these movies to Nolan having a ball of Silly Putty. He had a solid ball of Silly Putty in "Batman Begins". He stretched it slightly in "The Dark Knight", but it was still solid. In "The Dark Knight Rises", he stretched it so far that it started ripping and tearing apart.
Even the characters and characterizations suffer in the movie. Bruce Wayne definitely suffers the most. He's spent the past eight years languishing in self-defeat due to the death of Rachel. He's become so withdrawn that not only has he stopped being Batman, he's stopped being Bruce Wayne. In this, I feel that Nolan's portrayal of Bruce was off. Bruce would never stop being Batman. He is completely committed to his cause, even though it causes him pain.
Others, such as Bane and Talia al Ghul, are definitely not given their due. Talia was wasted as a villain and her romance with Bruce felt completely forced. Bruce spent the first half-hour of the movie depressed over Rachel's death. Why the sudden turn-around and romance with Talia? Bane proves to be nothing more than Talia's pawn. While you could argue that him being a pawn doesn't change what he did in the movie, it definitely changes the way that you look at it as you realize that nothing of what happened was his own planning. Others, such as Holly Robinson and John Daggett, have such minimal roles that they could have ignored them entirely. Holly plays such an insignificant role that her name is actually not spoken at all during the duration of the movie and disappears entirely in the epilogue. Daggett is turned into a stereotypical, generic evil businessman, whose plot to take over Wayne Enterprises adds absolutely nothing to the story other than to try to make you feel sorry for Bruce and his current situation.
Overall, the movie was a big disappointment. I had gone in with low expectations, as nothing in the trailers had impressed me. I wanted Nolan to blow me away. He didn't. While the movie has a bit of humor and some great moments, like Bruce climbing out of the Pit and Bane breaking the Bat, it has many problems story-and-character-wise that severely detract from the quality of the movie for me and are completely unforgivable in such a huge character-driven film. This is completely unexpected from Nolan, as there's no arguing that he is an amazing filmmaker. For me, as hard as this is to say, as both a huge Batman fan and cinema lover, this is not the finale that Batman deserves.
2/5

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios
Related:

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos
Recommended For You:

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

dove1019
dove1019 - 7/23/2012, 1:41 PM
You lost all credibility the second you bashed Tom Hardy. In my opinion Bane is the coolest villain of the trilogy namely because of the Latin based accent he uses so well.
DukeAcureds
DukeAcureds - 7/23/2012, 4:08 PM
dove1019@ That Latin-based accent was based on the King of the Gypsies, Bartley Gorman. He was an Irish traveller. Not South American, as Bane should have been.
kevincenteno12
kevincenteno12 - 7/24/2012, 8:45 AM
I feel when you try to find logic in a comic book movie is highly illogical. The point of the movie is for Batman to do the impossible. like for instance getting from the middle of no where to Gotham city. I mean come on you talk about logic and the guy is a ninja for christ's sake and I am pretty sure that sneaking into a the city is fairly easy. Also batman fixed the auto pilot on the bat jet and aborted. One minute in real life is like 30 mins in a movie. Use your head the guy is flying a bat plane all the around the city and you don't think he could of dove in say with a self managed ROV and propelled away from the blast radius. The fact that you have to see everything told to you right in front of your eyes tells me that you use no logic. Do you want me to warm up your bottle too.

SoulReaver
SoulReaver - 7/24/2012, 2:12 PM
Here's my problem, Kevin: Nolan's Batman movies are built in a world of logic and realism. While it is "Nolan realism", there is a certain amount of logic involved with the movie. It's that same Nolan realism that allows Batman to survive a 150-story fall with another person by landing on a car or allowing him to pilot a giant bat vehicle throughout the city. Nolan logic, however, denies us the chance of seeing characters such as Mr. Freeze, Clayface, and a Bane whose arms are the size of Arnold Schwarzenneger's entire body back in his Mr. Universe days. For me, these plot holes bend those rules of realism that Nolan built his movies around far too much. I mean, I never tried to find logic in Doc Ock creating a miniature sun in the middle of New York, nor did I ever question that a man could fly by essentially using our sun as a giant battery. However, Nolan's world has rules. Just my opinion, but one that I stand by. Also, I realize that movie time does not go by real time. I was pointing out things like the fact that the police officers trapped underground look remarkably healthy for being trapped underground and not seeing daylight for three months. It must've been worse than prison, as I find it hard to believe that Gordon and Blake could've retrieved enough supplies to feed and water those 3,000 men for three months. As for seeing everything right in front of me, I don't need to. Look at "Superman II". Clark is never actually shown getting his powers back in the original cut. It was implied before cutting to the Daily Planet and Superman showing up. In the Richard Donner version, it actually shows him getting his powers back. While it wasn't needed, it did add a lot more context and show the price that Clark would have to pay in order to regain what he had given up. Now, for all we know, Batman actually ejected from the Bat during that explosion right before he went out to sea and made his escape. However, in this, the editing is at fault (or the decision was made to show it like this; it adds drama to do the latter), as Batman is clearly shown in the Bat five seconds before the bomb went off. Maybe the escape pod looks very much like the cockpit of the Bat. Maybe the entire cockpit itself ejects. However, like I said, the editing implies one thing and the story another. Given Nolan's realism, I do have a hard time believing that Batman escaped a six-mile wide nuclear explosion. That's just me. For the record, I don't appreciate the implied insult, either. If you do choose to to respond to me (or if anyone else chooses to, for that matter), I'd appreciate a logical argument like I've given and not petty insults. Thanks.
SoulReaver
SoulReaver - 7/24/2012, 2:23 PM
My mistake dove1019. I forgot to address you in my response. I don't feel that I bashed Tom Hardy. Far from it. I actually like him as an actor. He did a great job without being able to use his face throughout the movie and had to use his eyes and body, similar to Hugo Weaving in "V for Vendetta". However, I really did not enjoy his Bane voice and thought that it was incredibly awful.
SoulReaver
SoulReaver - 7/24/2012, 2:24 PM
Just my opinion, though.
View Recorder