← Back to Reviews
in
Well I've got some bad news for you HK. And bad news for Skepsis. But good news for Rodent and Gunslinger. I am now about to commence on a season of comic book movie reviews!!!
To help me with the upcoming comic book movies list being organised by Rodent I had a big marathon of comic book movies, filling in some gaps in my viewing as well as taking the chance to revisit some favourites for my top 100 list. And we're kicking off with one I had not yet watched. In the past I've talked about reviews getting away from me; well this is the most extreme example of that so far! In fact I'm pretty sure this is far and away my longest ever review. As such I don't really expect anyone to read all of it. Just leave me rep and move along!
Plot - 8 years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and we find Gotham at a time of peace. This is in large part down to Batman (Bale) having taken the fall for the actions of Harvey Dent and his subsequent murder; the Bat has not been seen since that night. Bruce Wayne may be forced to dust off the old batsuit however when an evil new force arises in the form of a terrorist named Bane (Hardy). Bane's aim is to take over the city and expose the truth behind who Harvey Dent really was. It seems like the ideal calling for Batman to return, but Bruce has become a near-crippled recluse who rarely leaves the estate. Unable to ignore the city's need for a hero however Bruce bring the Bat out of retirement. Bane proves to be a more formidable foe than any he has previously faced however, necessitating the need for allies. Alongside his old friend Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) he finds a new ally in John Blake (Gordon-Levitt), a young and idealist cop under Gordon's command. Then there is the elusive jewel thief Selina Kyle (Hathaway). She could provide the key to bringing Bane down, but exactly whose side is she on?
I HATE Christopher Nolan's supposed 'masterpiece' The Dark Knight!!! Ok that's not actually true, but I bet it got your attention. As I've stated several times before however it's not a film that I really like to any great degree. It's not that I think it's a bad film, I just struggle to form any sort of emotional connection with it whatsoever. I just found it to be a very bleak and joyless experience, which largely explains why despite my love for superhero movies it has taken me well over a year to finally watch its sequel.
As I've mentioned previously one of my main gripes in regards to Nolan's efforts, and particularly the two sequels, is the balance he tries to assert between creating a serious, realistic world and then populating it with characters who wear Halloween outfits and play with outrageous pieces of technology. A film like Thor I give the benefit of the doubt to when it comes to ridiculous, out-of-this-world touches because it's a film that asks you to suspend your disbelief at the door. By attempting to make a serious, 'grown-up' film however Nolan opens himself up to be judged by a different set of criteria. So there are things which appear to have been executed purely for coolness but which feel so preposterous and out-of-place with the rest of the world he has created. The opening set-piece for example where Bane commandeers and crashes a plane. Yes it is a very eye-catching and impressive sequence but it comes across as absolute b*llocks! It seriously seems like a good idea for Bane to place himself in so much jeopardy? There wasn't an easier way to have orchestrated the crash? And the dungeon prison that Bruce finds himself trapped in is just ridiculous, makes zero sense and is completely unbelievable. But again it's pretty cool, a wonderful set.
I know Nolan's Batman trilogy has spawned a whole host of devotees who absolutely worship the films, and oh boy you really don't want to antagonise the Nolan fanboys. However one aspect of the films that I feel has been very much overrated is its writing. And I felt it was particularly flawed in this, the final part of the trilogy. The main instigator of many of the film's problems was that the story they were trying to tell was just too large in scope. It had so many threads and so many characters that it wanted to establish, that it ended up doing a poor job with many of these aspects. A number of points and revelations were either glossed over in the simplest of terms or just completely ignored. You know there's a problem when a film runs for 165 minutes and yet much of it still feels rushed. For example the fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character knew Batman's true identity just because he could 'see it in his face'?
Pretty weak. I mean that should be a major moment for the film, and yet it's just sort of tossed aside very early on with absolutely no emotional impact created. Characters too are never really explored; I mean who really is Miranda Tate for example and where did she come from? And then you have issues like Bane's mask. While it's alluded to it's never actually explained what it's doing and how exactly it is keeping him alive.
Similar to The Dark Knight but to an even greater extent I also found a lot of the dialogue to be clumsy, melodramatic and way too heavy on the exposition. Whole conversations go by without a realistic or natural sentiment being expressed, being merely just exercises in explaining what has come before and setting up what's to come in the most obvious and awkward ways. Nolan really does seem to be a director who wants to tell you everything that's going on, rather than just showing you and letting you work some things out for yourself. And then there are the numerous plot holes that disrupt the film, with some of them being truly horrible and gaping in terms of their logic; the worst being the question as to how Bruce Wayne managed to return to Gotham after escaping the pit. And several characters seem to have knowledge that they just couldn't possibly have, as well as acting outwith their nature. Outside of these huge plot holes there were also a number of smaller little niggles which just bugged me. For example what's the deal with The Joker? He is just completely ignored throughout the entire film. Obviously the tragic fate that befell Heath Ledger makes it a little tricky, and I'm certainly not saying they should have recast the role or used archive footage from The Dark Knight so that the character could make an appearance. However surely a mention or two wouldn't have gone amiss considering the impact he had upon Batman and Gotham at large. All of the villains who Batman had faced so far either appear or are referenced (Ra's Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Two-Face) so his exclusion seems strange. Especially when you consider that Bane opens up Arkham Asylum and all the jails, which presumably would have meant the Joker's freedom. There are just so many little issues that bothered me, taking me out of the film so that I struggled to really invest in Nolan's world - the security at Wayne Manor is laughably bad, the fact that the stock trades would be allowed to stand is preposterous, that every single cop in the city would be sent to one location (the sewers) is beyond stupid, that it's ok to put Selina Kyle in jail with loads of guys just because she can do a cartwheel etc.
I thought the writing of the Bruce Wayne/Batmn character in particular was very rough and in need of work. To start with the story makes his character go through the exact same arc twice! He begins the movie physically hampered by a significant limp, and has to recover both mentally and physically before he can once again take up the mantle as Batman. He is significantly helped on the latter issue by a hi-tech electronic brace supplied to him by Lucius Fox, even if I'm not sure how that helps out when you have NO cartilage left in your knee whatsoever. He doesn't seem to be on his feet for all that long however before Bane annihilates him, leaving him a completely broken man. Left to rot in a pit Bruce once again has to recuperate and build himself up so he can meet Bane again. Putting him through the exact same arc on two occasions just feels redundant and as if the film is being needlessly drawn out. And the actual recuperations seem completely implausible. So he's been near crippled for 8 years and all he needed was a fancy new brace and he's fixed. Then after Bane breaks his back it doesn't tale all that long before he is back on his feet thanks to being hung up on some ropes and receiving a hard punch to his back which puts his protruding spinal discs back into place. Really? Now I'm no doctor (no really, I know you're shocked) but both the methods that aid his recovery and the short time it takes seem....well I'll be kind and just say a touch unrealistic. Oh and somehow his treatment in prison also appears to have fixed his knee. Previously he could hardly walk before getting his new knee brace, but now he is able to escape the pit and fight Bane without it? Unless Bane decided to somehow leave him with the brace despite stripping him of everything else.
In terms of the performances in The Dark Knight Rises I actually found them to be a bit of a crap shoot. A number of them left me really quite unmoved, but there was one that I thought was rather excellent. Before I move onto that however I just have to ask, what is it with Nolan's batman films and silly voices? First there was Christian Bale's silly growl which had already become pretty damn infamous by this point. And now in this film, we get something that somehow tops it in terms of how ridiculous it is - the 'oh my god what is that' voice that Tom Hardy affects for the character of Bane. Never before has the match of visuals and audio seemed so off to me. It just seems like such a bizarre creative choice. The character of Bane is meant to this destructive force, the man who in the comics become famous as the man who broke Batman's back. And yet the voice they go with is this fey, camp quasi-English debacle being delivered by somehow who sounds like they've got a cold! I thought it was just an awful choice. It's the kind of voice South Park would come up with to parody the film, and yet it's real! It reduced this character of supposed great threat to someone I just couldn't take seriously. It completely sabotaged any attempt at menace and just as with Bale's growling it produced numerous moments of unintentional humour for me, and pretty much killed any chance I had of truly loving this film.
In Batman Begins I thought that Bale delivered a great performance, but I have to say that in the sequels I really struggled to like him and the character whatsoever. I understand that events in his life necessitate a change in his character but he became someone I didn't want to spend any time with, never mind whole movies. And I felt that in this final instalment he took his performance and the character in such a direction that at times it almost started to resemble a self-parody, especially when it came to his growling Bat-voice. It didn't even make sense a lot of that time, he would use the voice (which is apparently to cover his real identity) with people who already knew who he was, and then in other instances where he should be using it he doesn't. At one point I think he even used the voice when he was talking to himself! In addition to that voice which becomes more overblown than ever and completely undermined the seriousness he was going for, he just mopes around for the whole film with this glum look on his face. It's like Edward Cullen has come to Gotham! “Oh I miss you so much Bella--I mean Rachel!” Even a number of his line deliveries just come across as so flat and lacking in emotion – his “no I came back to stop you” riposte for example. Opposite him was Tom Hardy as the man-monster Bane. With the bizarre accent to try and overcome Hardy struggled to really make much of an impression in my mind, except in a physical capacity; his hulking, colossal frame helps to sell that this is someone who really could hurt anyone put in his path. The mask that he wears obscures much of his face and encumbers just how much he can do in an emotive sense.
I found Marion Coutillard to be quite a flat addition to the series as Miranda Tate. In the early stages I didn't get a sense of any great charisma or life about her performance, she really failed to engage me to any great degree. And then once the true nature of the character is revealed I really couldn't assoicate her with being that individual. I struggled to buy into the fact that she could be this character who had achieved such a great feat, there just wasn't any of the required strength and determination I felt. And the romance that blossoms between her and Bruce comes out of absolutely nowhere and didn't feel convincing in the slightest. It seems to be an accepted construct in Hollywood films that if two characters get caught outside in heavy rain then they just have to have sex! The other female character of note faired slightly better. Anne Hathaway gave quite a good performance I felt considering the character she was handed. Her Selina Kyle/Catwoman felt like a slightly bland interpretation of the character, particularly when compared to the iconic version that Michelle Pfeiffer delivered to the world in 1992's Batman Returns. The item that gives Catwoman her main impetus in the story, the Clean Slate program, feels really quite weak when you consider just how easily Selina Kyle can create fake identities for herself and hack super-encrypted passwords. Surely she could have done something about it herself. And what exactly was the point of Juno Temple's character, Jen? Beyond hinting at some kind of lesbian relationship between the two there seemed to be no real purpose for her inclusion, and considering how bursting at the seams the film already is with plot points and characters surely dropping her would not have harmed the film whatsoever. Speaking of superfluous characters, how about Matthew Modine's cop? The writing and performance are so forced in a blatant attempt at making him villainous that he ends up coming across as a boo-hiss panto character. And then thanks to some atrocious staging and editing he is given an off-screen death which actually made me sure he was faking and that he was about to get back up.
There was one fantastic performance to be found in The Dark Knight Rises however, unsurprisingly coming from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as young police officer John Blake. He's one of the hottest young actors in Hollywood at the moment and once again shows why, bringing a charisma and a level of interest that I just found to be missing amongst a number of the other performers. JGL always seems to either make very interesting films or is the best thing about more conventional films, and yes I do have quite the man crush on him! I thought he was excellent; a really magnetic presence who just stole your attention whenever he was on screen. And that really needs to be the case because Nolan makes the decision to actually sideline Bruce Wayne/Batman for a great deal of the running time, leaving the likes of Blake, Commissioner Gordon, Bane and Selina Kyle to carry the story. Depending on your point of view this move on Nolan's part can either be seen as brave, visionary, disappointing or insane. Thanks to my Levitt man-crush and lack of warmth towards Bale's Bruce Wayne I actually enjoyed this aspect of the film, with Blake's thread of the story being the most interesting for me.
Alongside the script problems and some unappealing performances I've got to say that I think Christopher Nolan deserves a little bit of grief for his contribution. Some of the direction, staging and editing throughout the film was extremely flawed I felt (on at least one occasion events switch within moments from occurring in daylight to seemingly the middle of the night), becoming most evident in the action sequences. Several times there were instances where one of the actors quite clearly hit nothing but air and yet their opponent would react. And I'm sure that once or twice when Batman was taking on a group of thugs one of them would just hit the deck for absolutely no reason as if they had been hit. The worst example however was certainly the big face-off between the cops and the criminals that occurs around the final confrontation between Batman and Bane; it was woefully staged I felt. On this tight street you've got these two opposing forces facing up to each other; hundreds of criminals armed with automatic rifles and thousands of cops who appear mostly unarmed. The cops charge down this narrow street straight into the firing line of the cops; it should be an absolute massacre, a turkey shoot! And yet all the criminals manage to hit are a small handful of them. They must be the worst marksmen of all time! And then all of a sudden the criminals seem to forget the weapons they have and just descend into a fist fight. I just found it to be utterly stupid. There are a number of scenes that I think had they been directed by any other director, especially the likes of a Michael Bay or a Brett Ratner, would have had a number of critics and fans ripping them apart but because it's Nolan he seems to get the benefit of the doubt.
As with The Dark Knight I found the conclusion to this film, and in particular to the big feud with Bane, to be a rather underwhelming affair. After building him up as this great villain throughout the entire film and having him destroy Batman earlier in the film, to the point where Bruce Wayne is only alive because he allowed it, I felt that the resolution of their conflict was pretty insipid. The fight doesn't last all that long and was sorely lacking in any great drama I felt. This should be a battle for ages, and yet it just....wasn't. The way its shot I also felt was very poor in its execution. Nolan is well known for having quite a rapid nature when it comes to editing, but this is the complete opposite. As opposed to the chaotically edited fights in Batman Begins it is presented in just a small handful of cuts and presenting it in bright daylight doesn't do it any favours. It leaves it looking clumsy and awkward, and on more than one occasion I'm sure I spotted instances where the characters actors quite clearly missed each other when they were supposed to connect. In fact a great deal of the film's final act felt under-developed. Bane's big plan seems really quite convoluted, while the whole race against the clock angle the story takes on feels like a generic, lazy lift from any run-of-the-mill action film. And the fact that these events are going for 5 months and yet everything, the cops' plan and Batman's return, is left to the last possible second feels very clichéd. I was expecting someone to stop the bomb with just 1 second on the clock to complete the cliché. And I hated the twist that the film throws our way. In an attempt to hark back to the villain reveal twist of Batman Begins this one just comes off as weak, forced and wholly unconvincing. Another problem I had was how Gotham was depicted after Bane's plan is invoked. So he has taken control of the city and unleashed hundreds/thousands of criminals to tear the city apart; and yet not a thing seems to have happened. The streets for the most part are pristine and quiet places with barely a sign of disorder or crime. The city just comes off feeling rather fake. And The Dark Knight Rises has a great shot at becoming the Return of the King of comic book movies in regards to multiple endings. I kept thinking the film was finished and then another scene would pop up. And at least RotK gave each 'ending' time to breathe, here they are all smashed together in the final few minutes, with some of them really not making a great deal of sense.
I'm aware that it does seem that all I've done in this review so far is to criticise it by pointing out its flaws. For all those many flaws however The Dark Knight Rises does still have some tremendous moments; some staggering set-pieces of huge scope that leave your jaw on the floor and really stirred up the fanboy within me. The attack at the football stadium for example and the subsequent destruction of all the bridges is an astonishing sequence, while the final scene for Levitt's John Blake did put a smile on my face. A huge plus in creating these feelings can be found in Hans Zimmer's excellent and grandiose score which really swells and stirs the emotions
Conclusion - The Dark Knight Rises is a grand and ambitious attempt at bringing to a close one of the biggest film trilogies of the 21st century. For all its ambition however I felt it came up some way short of being the great film that it seemed so desperate to be. Instead it's a film of great moments which is frequently undermined by sloppy and clumsy execution, much of it as a result of poor writing. While I can appreciate that it is a more flawed and ultimately poorer film than its predecessor, thanks to the level of focus given to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the fact that it's not quite as grim means that I perhaps may actually have 'enjoyed' it more the The Dark Knight.
.
Looking forward to more reviews... So long as they're C20th, of course.
Well I've got some bad news for you HK. And bad news for Skepsis. But good news for Rodent and Gunslinger. I am now about to commence on a season of comic book movie reviews!!!
To help me with the upcoming comic book movies list being organised by Rodent I had a big marathon of comic book movies, filling in some gaps in my viewing as well as taking the chance to revisit some favourites for my top 100 list. And we're kicking off with one I had not yet watched. In the past I've talked about reviews getting away from me; well this is the most extreme example of that so far! In fact I'm pretty sure this is far and away my longest ever review. As such I don't really expect anyone to read all of it. Just leave me rep and move along!
|
|
Year of release
2012
2012
Directed by
Christopher Nolan
Christopher Nolan
Written by
Jonathan Nolan
Christopher Nolan
Jonathan Nolan
Christopher Nolan
Starring
Christian Bale
Tom Hardy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Anne Hathaway
Gary Oldman
Marion Cotillard
Christian Bale
Tom Hardy
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Anne Hathaway
Gary Oldman
Marion Cotillard
The Dark Knight Rises
Plot - 8 years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight and we find Gotham at a time of peace. This is in large part down to Batman (Bale) having taken the fall for the actions of Harvey Dent and his subsequent murder; the Bat has not been seen since that night. Bruce Wayne may be forced to dust off the old batsuit however when an evil new force arises in the form of a terrorist named Bane (Hardy). Bane's aim is to take over the city and expose the truth behind who Harvey Dent really was. It seems like the ideal calling for Batman to return, but Bruce has become a near-crippled recluse who rarely leaves the estate. Unable to ignore the city's need for a hero however Bruce bring the Bat out of retirement. Bane proves to be a more formidable foe than any he has previously faced however, necessitating the need for allies. Alongside his old friend Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) he finds a new ally in John Blake (Gordon-Levitt), a young and idealist cop under Gordon's command. Then there is the elusive jewel thief Selina Kyle (Hathaway). She could provide the key to bringing Bane down, but exactly whose side is she on?
I HATE Christopher Nolan's supposed 'masterpiece' The Dark Knight!!! Ok that's not actually true, but I bet it got your attention.
As I've stated several times before however it's not a film that I really like to any great degree. It's not that I think it's a bad film, I just struggle to form any sort of emotional connection with it whatsoever. I just found it to be a very bleak and joyless experience, which largely explains why despite my love for superhero movies it has taken me well over a year to finally watch its sequel. As I've mentioned previously one of my main gripes in regards to Nolan's efforts, and particularly the two sequels, is the balance he tries to assert between creating a serious, realistic world and then populating it with characters who wear Halloween outfits and play with outrageous pieces of technology. A film like Thor I give the benefit of the doubt to when it comes to ridiculous, out-of-this-world touches because it's a film that asks you to suspend your disbelief at the door. By attempting to make a serious, 'grown-up' film however Nolan opens himself up to be judged by a different set of criteria. So there are things which appear to have been executed purely for coolness but which feel so preposterous and out-of-place with the rest of the world he has created. The opening set-piece for example where Bane commandeers and crashes a plane. Yes it is a very eye-catching and impressive sequence but it comes across as absolute b*llocks! It seriously seems like a good idea for Bane to place himself in so much jeopardy? There wasn't an easier way to have orchestrated the crash? And the dungeon prison that Bruce finds himself trapped in is just ridiculous, makes zero sense and is completely unbelievable. But again it's pretty cool, a wonderful set.
I know Nolan's Batman trilogy has spawned a whole host of devotees who absolutely worship the films, and oh boy you really don't want to antagonise the Nolan fanboys. However one aspect of the films that I feel has been very much overrated is its writing. And I felt it was particularly flawed in this, the final part of the trilogy. The main instigator of many of the film's problems was that the story they were trying to tell was just too large in scope. It had so many threads and so many characters that it wanted to establish, that it ended up doing a poor job with many of these aspects. A number of points and revelations were either glossed over in the simplest of terms or just completely ignored. You know there's a problem when a film runs for 165 minutes and yet much of it still feels rushed. For example the fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character knew Batman's true identity just because he could 'see it in his face'?
Pretty weak. I mean that should be a major moment for the film, and yet it's just sort of tossed aside very early on with absolutely no emotional impact created. Characters too are never really explored; I mean who really is Miranda Tate for example and where did she come from? And then you have issues like Bane's mask. While it's alluded to it's never actually explained what it's doing and how exactly it is keeping him alive.
Film Trivia Snippets – To prepare for his role as Bane, Tom Hardy gained 30 pounds in weight and studied various fighting styles that he could employ in the film. One thing he couldn't do anything personally about however is his height. Standing at 5'10” he had to wear 3 inch lifts to make his character Bane appear as tall or taller than his fellow co-stars Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. /// The Dark Knight Rises didn't receive a single Academy Award nomination, making it quite a rare beast as Batman films go. It's the first Christopher Nolan Baman film that didn't get a nomination, and just the second live-action Batman film (discounting the 60s comedy) not to receive a single nomination. Rather unsurprisingly that fate befell 1997's Batman & Robin. /// The final fight scene marks the only occasion in either this series or the Burton/Schumacher films in which Batman is actually seen during the daytime. /// There's no denying that Christopher Nolan assembled quite the impressive cast for the film. In total there were five Oscar winners; Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Marion Cotillard, Anne Hathaway and a further three nominees; Gary Oldman, Tom Conti, Liam Neeson.
I thought the writing of the Bruce Wayne/Batmn character in particular was very rough and in need of work. To start with the story makes his character go through the exact same arc twice! He begins the movie physically hampered by a significant limp, and has to recover both mentally and physically before he can once again take up the mantle as Batman. He is significantly helped on the latter issue by a hi-tech electronic brace supplied to him by Lucius Fox, even if I'm not sure how that helps out when you have NO cartilage left in your knee whatsoever. He doesn't seem to be on his feet for all that long however before Bane annihilates him, leaving him a completely broken man. Left to rot in a pit Bruce once again has to recuperate and build himself up so he can meet Bane again. Putting him through the exact same arc on two occasions just feels redundant and as if the film is being needlessly drawn out. And the actual recuperations seem completely implausible. So he's been near crippled for 8 years and all he needed was a fancy new brace and he's fixed. Then after Bane breaks his back it doesn't tale all that long before he is back on his feet thanks to being hung up on some ropes and receiving a hard punch to his back which puts his protruding spinal discs back into place. Really? Now I'm no doctor (no really, I know you're shocked) but both the methods that aid his recovery and the short time it takes seem....well I'll be kind and just say a touch unrealistic. Oh and somehow his treatment in prison also appears to have fixed his knee. Previously he could hardly walk before getting his new knee brace, but now he is able to escape the pit and fight Bane without it? Unless Bane decided to somehow leave him with the brace despite stripping him of everything else.
In terms of the performances in The Dark Knight Rises I actually found them to be a bit of a crap shoot. A number of them left me really quite unmoved, but there was one that I thought was rather excellent. Before I move onto that however I just have to ask, what is it with Nolan's batman films and silly voices? First there was Christian Bale's silly growl which had already become pretty damn infamous by this point. And now in this film, we get something that somehow tops it in terms of how ridiculous it is - the 'oh my god what is that' voice that Tom Hardy affects for the character of Bane. Never before has the match of visuals and audio seemed so off to me. It just seems like such a bizarre creative choice. The character of Bane is meant to this destructive force, the man who in the comics become famous as the man who broke Batman's back. And yet the voice they go with is this fey, camp quasi-English debacle being delivered by somehow who sounds like they've got a cold! I thought it was just an awful choice. It's the kind of voice South Park would come up with to parody the film, and yet it's real! It reduced this character of supposed great threat to someone I just couldn't take seriously. It completely sabotaged any attempt at menace and just as with Bale's growling it produced numerous moments of unintentional humour for me, and pretty much killed any chance I had of truly loving this film.
Film Trivia Snippets - Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Gemma Arterton, Kate Mara, Charlotte Riley and Keria Knightley all auditioned for the role of Selina Kyle. After the initial audition process they were cut down to a shortlist of Hathaway, Biel and Knightley who all screen tested. It was of course Anne Hathaway who ultimately landed the role. Although Hathaway has since revealed that during her audition she thought she was actually auditioning for the role of Joker's on again-off again girlfriend/partner-in-crime Harley Quinn. It was only after she had a discussion with Christopher Nolan that she found out it was Catwoman she was auditioning for. Hathaway would go on to base her performance on Hedy Lamarr, who was the original inspiration for Catwoman. /// And it's actually not the first feline-based character she had been cast as in a superhero film. Back when Sam Raimi was involved with Spider-Man 4, Hathaway was cast as Felicia Hardy, aka Black Cat. That production eventually fell through.
I found Marion Coutillard to be quite a flat addition to the series as Miranda Tate. In the early stages I didn't get a sense of any great charisma or life about her performance, she really failed to engage me to any great degree. And then once the true nature of the character is revealed I really couldn't assoicate her with being that individual. I struggled to buy into the fact that she could be this character who had achieved such a great feat, there just wasn't any of the required strength and determination I felt. And the romance that blossoms between her and Bruce comes out of absolutely nowhere and didn't feel convincing in the slightest. It seems to be an accepted construct in Hollywood films that if two characters get caught outside in heavy rain then they just have to have sex! The other female character of note faired slightly better. Anne Hathaway gave quite a good performance I felt considering the character she was handed. Her Selina Kyle/Catwoman felt like a slightly bland interpretation of the character, particularly when compared to the iconic version that Michelle Pfeiffer delivered to the world in 1992's Batman Returns. The item that gives Catwoman her main impetus in the story, the Clean Slate program, feels really quite weak when you consider just how easily Selina Kyle can create fake identities for herself and hack super-encrypted passwords. Surely she could have done something about it herself. And what exactly was the point of Juno Temple's character, Jen? Beyond hinting at some kind of lesbian relationship between the two there seemed to be no real purpose for her inclusion, and considering how bursting at the seams the film already is with plot points and characters surely dropping her would not have harmed the film whatsoever. Speaking of superfluous characters, how about Matthew Modine's cop? The writing and performance are so forced in a blatant attempt at making him villainous that he ends up coming across as a boo-hiss panto character. And then thanks to some atrocious staging and editing he is given an off-screen death which actually made me sure he was faking and that he was about to get back up.
There was one fantastic performance to be found in The Dark Knight Rises however, unsurprisingly coming from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as young police officer John Blake. He's one of the hottest young actors in Hollywood at the moment and once again shows why, bringing a charisma and a level of interest that I just found to be missing amongst a number of the other performers. JGL always seems to either make very interesting films or is the best thing about more conventional films, and yes I do have quite the man crush on him!
I thought he was excellent; a really magnetic presence who just stole your attention whenever he was on screen. And that really needs to be the case because Nolan makes the decision to actually sideline Bruce Wayne/Batman for a great deal of the running time, leaving the likes of Blake, Commissioner Gordon, Bane and Selina Kyle to carry the story. Depending on your point of view this move on Nolan's part can either be seen as brave, visionary, disappointing or insane. Thanks to my Levitt man-crush and lack of warmth towards Bale's Bruce Wayne I actually enjoyed this aspect of the film, with Blake's thread of the story being the most interesting for me.
Film Trivia Snippets - The Dark Knight Rises marks the first time in any live action Batman film that the Bat-signal was never used. /// When it came to the role of Miranda Tate, alongside Marion Cotillard both Naomi Watts and Rachel Weisz were considered for the role before Cotillard finally won it. And Nolan was so desperate to have her involved that he modified the shooting schedule to accommodate her pregnancy. Cotillard started filming her scenes just two months after giving birth. /// Turns out the life of a movie star or extra isn't all that glamorous. During the football stadium sequence, the cast and extras all had to wear heavy winter clothing even though the scenes were shot in the summer of 2011 during a massive heat wave. /// Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling and Mark Ruffalo were all considered for the role of John Blake before Nolan ultimately cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It was actually the second time that DiCaprio had been considered for the role of Batman's 'sidekick'. He had been in consideration for the role of Robin in 1995's Batman Forever before Chris O'Donnell was cast. /// There's a great deal of symmetry going on in the openings of each film in Nolan's Batman trilogy. In the early minutes of each film the main villain (Ra's Al Ghul, Joker, Bane) disguises themselves as one of their own henchmen. /// Both Chloe Grace Moretz and Jennifer Lawrence auditioned for the role of Jen which eventually went to June Temple
As with The Dark Knight I found the conclusion to this film, and in particular to the big feud with Bane, to be a rather underwhelming affair. After building him up as this great villain throughout the entire film and having him destroy Batman earlier in the film, to the point where Bruce Wayne is only alive because he allowed it, I felt that the resolution of their conflict was pretty insipid. The fight doesn't last all that long and was sorely lacking in any great drama I felt. This should be a battle for ages, and yet it just....wasn't. The way its shot I also felt was very poor in its execution. Nolan is well known for having quite a rapid nature when it comes to editing, but this is the complete opposite. As opposed to the chaotically edited fights in Batman Begins it is presented in just a small handful of cuts and presenting it in bright daylight doesn't do it any favours. It leaves it looking clumsy and awkward, and on more than one occasion I'm sure I spotted instances where the characters actors quite clearly missed each other when they were supposed to connect. In fact a great deal of the film's final act felt under-developed. Bane's big plan seems really quite convoluted, while the whole race against the clock angle the story takes on feels like a generic, lazy lift from any run-of-the-mill action film. And the fact that these events are going for 5 months and yet everything, the cops' plan and Batman's return, is left to the last possible second feels very clichéd. I was expecting someone to stop the bomb with just 1 second on the clock to complete the cliché. And I hated the twist that the film throws our way. In an attempt to hark back to the villain reveal twist of Batman Begins this one just comes off as weak, forced and wholly unconvincing. Another problem I had was how Gotham was depicted after Bane's plan is invoked. So he has taken control of the city and unleashed hundreds/thousands of criminals to tear the city apart; and yet not a thing seems to have happened. The streets for the most part are pristine and quiet places with barely a sign of disorder or crime. The city just comes off feeling rather fake. And The Dark Knight Rises has a great shot at becoming the Return of the King of comic book movies in regards to multiple endings. I kept thinking the film was finished and then another scene would pop up. And at least RotK gave each 'ending' time to breathe, here they are all smashed together in the final few minutes, with some of them really not making a great deal of sense.
I'm aware that it does seem that all I've done in this review so far is to criticise it by pointing out its flaws. For all those many flaws however The Dark Knight Rises does still have some tremendous moments; some staggering set-pieces of huge scope that leave your jaw on the floor and really stirred up the fanboy within me. The attack at the football stadium for example and the subsequent destruction of all the bridges is an astonishing sequence, while the final scene for Levitt's John Blake did put a smile on my face. A huge plus in creating these feelings can be found in Hans Zimmer's excellent and grandiose score which really swells and stirs the emotions
Conclusion - The Dark Knight Rises is a grand and ambitious attempt at bringing to a close one of the biggest film trilogies of the 21st century. For all its ambition however I felt it came up some way short of being the great film that it seemed so desperate to be. Instead it's a film of great moments which is frequently undermined by sloppy and clumsy execution, much of it as a result of poor writing. While I can appreciate that it is a more flawed and ultimately poorer film than its predecessor, thanks to the level of focus given to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the fact that it's not quite as grim means that I perhaps may actually have 'enjoyed' it more the The Dark Knight.
.