Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Spoiled Rotten: The Dark Knight Rises

Posted by on Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Here is my spoiler-free review of The Dark Knight Rises. After the jump, you'll find my nerdy, spoiler-filled thoughts about The Dark Knight Rises. You should consider everything below the following DKR trailer to be spoiler-intensive, including the comments to this post.

1. Now that I've read approximately ten million reviews of The Dark Knight Rises, I'd like to talk about the Occupy themes running through the movie. I've read a lot of critics who've said DKR takes a conservative stance on Occupy, demonizing the movement. I think that's a bit much, honestly. Bane is obviously employing the language of Occupy to frame his actions as a revolution, but he doesn't believe in, or really care about, Occupy's goals. It's incendiary language that plays on one of the biggest arguments in America today. He's trying to tear Gotham apart, so he uses the language of revolution to obfuscate his real goals. As to Catwoman's Occupy rants, I think she's a little more genuine about it, but I think she's also justifying her actions by framing her thievery as class warfare. I imagine Bane is playing into her little fantasy that way, by stroking her ego and allowing her to imagine herself as some sort of class warrior. The movie doesn't ultimately make a statement about Occupy one way or another, and I think that's just fine.

2. There was too much going on in the movie. Batman picked himself up from total ruin twice in less than three hours, and even for a movie that promises a rising Batman in the title, that's a bit much to take. And covering the entire No Man's Land arc from the comics in half DKR's running time was too ambitious by half. But on the whole, I'm glad to see Nolan being ambitious, here. I'd much rather see him overstuff one Batman movie than try to milk another installment in the series out of this.

3. I couldn't stand Knightfall or No Man's Land when they were published. The 90s Batman comics comprised of overextended story arcs tried way too hard to justify Batman's existence and overthink the character. (It was because of Knightfall that everyone started talking about Batman as bearer of "the mantle of the bat," like it was some sort of lordship or something. Now every Marvel or DC creator talks about their superhero as having a mantle that can be passed from one person to another, and it's all so fucking self-important and awful. There is no mantle of the Blue Beetle. Aquaman isn't a fucking mantle. Get over yourself.) Nolan did great work with these two arcs, turning them into something at least palatable. Those who used to complain that Nolan didn't care about the comics have to be eating crow right now. He's taken two modern arcs from the comics and turned them into the closing film of his trilogy. There can now be no doubt that Nolan has respect for the source material.

4. Bane himself isn't a bad character. I like the idea of Evil Doc Savage as Batman's enemy, although I hate that his addiction to Venom—or, in the movies, his weird anesthetic that is somehow entirely created and distributed through the mask on his face—is too much of an overt weakness. You go and create a character who's supposed to be the perfect foe, and then you stick a bunch of awkward tubes on him that, when cut, cause him to turn into a simpering child? It would be like making Superman fly around with kryptonite in a glass case hanging from his neck. Tom Hardy was good, but the character got short shrift. The scene at the end where he was suddenly revealed to care for Talia Al Ghul felt like too little, too late, and we never got to see him formulate any of his plans, or think on his feet, so he felt like a giant prop for much of the film.

5. I love the John Blake character, and I love the idea of him becoming Batman. I loved that shot of Joseph Gordon-Levitt swinging, swashbuckler-style, into the Batcave. I think his Batman would be a little lighter-hearted than Bruce Wayne's Batman, and I think he would probably be more effective because of it. And I especially love that Nolan is leaving Blake's adventures, or even what he looks like in the suit, entirely up the imagination of the viewers. I think that's an exceptionally nice touch, because it creates a sense of hope and wonder, and creating a sense of hope and wonder is what the movie was ultimately all about. The Robin reveal was cheesy and unearned, but it got a big laugh at the screening I attended, and there's nothing wrong with going for the big, pleasurable laugh every now and again.

6. Talia Al Ghul was just as much of a cipher as her father was in Batman Begins. Talia/Miranda Tate was by far the weakest character in the movie. The problem is, she's the entire reason for the plot. That's what makes DKR feel a little top-heavy, once all is said and done: It's a revenge plot for the death of a father whose original plan didn't make all that much sense in the first place.

7. People complaining about how DKR wouldn't work in real life need to just stop going to the movies, I think. A movie isn't supposed to emulate real life. A movie is a closed system, a fictional world. As far as realism goes, a movie's only obligation is to make sense within its own bounds. So, yes, I do believe that Gotham City could be held hostage for five months, given that in the first movie, the entire Narrows section of Gotham City was declared "lost" after it was given over to criminals and chaos and fear gas. This makes sense inside the movie universe we're given. There's a precedent for whole chunks of geography being basically written off. I believe that the world inside the Dark Knight trilogy would accept Gotham's separation from the rest of the world.

8. I do have to wonder what Nolan would have done had Heath Ledger lived. Rumors indicated that the Joker's trial would have figured into this movie. I wonder if that's why DKR relies so strongly on Batman Begins, because out of respect for Ledger, Nolan felt that huge swaths of The Dark Knight was out of bounds. I admire the fact that Nolan doesn't do many interviews, and that he hates DVD commentary tracks. I like it when directors and artists make their work the statement, rather than making endless statements about the work. But I would love to hear what his ideas were for the third movie in the Dark Knight trilogy before Ledger's death, because that's a movie that can never be made, and I'd enjoy the pleasure of imagining how it would have turned out.

9. But the thing I admire most about DKR is the fact that Warner Brothers let Nolan create an ending to his Batman story. In these movies, Bruce Wayne goes through an arc with a beginning, middle, and end. In the end, he is transformed. He's not the same person. You can't do that with comics, which are serial in nature. Frank Miller came close with The Dark Knight Returns, but his ending didn't feel quite as complete or final as Nolan's ending. (In fact, Miller couldn't leave his ending alone, and The Dark Knight Strikes Again is a sad testament to that fact.) I love the idea of Bruce Wayne finally getting to relax and accept the death of his parents, because Bruce Wayne as a man-child who can never give up his battle with chaos and death is kind of sad, if you think about it. You want him to be happy. You feel like he's earned the right to be happy. And Nolan gives us that moment. (Although I do think it would have been incredible if Nolan just used Michael Caine's face to get across the image of a happy and at-peace Bruce Wayne to us, without a shot of a smiling Christian Bale. If we just saw Alfred seeing Bruce, I think that might have been a more powerful sequence on which to end the film.) In a summer where a five-year-old Spider-Man movie franchise is already getting rebooted, it's such a thrill to see a movie with a real, complete, and satisfying ending. And it allows Christian Bale to have his moment, too. Playing Batman in a Batman movie is almost a thankless task, because you're always sharing the screen with an actor playing a more interesting villain. But Bale sold his character all the way through, and took him from beginning to end without any major missteps. (Okay, except the Bat-voice, but the Bat-voice was necessary; when you're one of the most recognizable figures in Gotham, you have to do something to manipulate your voice, and grating your voice into a kid's idea of a tough guy is the easiest way to do that.) His metamorphosis in this trilogy is really quite an accomplishment.

10. I can't wait to watch DKR again, and to one day watch all three movies in a row. I think as a trilogy, they rank up there at the top of genre movie-making. Even though DKR is weaker than The Dark Knight, there's a precedent for the second film in a trilogy being the strongest entry. Just look at The Empire Strikes Back. Our appreciation of Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy will only grow as time passes.


Comments (25) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
I don't want to give away the ending, but in the end, the Dark Knight Rises.
Posted by six shooter on July 25, 2012 at 8:31 AM · Report this
The movie is deeply conservative (and at some points offensive).

1. The people of Gotham are easily tricked rubes who revel in their anarchy because that's what the people would do without an established authority.
2. The police and civil servants are either corrupt, cowardly, or unable to determine right from wrong on their own.
3. It is OK to lie to maintain a power structure so long as no one ever finds out.
4. Batman's secondary role in saving Gotham is protecting the property of rich people from the tyranny of the masses.
5. Thank goodness for altruistic rich people! They sure come in handy when they fulfill their "rich people burden." I guess they really deserve to get all their advantages.
6. Hey everyone, I'm a really cool chick with my own moral code. Oh wait... a handsome prince likes me? Nevermind. I'm a princess and accessory instead.
7. Watch out, hoi polloi... your silly Occupy movement might really be a plan crafted by insane people. Better just stick with the system we've got now.

and on and on
Posted by six shooter on July 25, 2012 at 8:39 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 3
i wished it was more fun. you know ,like, comic
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on July 25, 2012 at 8:47 AM · Report this
evilvolus 4
@3 - Clearly, you haven't been reading comics lately. 4-color, over-the-top fun hasn't been the order of the day for 20 years.

@Paul - You forgot 11) The bomb was the worst piece of schmiance in ages.
Posted by evilvolus on July 25, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
douchus 5
Regarding the Robin reference:


That was incredibly dumb. Up to that point, the character was obviously going to take on the "mantle of the bat". But with that stupid throwaway line, they muddle it all up. Does he become the Batman or is he simply destined to be Robin, Batman's squire? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE OF THAT STUPID LINE!!!
Posted by douchus on July 25, 2012 at 9:05 AM · Report this
Akbar Fazil 6
@5, the Robin line to me was Nolan having fun with the fans. Early in the series he was quoted as saying that "there will never be a 'Robin' in this Batman world" To me this was just him saying "ok fine..i put a Robin in...but not how you think!" If one thinks about it, the John Blake character was an amalgamation of the first three Robin's. Dick Graysons nobility and drive, orphan of the street like Jason Todd and figured out who Batman was like Tim Drake.
Posted by Akbar Fazil on July 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 7
@4.. where's archie when you need 'im ?
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on July 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM · Report this
Zebes 8
(Although I do think it would have been incredible if Nolan just used Michael Caine's face to get across the image of a happy and at-peace Bruce Wayne to us, without a shot of a smiling Christian Bale. If we just saw Alfred seeing Bruce, I think that might have been a more powerful sequence on which to end the film.)

I was thinking the same thing! I would have loved it if we just saw Alfred gaze off camera, smile, and nod, then get up to leave. It would leave things off with a little more mystery and a little more hope and it would have been a (slightly) more satisfying conclusion to Alfred's story, which I felt sort of sputtered out at the end.
Posted by Zebes on July 25, 2012 at 9:28 AM · Report this
douchus 9
Yo 6,

BUT, Nolan is NOT Whedon. He should not be putting stupid in-jokes in his movies. Lame ass shit.
Posted by douchus on July 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM · Report this
Akbar Fazil 10
@9 So only Whedon is allowed to put in "stupid in-jokes"? And thank god Nolan is not Whedon. This world can only handle one hack writer with a death fetish.
Posted by Akbar Fazil on July 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM · Report this
It would be nice if these guys could write complex women characters.
Posted by Patti on July 25, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
Did'nt like the movie, Wanted to found the exit door{pun}
Posted by RICO on July 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM · Report this
CodyBolt 13
I'm glad they showed Bruce at the end if only because I already can't stand the people saying that it was all in alfreds imagination.
Posted by CodyBolt on July 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
Renée Krulich (Nay) 14
I would have also like some origin story for Selina Kyle. I actually liked her and Anne Hathaway playing her. However, I wanted more character development that would only come with knowing why. But I suppose there wasn't enough time. And it's challenging in its own right to accept a character at face value with no actual history other than hints (since they very specifically never called her you know who).
Posted by Renée Krulich (Nay) on July 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM · Report this
flotard 15
TLDR zzzzzzz
Posted by flotard on July 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
ArtBasketSara 16
Here, here! Particularly #10...I need a second viewing at home to finalize my conclusions (and time to fully consider it as part 3 of a trilogy).

Posted by ArtBasketSara on July 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
I was disappointed that Bane turned out to be just a tool -- especially for such a non-compelling, vapid villain as Tate -- but I thought it played interestingly into the themes of misdirection and theatricality. The empty idol drawing everyone's attention was way more worthwhile than the actual villain.

The Occupy stuff, well. I think Nolan was treading a pretty fine line. No one wants to see a superhero movie take a definite, overt political stance. The narrative doesn't support the status quo (corrupt and ineffectual -- the system is a shackle) or populism (the mob is there to be manipulated); it's about individualism. As is really only appropriate for a movie about a guy who decides to end all crime by himself. The one person who climbs up and out of the pit, providing example and inspiration to those below (and incidentally, if he's a good guy, throwing down a rope too).
Superheroes are just generally a terrible way to discuss systematic injustice, I think.
Posted by Nitidiuscula on July 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
sirkowski 18
Haters gonna hate, it was epic.

And no, it's not a conservative movie. Don't be a superficial knee jerker.
Posted by sirkowski on July 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM · Report this
thene 19
I guess I'm out of step with the entire rest of the audience here, but I thought Cotillard played her role wonderfully; the understatedness of the character was the whole entire point, and she came off so human and natural throughout. I had a much easier time believing in her than most of the other characters, and I loved the idea of the 'slow knife'.
Posted by thene on July 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
Knat 20
Fuck yeah.

I must agree that the timer on the bomb was a poor idea. They said at the beginning that it was an estimate, then put a timer on it?

Also, "The Bat" blew up at the end; what exactly were the Wayne Enterprises guys tinkering with when discussing the autopilot system being fixed?

Lastly, anyone who hates this portrayal of Catwoman has clearly never played Batman: Arkham City. It was literally groan-inducing every time she opened her mouth.
Posted by Knat on July 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM · Report this
I still need to call bullshit on #7, if Gotham was its own dark Sin City-like alternate universe or even some island with no connection to the outside world that would be fine. But not only is Japan acknowledged in the Dark Knight but they talk about the fucking President of the United States in this one. And he blatantly ignores Gotham. Even though it outnumbers New York City in population by 4 million people. WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE THERE!?!?
Posted by samtopia on July 26, 2012 at 12:45 AM · Report this
I liked that they showed Bruce Wayne smiling at the end. Seeing him sitting there with Selina Kyle was a very satisfying note to go out on.
Posted by Amanda on July 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
Akbar Fazil 23
@20, first rule of government contracts...why build one when you can build two and twice the price? Now, the question really is then where was this second Bat if Bane broke into the Applied Sciences lab and took everything?
Posted by Akbar Fazil on July 26, 2012 at 1:10 PM · Report this
Knat 24
@23: That was the other part to the question that I forgot to include, yes. Good catch. (And don't think I didn't catch the Contact reference in your phrasing.)
Posted by Knat on July 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM · Report this
Watching the movie I thought, well, John Blake is the Robin replacement, because you couldn't create a believable Robin these days. And then, we find out, he is a Robin. Ha. I wouldn't use that name either. And having him fly into the Batcave on a rope, circa DC Comics, 1964, was brilliant.

I'm with the minority. I was very happy to see Bruce Wayne smiling at the end. @13 got it right.

Ima gonna see it again, this time in IMAX. (Real IMAX. Ahem.) It's been decades since I paid to see a film in a theater twice.
Posted by MyDogBen on August 5, 2012 at 9:47 AM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy