The Dark Knight Rises Review Goes Forward!

When: 2012, Bale's 40th film

Genre: Superhero, Dark Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Nolan

Mike and Kate reviewed the first movie of Nolan’s series, Batman Begins as part of List 9, Superhero Movies. They reviewed the second movie of the series, The Dark Knight, for the current list.

KATE SAYS this is a very, very good movie that could have been a great one.

I say more positive stuff at the end, so if you want to skip the negative, skip to the paragraph beginning what makes the movie work.

(WARNING: While I don't give away the movie's surprises, my review does give away many plot points; if you want to see The Dark Knight Rises entirely unspoiled, skip down to "Mike's review.)

What keeps this movie from being great: Bane’s unclear motivation.

Bane starts out as a terrorist with a general, philosophical, short-range agenda who becomes a warlord with a specific, personal, long-range goal.

Terrorism is devastating. Part of its devastation is that it does not lend itself to long-range goals. Consider 9/11 which occurred after at least one failed attempt, was carried out by a limited number of terrorists, partly failed (the one airplane did not reach its target), and involved no long-term end game (the terrorists did not plan to live long enough to occupy any portion of the United States). The mastermind behind it did not participate; and New York City and Washington D.C. continued to function as cities during and after the crisis, recovering in a very short period of time.

Such acts of pure malice, as movie fans have recently seen, are almost always cruel, purposeless, and nihilistic with no long-term constructive goals (and thank goodness for those willing to identify and condemn such acts). In many ways, Nolan successfully explored this type of random malice in The Dark Knight.

Bane, however, is a different type of villain. As a terrorist, he is rather implausible; Ra`s Al Gul’s limp philosophy is not enough to convince people to die (as Bane’s followers do in droves).

Bane as warlord is far more plausible, except he’s given no motivation (at the beginning of the film) for adopting such a role.

This is where Nolan’s approach to story-telling gets me a trifle irritated: Bane is given a plausible, strong, and interesting motivation . . . at the end of the movie. His motivation is treated as a big surprise. (It isn’t that big a surprise—especially to anyone who has some familiarity with the Batman story.) If the plausible, strong, and interesting motivation had instead been provided at the beginning of the film, Bane's story arc not only would have made more sense, it would have strengthened/brought together the disparate arcs.

As it is, I spent most of the movie, thinking, This doesn’t make much sense. Without the personal touch (which Batman Begins does have), the villain is kind of blah. 

What makes the movie work is (1) Nolan is honestly more interested in heroes than villains; this makes him a refreshing change from, say, Burton, who seemed almost pathologically disinterested in his heroes in favor of his villains; (2) the CITY is the hero/main protagonist, not a person.

With Gotham City as main protagonist, Gordon and the cops (John Blake) become major players in a way that I’ve never seen in any Batman franchise. This is very cool (Joseph G-L, by the way, has grown into a downright fascinating actor—the next time we do an actor portfolio, Mike, we’ll have to choose him! and then someone like Nicole Kidman to even out the genders).

Gotham as city-state under siege is also accurate. I felt almost like I was watching a war-movie except Nolan prefers to focus on individuals, not nations. Once placed under siege, Gotham functions quite plausibly; the fact that Bane and his goons can’t be everywhere at once; the pockets of resistance; the everyday life of the “ordinary” citizen; the kangaroo courts (nice cameo in this section!). More than any director I’ve seen, Nolan really explains the underlying problem with the whole “we are the 99%” philosophy. Infrastructures, including infrastructures run by supposedly evil rich people, keep civilization afloat. Fact is: Anarchy stinks.

Nolan makes us understand why it stinks. And Selina Kyle’s character development—in the face of so-called revolution—bears a strong Nolan touch. (By the way, major kudos to grown-up Anne Hathaway for selling the part.)

Changing tone completely—

The Bruce Wayne arc seems to take place outside the other arcs, for the very good reason that it takes place outside the other arcs. It is interesting in its own right, but the switch between the Gotham City arcs (which include Gordon, Selina, and the cops) and the Bruce Wayne arcs (which include Bruce, Alfred, and Ra`s) is a tad awkward. The ending of The Dark Knight Rises is epic but unlike in The Dark Knight, the disparate arcs do not completely come together at the end (though I do prefer the former movie to the latter).

The movie is absolutely worth seeing in a theater! Nolan is trying to do so much, and he comes so close, and the notes he does get right are so right on, this really isn’t a movie you want to waste on a home theater system.

And thematically, what Nolan has to say about HOW to be a hero, what to aim for, the connection to life and death as well as risk and hope is truly profound. I found this movie far more uplifting than The Dark Knight. "Rises" is the operative word, and it reoccurs thematically in a number of segments--from Blake's belief in Batman to Gordon's belief that Bane should be resisted to the chant of the men in the pit.

In some ways, Nolan is one of those director-philosophers who has so much to say, he can be excused for going on and on. There aren’t very many of these director types. (No, Lucas, you aren’t one of them.) But they do deserve a little latitude.

As for Christian Bale—he’s good, like always, but Oldman and Joseph G-L rise to the top. In a way, the movie encapsulates for the characters how I feel about the actors. But I won’t explain further—the movie does it for me.

MIKE SAYS one thought kept recurring to me when I left the theater: Joseph Gordon-Levitt is my new favorite actor. The Dark Knight Rises is the epic conclusion to an epic retelling of Batman and features career defining roles for almost everyone involved. Despite all this, JGL steals the show again and again as the optimistic and hopeful soul of Gotham.

The film combines several Batman story-lines, including "No Man's Land", "Knightfall", and "The Dark Knight Returns."  Despite this, Nolan manages to meld these things together into something truly new and epic. The scope of the film is truly impressive and the stakes FEEL higher than any other comic movie to date, thanks to Nolan making the city feel alive and cohesive. Sure, saving the world is a big deal, but saving your home is much more intimate.

The story and its repercussions are so huge, the movie nearly bursts at the seams with the sheer amount of stuff it has to carry out. With this insane juggling act comes some rather slow transitions, which cause the movie to drag in some parts. The sad truth is that the film does have some flaws; despite this, the movie is amazing. 

While I understand the cinematic importance of a "trilogy", I think the film might have worked better as a two-parter, the first part ending with Batman's defeat by Bane; the second picking up with his quest to return. If the film had been executed this way, I think it would have avoided the stilted progression of Bruce's story that Kate mentions.

If there was one sequence of the film that made me truly happy, it was the ending.  Nolan brought the film to an emotionally satisfying, logical conclusion that stays true to the feel of Nolan's Batman universe. While trying to avoid blatant spoilers, I will say that it's satisfying to have a huge film franchise make story decisions on what works and NOT on shock factor.

Bale's Performance here is strong and enjoyable; yet the other actors in the film overpower him in sheer interest level.  While Batman is the headliner of the series, Nolan really seems more interesting in telling the story of the fight for the soul of the city rather than the journey of Batman.  Bale delivers a great, determined, and even haunted performance, but his role is ultimately not as interesting as Blake's.  While I don't think this means JGL is a better actor (ok, I DO, but that's not my point), I think he just had better material to work with.  My only critique about Bale's performance is the "stuffed nose" quality of Batman.  The mask appears to both block his nose AND squeeze his lower face, giving a very unsophisticated look when the Batman speaks!

I think Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy may form the definitive exploration of what it means to be a hero, despite some missteps. I actually have a lot more I could talk about, but I don't want to ruin anything for potential viewers.

But one small spoiler I will discuss is a small disappointment: while I do love the Bat-suit introduced in the second movie, I really wish some small redesign had taken place to make the suit feel just a little fresh.  The same suit features throughout the movie and while it does the job, commercialism has spoiled me to the point that I crave the "New Improved Model!," whether it's needed or not.

But again, I do have to stubbornly admit that even in this, Nolan refused to compromise on what would sell, and instead stayed true to the story, which is pretty new and improved when compared to most franchises out there.