A gripping film with an engaging direction and script, The Dark Knight Rises may not have as detestful a villain nor as unpredictable a plot as its predecessor, but it is as satisfying, if not even even more.
The Good
- Gripping, intense, and taut
- well-acted
- beautifully written
- Anne Hathaway
The Bad
- Bane falls short as a villain, often dishing out cheesy lines in an annoying sing-song accent, more often annoying than maniacal
- Some predictable plot twists, which aren't present in the predecessor
- Predictable Nolan trademark casting
Synopsis
8 years after Harvey Dent's death, Gotham is a much more peaceful city. But a threat is bubbling underneath the peaceful surface. A man called Bane (Tom Hardy) is threatening to send Gotham into anarchy and destruction. Meanwhile, Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after investing money in a fusion reactor that never saw use, with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) now a cripple and a recluse. But all these changed when a cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), enters the Wayne Manor to steal Wayne's fingerprints, setting a chain of events that forces The Batman out of his peaceful retirement.
*** Spoilers Begin Here ***
A Very Long Engagement
The Dark Knight Rises runs for 2 hours and 44 minutes. The Dark Knight clocks in at 2 hours and 32. The Avengers sets you off for 2 hours and 22. But of the three movies, The Avengers feels like the longest. One can't help but compare The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises--they are the biggest superhero movies this year, one starts, the other ends. And if I were to compare the two: with The Avengers, the setup part felt like they really were setting up. In TDKR, the setup is composed of many subplots with action pieces that make the setup engaging and affecting. That is one failure for the Avengers. There was very little action happening throughout the whole set up phase, and you'd feel it. With TDKR, you won't. It's mainly composed of one small explosion after the other that ends with one huge explosion (quite literally at that).
Re-Inception
Re-Inception
Hardy, Cotillard, Gordon-Levitt, Caine, Murphy. Had Nolan cast DiCaprio and Page, this would have been Inception all over again (and I would probably still like it). But the casting is becoming predictable. To say that anyone could have played Miranda Tate is a slight on Cotillard's acting--which is terrific, but her being cast simply gave her away. Nolan perhaps thinks Cotillard fits the bill of an innocent-looking psychopath, and so she was cast as Tate. Giveaway.
I love Gordon-Levitt on most occasion, but him playing Officer Blake is sort of a mismatch. I just don't find him action star-ish, owing perhaps to the lanky physique and his innocent-looking face, which years ago, was the face of rejection and inability to move on (500 Days of Summer). And this sort of marked his career, at least for me. Gordon-Levitt did well in 50/50, too, opposite Seth Rogen, simply because he played someone who is losing his grip on life. And that made him work. So it was awkward for me watching him do action pieces, and probably much more in the future (he's got an action pic this year, opposite Bruce Willis, called Looper).
Finally my last gripe, Bane. Tom Hardy did well with the script he was given, in fact, you won't recognize that it's him. He has ballooned into Bane and that he's got no hair and he wears a muzzle (come to think of it, he seems to have lost all of his body hair). The problem is, Bane was sent to finish the trilogy. But Bane isn't Batman's nemesis, it's The Joker. Given that Joker was in the middle, and that Heath Ledger did a legendary personification of him, it's hard to follow that up. And villains make or break the movie. Luckily for Batman here, even if Bane is less menacing, Nolan actually pulled it off--distributing the action to different plot points and characters, veering the attention away from Batman and Bane on most occasions, making it the good people of Gotham against the bad ones.
Now for the good stuff, which may not run out. Anne Hathaway, which may seem like the next Kate Hudson (pretty face, but not bankable these days), actually pulled it off thanks to Nolan's minimalist treatment of the Catwoman, who looks more of a spy than a costumed cat burglar. She's flirty and treacherous, but in the end, manages to redeem herself and even bag the prize.
Cotillard played Tate very well, too, releasing her wrath in a very timely manner.
Pacing was particularly enjoyable and it felt fast for the lengthy film that it is. As I've noted above, the overly long film didn't actually feel that long as for most of the times you'd be at the edge of your seat. Though there are predictable plot twists due to some clues being given away, those didn't really ruin the film. Still I decry that Batman was a wuss and didn't think of climbing the wall without a rope for the first try.
As with the previous Nolan Batman movies, CGI and stunts were rendered finely. The script is understandably dry and the atmosphere tense and tight throughout, as if something is about explode. And it's just fine to expect an explosion, a figurative one, as this is a Nolan movie. And were those explosions delivered? More often than not, he has, and it is hard for me to pick which one is a better Batman movie. This or the one before it? Maybe I won't ever be able to answer.
But, damn, did Nolan smash and recreate the bar for superhero movies! That's one thing for sure.
I love Gordon-Levitt on most occasion, but him playing Officer Blake is sort of a mismatch. I just don't find him action star-ish, owing perhaps to the lanky physique and his innocent-looking face, which years ago, was the face of rejection and inability to move on (500 Days of Summer). And this sort of marked his career, at least for me. Gordon-Levitt did well in 50/50, too, opposite Seth Rogen, simply because he played someone who is losing his grip on life. And that made him work. So it was awkward for me watching him do action pieces, and probably much more in the future (he's got an action pic this year, opposite Bruce Willis, called Looper).
Finally my last gripe, Bane. Tom Hardy did well with the script he was given, in fact, you won't recognize that it's him. He has ballooned into Bane and that he's got no hair and he wears a muzzle (come to think of it, he seems to have lost all of his body hair). The problem is, Bane was sent to finish the trilogy. But Bane isn't Batman's nemesis, it's The Joker. Given that Joker was in the middle, and that Heath Ledger did a legendary personification of him, it's hard to follow that up. And villains make or break the movie. Luckily for Batman here, even if Bane is less menacing, Nolan actually pulled it off--distributing the action to different plot points and characters, veering the attention away from Batman and Bane on most occasions, making it the good people of Gotham against the bad ones.
Now for the good stuff, which may not run out. Anne Hathaway, which may seem like the next Kate Hudson (pretty face, but not bankable these days), actually pulled it off thanks to Nolan's minimalist treatment of the Catwoman, who looks more of a spy than a costumed cat burglar. She's flirty and treacherous, but in the end, manages to redeem herself and even bag the prize.
Cotillard played Tate very well, too, releasing her wrath in a very timely manner.
Pacing was particularly enjoyable and it felt fast for the lengthy film that it is. As I've noted above, the overly long film didn't actually feel that long as for most of the times you'd be at the edge of your seat. Though there are predictable plot twists due to some clues being given away, those didn't really ruin the film. Still I decry that Batman was a wuss and didn't think of climbing the wall without a rope for the first try.
As with the previous Nolan Batman movies, CGI and stunts were rendered finely. The script is understandably dry and the atmosphere tense and tight throughout, as if something is about explode. And it's just fine to expect an explosion, a figurative one, as this is a Nolan movie. And were those explosions delivered? More often than not, he has, and it is hard for me to pick which one is a better Batman movie. This or the one before it? Maybe I won't ever be able to answer.
But, damn, did Nolan smash and recreate the bar for superhero movies! That's one thing for sure.
My verdict:
The best film of the year, yet! 5/5 stars, passed and recommended.
