Ragnarok and renewal in The Dark Knight Rises
Christian Bale as Batman
An uncomfortable familiarity hangs over much of The Dark Knight Rises, the final film in the Christopher Nolan-directed Batman trilogy. Some of it comes from the disquiet of watching familiar characters and settings suffer. However, some of it comes from the use of overly familiar movie tropes. For example, one of the early 'Batman must come back' scenes feels lifted from a style guide. Another scene, much later, echoes Luke and Han's join-us-no-join-me exchange just before the Death Star attack. Oh, and William Devane shows up in a very William Devane-esque role.
Accordingly, The Dark Knight Rises is not a perfect movie. It doesn't have the intricate plotting of its predecessor (2008's The Dark Knight, like you didn't know). Any socially conscious message about 'the 99% vs. the 1%' is lost in Bane's repurposed sloganeering and Selina Kyle's disillusionment. In one spot, the movie seems to skip dusk entirely, going from twilight to pitch-black night in less than eight minutes.* Furthermore, although I hate to disagree with Sean, at times Bane sounds like Darrell Hammond's Sean Connery (and apparently ' beware of spoilers past the link ' I am not the only one who thinks so).
Nevertheless, its epic ambitions are mostly realized, and it exists mainly to give its principals (i.e., just about every major character still left from 2005's Batman Begins) closure. This, I want to emphasize, it does exceptionally well. Four years ago I compared The Dark Knight to David Fincher's serial-killer meditation Zodiac, but this time I'm going with Doctor Zhivago by way of James Bond. A macro-level exploration of Begins' 'why do we fall?', it builds to a thrilling, triumphal, bittersweet final shot. I'm looking forward to seeing it again, and eventually to examining the trilogy as a whole.
Naturally, MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW:
5
4
3
2
1
Actually, where to start with this movie? The great thing about Dark Knight '08 was its precision (or at least its aspirations thereto), but on first viewing there's not the same level of intricacy here. (Nolan and his brother Jonathan wrote the script, from a story by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer.) Most of the plot's heavy lifting happens early on: a burglary facilitates financial-sector shenanigans, which in turn are designed to wrest control of Wayne Enterprises away from the reclusive Bruce Wayne. The consequences of these events, and of the opening scene's midair abduction, reverberate through the rest of the film; but when Bane and Batman have their first big fight, the movie becomes more 'reactive,' for lack of a better word, as the villains' master plan unfolds in earnest. After Bane physically isolates Gotham City from the rest of the United States (like 'No Man's Land,' but with nuclear blackmail), totalitarian paranoia gives way to all-out action, and the movie ends on an uplifting coda. I suppose it's an inevitable part of the way the trilogy's structure turned out, but all the bleakness does make me want to skip straight to the payoffs. (And I did enjoy the payoffs, even giving up a 'now that's what I'm talkin' about!' at an especially-well-choreographed Bat-fight.)
Perhaps my biggest issue is with Bane. Although Bane drives Rises' plot, sometimes it feels like that's all he does. (A couple of times this applies to John Blake too ' who early on comes across as the only candidate for Employee of the Month ' but he's not as much a plot device as Bane is.) While the Joker might have changed his story to fit different audiences, I always had a strong sense of the roiling in his gut which fueled him. By contrast, Bane is not an effective spokesman for his twisted philosophy. In this respect it's appropriate that he turns out to be working for someone else, because that frees him to be what any given appearance requires. He's a force-of-nature villain in the sense that he is supposed to bring abject terror to all of his scenes ' and in this he's largely successful, don't get me wrong ' but he's a criminal mastermind largely because everyone says he is, and because the plot requires him to be. While the revelation of the real mastermind makes up for this, I'm not sure after just one viewing that it covers all the film's twists and turns.
Still, those twists and turns were very entertaining, especially once they started to confirm my own fannish speculation.
(EXTREMELY MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD)
5
4
3
2
1
To be sure, after months of such speculation, it was hard not to think that 'Miranda Tate' would turn out to be Talia al Ghul. For a while I expected her to be on Bruce's side, and to send in a small army to pull him out of Bane's prison, but I have no quibbles with using her to connect to the first film. Likewise, while I would have been positively giddy to learn that John Blake's real name was Richard John Grayson, to say nothing of the fangasm I would have had upon seeing him in an appropriate costume, at least we can legitimately call him 'Robin' now. The final scenes with Alfred and Gordon were also nice sendoffs for all involved (I was afraid one or both would die), and left me wanting more.
The fact that I am talking mostly about my emotional reactions to Rises probably means that the filmmakers did their jobs effectively. However, as mentioned above, it's not without faults. Besides that abrupt day-to-night transition, there are other time-related issues. I never got a good sense of the movie's early chronology, and once it shifts into 'No Man's Land' mode, the crisis' duration never plays into the overall mood. Indeed, Bane's nuclear device features two 'ticking clocks': the five months he estimates it will take for the bomb to go off on its own (when its core deteriorates sufficiently) and the race to find its remote detonator (because why wait?). Still, the former never becomes really suspenseful, and the way the latter is handled threatens to strain belief ' especially when Batman and Selina share a Significant Moment with the five-month clock down to the last minute. Having Bruce's spinal injury heal over a couple of months in prison, under the supervision of an ex-doctor inmate, and while Bruce occasionally tries to climb out of a tortuous pit, may also raise some eyebrows. I don't know if using a Lazarus Pit would have been better (although it would also have allowed Ra's al Ghul to appear as more than just a memory), but at least it wasn't the magical psychic love of Shondra Kinsolving.
On the whole, though, I thought director Christopher Nolan laid everything out very well. Returning cast members were as good as I remember, and the new people were equally engaging. No more doubts about Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle: she might look like Julie Newmar, but she played the role with barely a trace of camp or irony. (At one point she does ask 'Cat got your tongue?') Hathaway is this movie's anchor, creating a version of Catwoman (never called that) who goes believably from thief-for-hire to reluctant hero. She's convincing both as Batman's partner and his equal.
While Bane's voice perhaps didn't elicit quite the right reaction from me, Nolan and Tom Hardy made sure he filled up every scene in which he appeared. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake was so weirdly prominent that I knew his character had to have some hidden purpose, and that could have been very distracting; but his understated performance helped sell me on his eventual role. As for Marion Cotillard, I should have guessed she was trouble after I (finally) watched Inception the other week. She brought a good mix of intelligence and verve to her double-agency, although at the end she did get a little dragon-lady-ish.
Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister built on Dark Knight '08's scope effectively, using Pittsburgh and Manhattan to give new angles on Gotham. Action scenes were markedly better this time, from the well-choreographed martial-arts exhibitions to the climactic clash of armies. I did think Hans Zimmer's score was occasionally VERY. LOUD. AND VERY. INSISTENT, sometimes making it hard to hear dialogue; but that could have been a function of my theater.
Basically, The Dark Knight Rises is worth the wait. It finishes the journey that Bruce Wayne started in Batman Begins, and it does so in a manner specific to that version of the character. Specifically, this Bruce had to confront his past with the League of Shadows and grapple with his feelings for first-love Rachel Dawes. Rises reveals that Rachel's fate drove Bruce into hiding as much as Harvey Dent's death retired Batman, and resolves both subplots satisfactorily. I feel like there's a lot more to say about this movie, and the trilogy in general ' like the way Rises turns the last movie's people-are-basically-good message around ' but those thoughts may need more time to percolate.
Still, The Dark Knight Rises closes out a trilogy which set a new standard for the superhero-movie genre. Granted, there haven't been a lot of superhero-trilogies per se, mostly because the third film tends to be either a big letdown (Spider-Man 3), a separate story (Superman III), or a complete change of pace (Batman Forever). Nevertheless, 2005's Batman Begins, 2008's The Dark Knight, and this installment collectively aim higher. As the sweeping saga of one man's struggle to find peace through justice, these films can stand comfortably alongside the Star Wars trilogies and The Lord of the Rings.
* [An earlier version of this post got the sequence of nightfall (as opposed to "Knightfall," of course) out of order. Thanks as always to Kurt Busiek for the correction!]
26 Comments
I think your review complains too much.
I thought the movie was awesome.
Beautifully done sir, completely agree'.though *spoilers*
how the heck did John Blake deduce Batman's identity when no one else could? A Tim Drake-esque moment for sure'maybe that's the point.
SPOILERS
I really hated that his legal name was Robin. Pointless fan-service. As you mentioned, if he were actually named Richard John Grayson or something to that effect, I would have minded less. But having his first name be Robin'ugh. They might as well had his legal name be Nightwing Blake.
****Spoilers*****
****Beware*****
@ David, so his name being Robin was pointless fan service, but naming him Richard John Grayson wouldn't have been? I don't follow. I think they went with Robin because he possessed traits of Dick (optimistic outlook on crimefighting), Tim (Excellent detective skills, figuring out Bruce's secret) and Jason (he had a little rage bubbling underneath his calm veneer). Plus, most non-comic reading fans might not know there is more than one Robin.
I thought naming him Robin was great. Sure, we know who all the Robins are, but Blake was like a combination of Grayson and Drake. The general audience most likely woudn't get that immediate 'Ahhhh!' reaction if his name was Richard or whatever, so it makes sense this way for this universe.
I REALLY wish it had been Richard John Grayson as well. There was never a Robin actually NAMED Robin so it felt like misguided fan service. The film never had to name Holly Robinson or call Gotham's a 'No Man's Land' ' it would have been nice for those who knew and unobtrusive for those who didn't. Instead it feels like a well-meaning missed opportunity (especially since Dick was a cop for a while!).
Giving him the name Robin was the least of this film's problems
@Stephen agree with you on the whole Robin thing.
interesting thoughts I felt like bane was legit, though. I never felt Bane was a Boba Fett. We watched him execute and I believe in him as a strategist. And Connery voice aside, Hardy killed as Bane and owned the screen with presence/charisma. Sure, he was no Joker (few actors turn in a performance that captivating) but he held it down.
Naming him Robin gives him that tie-in to the legacy of that character without necessarily making him that character. He is not Dick, Jason, Tim, Steph, or Damian, he is his own character. But that connection makes him a real and believable successor to Bruce for that universe. I firmly believe that you can tell a good Batman story with any characters, but to tell THE Batman stories, you need Batman, Alfred, Joker, and Robin, in some respect. By making that connection, Nolan proves that he actually does understand the mythology of the character, and it upped the value of the entire trilogy.
And this article reads like a lot of nit-picking.
I love the nit-picking defense. It is so lazy
If you can logically refute all of the criticisms of this (or any) film, then you have legs to stand on
For example:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
.
.
.
I love how Bruce escaped from the pit, then was back in Gotham, in costume, exactly where he needed to be to save Robin, 5 minutes later
I thought Robin/Blake was okay. The best characters were Catwoman (played purrrfectly, I thought) and Gordon.
Sadly, I thought Batman/Wayne was played a bit off ' I don't buy that Batman would abandon Gotham over a broken heart. I also thought Bane was terrible. The comic book Bane has played a lot of roles, but I don't recall him *ever* being a lackey.
In all it was a good movie, better than most summer fare. The second in the trilogy, however, was a magnum opus which had to be difficult to follow.
The only issues I had with timing was near the end, where the clock had 11 minutes left on it, and then a bunch of stuff happens (probably three or four minutes worth), and the clock says 10 minutes left. Then you cut to about 45 seconds worth of action (I'm just guessing here, I didn't actually time it), and the clock says 5 minutes left.
Remus: Batman didn't abandon Gotham over a broken heart, he was made ineffectual by the Dent Act, which helped clean up Gotham through harsh legalized means. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, becomes a recluse due to the loss of Rachel.
Bane wasn't a lackey either, he was a partner and protector.
Sometimes I wonder if people can actually sit and watch a movie that pushes three hours and retain more than 15 minutes worth of it, because most reviews I've read take issue with things that just didn't happen.
@stealth
Yes, the reveal at the end did reduce Bane to a lackey. And a whimpering, crying one at that. It was grossly inconsistent with his characterization throughout the rest of the movie
I thought the audio thing was just my theater, too. So, I guess it was more prominent than I thought.
It made things very difficult for me to hear especially when I have a hard time piecing apart multiple noises.
I thought Bane in the film was an amalgamation of Ra`s henchman Ubu, and the Bane character (physical characteristics.) Talia was clearly the mastermind behind the plot. The movie Bane really had nothing to do with the comic version whatsoever.
I loved the film by the way. It made sense to refer to Jon Blake as Robin. 99% of the audience would have no idea who Dick Grayson is and the reference would have been meaningless.
I may have to wait for the video on this one. I'm moving across the country right now and won't be settled for another month, so I treated myself to the spoilers on Wikipedia.
To be sure, I imagine that 'Robin's' name had to be changed to create a spoiler-free world before the film's release. Seeing an early listing of Dick Grayson/Jason Todd/Tim Drake on Wikipedia would have killed the story, so part of me imagines that Nolan had to create a new 'Robin' in a creative way.
On the other had, this film commits the classic comic book film error: it totally disregards the basic origin of the character the way Halle Berry's 'Catwoman' did. The successful and even half-assed comic films preserve the origin: 'Iron Man' copied everything except the country where Tony Stark was captured; 'Spider-Man' has a nerdy teenager bitten by a spider; 'X-Men' is about kids born with powers and the world hates them. Look, even Nolan's original 'Batman Begins' got the essence correct: rich kid sees his parents gunned down in front of him; travels the world learning crimefighting; adopts the identity of a Bat to scare criminals.
This thing throws 'Robin' out the window, and even Joel Schumacher did it better than this. The essential origin: Batman sees a young boy's parents killed in front of him; adopts the kid out of empathy for his own experience; ends up training him as his successor-to-be. Kid is a bit more lively, as he still grows up with a father (Bruce) that Bruce himself didn't. The circus is a classic part of this, but given the gritty nature of Nolan's films'I get it, the circus might not work. Still, this was literally a 'Robin in name only,' and it's done in such a cutesey way that I imagine it makes you remember that you're watching a movie.
So I'm also presuming that Nolan, going for more 'realism,' decided that there's no believable way that Batman could be training a young protege who'd last more than 5 minutes in a gunfight. That leaves me wishing that Blake had been named 'Terry McGuinness' instead, and made a few years younger. Given his origin at the end (literally, finding the Batcave on his own) and the fact that the bat-symbol is pretty darn close to the Batman Beyond one, that name would have been a lot cleaner and still had the same effect.
And now, countdown to John Blake being introduced by editorial fiat into the comics in 3'2'.
He didn't find the Batcave on his own. Bruce left him the coordinates to find it. Even I picked up on that.
Of course we had an old white man portray the president. We musn't even hint at an Obama insult.
Hysan'
Oh, ok. Read my post again'I said up front that I haven't seen it yet and probably won't be able to until it comes out on video.
D'oh! Sorry, Adam.
Michael: I think it was more of a fictional universe thing. And if they added a black president, people would've thought Nolan (despite being British) was sucking up to President Obama. Can't win, either way. It's like the GWB 'appearance' in the first Transformers movie.
I personally prefer fictional presidents in movies like this. Doing the 'real life political figure' thing dates the movie too much.
I really disliked this movie. Had way too many plot holes
1. Why does Talia sleep with Bruce? She already had his company. Why sleep with the man who killed his father?
2. What are the bad guys trying to do? If they are trying to destroy Gotham, then detonate the bomb. If they are trying to start a revolution, why have the bomb go off? If they are following in Ras's footsteps, why let criminals out of jail? Ras wanted to destroy Gotham because it was corupt. In this movie, Gotham was cleaned up.
3. Old injured Batman get's his back broken by Bane. And not just broken but he had a vertabrae sticking out of his back. They push his vertabrae back in by hand. A few sit ups later and Batman is back and better than ever.
4. What's the point of the prision anyway? Bane says he is going to torture Batman. I guess that means medical attention, work out schedule, and daily escape attempts (safety rope included). Why not just give him a hot tub?
5. If bane can't take off the mask, how does he eat?
6. In the air plane 'crash', isn't it a dead give away that the crew are all shot up?
I could go on and on. The point is I was really excited for this movie. I've never been more disappointed in a movie
Karl,
I'll try to address your questions:
1.Why does Talia sleep with Bruce? She already had his company. Why sleep with the man who killed her father?
Misdirection and deception. R'as did the same thing by calling himself by a false name. It's a trait of the father and the daughter. It also wouldn't be the first time someone got caught in a 'tender trap' via sex or affection.
2.What are the bad guys trying to do? If they are trying to destroy Gotham, then detonate the bomb. If they are trying to start a revolution, why have the bomb go off? If they are following in Ras's footsteps, why let criminals out of jail? Ras wanted to destroy Gotham because it was corupt. In this movie, Gotham was cleaned up.
Remember why Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered? Because they were cleaning up Gotham. The League of Shadows didn't want that. They wanted Gotham to fall, to start the inevitable ascent back to a 'pure' society. Look at Matthew Modine's character, and how flawed and weak he was. Hardly the sign of a cleaned up and pure Gotham. Listen to how Blake chastises Gordon. Gordon had blood on his hands, because he bought Gotham's future with a lie. He sacrificed Batman for the peace. That's not purity or being cleaned up. That's hypocrisy.
3.Old injured Batman get's his back broken by Bane. And not just broken but he had a vertabrae sticking out of his back. They push his vertabrae back in by hand. A few sit ups later and Batman is back and better than ever.
Yeah, I agree, that part is total BS. But'it's the G-Damn Batman!
4.What's the point of the prision anyway? Bane says he is going to torture Batman. I guess that means medical attention, work out schedule, and daily escape attempts (safety rope included). Why not just give him a hot tub?
I thought it was clear that the torture was for him to watch what was happening to Gotham and be helpless to stop it. He underestimated Bruce.
5.If bane can't take off the mask, how does he eat?
Intravenously? I didn't care. I never cared to know how the Joker ate with all that crap on his face, either.
6.In the air plane 'crash', isn't it a dead give away that the crew are all shot up?
Possibly, or maybe the cops who investigated were incompetent. Anything is possible, since in the real world, cases are screwed up all the time. But you do make a good point.
I could go on and on. The point is I was really excited for this movie. I've never been more disappointed in a movie
I guess I wasn't expecting as much as everyone else, so I was pleasantly surprised. I think fans expect everything to be a life-altering experience. Not accusing you of that, mind you.
They also didn't specify how clean a break it was.
1. Why does Talia sleep with Bruce? She already had his company. Why sleep with the man who killed his father?
Bruce had been a recluse for 8 yrs because of the death of his one, true love. Then he meets Talia and she goes out of her way to emotionally manipulate him into falling in love with her. Sleeping with such an emotionally withdrawn man like Bruce just highlights how much he's fallen for her. When she stuck that knife in him, and revealed who she was it WASN'T just the knife that caused the pain ' it was the emotional betrayal of someone who he opened up to. That's why she slept with him ' to emotionally devestate him at that final moment.
2. What are the bad guys trying to do? If they are trying to destroy Gotham, then detonate the bomb. If they are trying to start a revolution, why have the bomb go off? If they are following in Ras's footsteps, why let criminals out of jail? Ras wanted to destroy Gotham because it was corupt. In this movie, Gotham was cleaned up.
IMO the overall goal wasn't just destroying Gotham, but destroying the USA. They had effectively forced the government and people into a position where they had to deny rights and freedoms to their very own citizens (eg the bridge/ preventing people from seeking freedom.) They were using Gotham to highlight that the USA's greatest city was corrupt and overall a symbol of a corrupt government. Having the bomb go off after several months of national disgrace/ pain would have even further destroyed the USA's faith in themselves.
3. Old injured Batman get's his back broken by Bane. And not just broken but he had a vertabrae sticking out of his back. They push his vertabrae back in by hand. A few sit ups later and Batman is back and better than ever.
His back wasn't broken. Bane might have thought he had, but obviously he hadn't. When Bane speaks of 'breaking' the Bat I think he was referring to it on an emotional and spiritual level. He had taken on an overconfident Batman and had beaten him easily. Bruce was an emotionally broken man for up to 5 months in that prison, but he was still working out and remember ' he was still an Olympic-level athlete. They recover a lot faster than Joe Regular.
4. What's the point of the prision anyway? Bane says he is going to torture Batman. I guess that means medical attention, work out schedule, and daily escape attempts (safety rope included). Why not just give him a hot tub?
The TV displaying the fall of Gotham and knowing he was helpless to prevent it was the torture.
Who said Bane even knew that dude was a doctor, let alone was willing to help Bruce? Bane assumed Bruce was physically and emotionally beaten ' he underestimated him, like many villains have in the past. Shit, even the Joker made that mistake in the last film.
The rope and allowing the prisoners to try and escape WAS a form of torture ' giving people hope to escape, and knowing that they'll die in the attempt is the torture.
5. If bane can't take off the mask, how does he eat?
This is important? Really?
6. In the air plane 'crash', isn't it a dead give away that the crew are all shot up?
This one is a bit iffy but you're assuming that an American crash site team would have investigated. My assumption was that the plane crashed in a third worl country that wouldn't have the resources to clearly identify what had happened.
I could go on and on. The point is I was really excited for this movie. I've never been more disappointed in a movie
Each to their own ' I thought it was excellent and thoroughly enjoyed it, and intend to go see it again.
Excellent review. I had no complaints about the movie. You raised some interesting points and helped me realize some things. Good job.
0 comments:
Post a Comment