The Dark Knight Rises **WITH SPOILERS**

It's gonna have spoilers so read no further if you haven't seen it. You have been warned.

Hands down the best super hero film ever made. One of the best films ever. Makes Avengers look ridiculous.

The only problem I had was Alfred seeing Bruce in France at the very end. I choose to interpret that just as his fantasy and that Wayne is really dead.

Ann Hathaway OWNED Catwoman. All other actresses that have played the role should drop to their knees and give homage to Ann.

Bane as the "mirror" of Batman was my favorite villain. I felt him to be quite menacing and a true threat to Batman. The Joker was pure destruction. Chaos for chaos sake. A force of nature. Bane was evil with purpose which I find scarier.

The action scenes were fantastic. No shaky cam! Huzzah! And no 3d bullshit. Nolan gains much credit for putting the kibosh on that.

Last year, my wife went through a lot of traumatic things around her birthday: her mom's death, the death of one of our cats, a health scare among other things.

This year, my wife bought tickets a month in advance to see The Dark Knight Rises so we could see it her birthday weekend. When tragedy hit opening night, I immediately called my wife to see if she still wanted to go see the movie. Bad Karma had swirled around her birthday a while now, and I wanted to make sure she was OK. "Hell yeah." She said. "I'm not going to let one demented fuck determine my choices." Turns out this was a message in the film as well.

It is highly ironic to me that THE prevailing them in this movie was the effect of isolation (or in our world "turtling") has on people over time. The good and the bad effects. It was sad in parts, but had a clear message and point of view, unlike some of these types of movies where it is only about over the top characters.

Alfred got a bit preachy though. That whole little speech about his dream of seeing Bruce happy with a wife immediately reminded me of Good Will Hunting.

repoman wrote: Hands down the best super hero film ever made. One of the best films ever. Makes Avengers look ridiculous.

False. This movie is NOT a super hero movie at all. Avengers is 10X more entertaining than this meandering tale of a self-absorbed Bruce Wayne.

repoman wrote: The only problem I had was Alfred seeing Bruce in France at the very end. I choose to interpret that just as his fantasy and that Wayne is really dead.

I'd like to believe this notion too; however, the scene immediately prior to this one shows Fox discovering the auto-pilot had been corrected by Wayne.

This movie was too damn bloated and contrived. I did not expect to roll my eyes this much during a Nolan Batman film. Why tease us at the end of TDK with promises of things getting dark before the dawn? Batman battling the cops to dispense his own form of justice? Where the hell was that? Instead we get a whiny ass Wayne who mopes in his mansion for EIGHT YEARS??? A man so broken he lets his company fall to ruin and only pines for his lost love? WTF!?

The auto pilot was corrected but wasn't that the unit they removed to jam the detonator signal?

Ugh, give me a break, Repo. Best superhero movie ever? You're out of your mind. One of the best films ever? You're out of your fucking mind.

First of all, this is a BAT_MAN movie, yes? So, one could reasonably expect to see BATMAN doing BATMAN stuff for a good portion of the film's running length, couldn't one? Well, what do we get here? We start the film with a crippled, broken Bruce Wayne that's going broke. He's not physically or psychologically capable of donning the cape and cowl. He needs a lot of work to be Batman again. Cool. That's all dramatic and whatnot, and it's fitting after what happened in the last film. So, for an hour and a half, we get to watch him work his way back to that point.

And what happens immediately after that? Bane steals all his money, beats the fuck out of him, and tosses him in a hole in the ground. He's once again broke, crippled, and ruined. So, I watched the exact same character arc twice in one movie. That's bullshit. Plus, it's goddamn Batman. Can we please go half, not even the entire thing, but just half of one picture watching him battle bad guys and not his personal demons?

Next, Jay Gordon-Levitt. Fuck Jay Gordon-Levitt, or at least whoever his character was supposed to be in this thing. He takes over the entire picture, and I_don't_give_a_shit_about_him. I paid to see The Dark Knight Rises, not Some Asshole who Might Be Robin if We Ever Get Around to Making Another Movie Rises. Batman already had a "good cop" sidekick: fucking Jim Gordon. Where is Gordon in this picture? He spends half of it in a hospital bed. Why? To make room for fucking Jay Gordon-Levitt, that's why. You spent two whole films developing this character only to unceremoniously shelf him in order to introduce some worthless asshole nobody in their right mind wants to see carrying a Batman movie. That's bullshit.

The other character that needed to go was Ra's Al Ghul's daughter (I don't remember her name). I read Batman: Son of the Demon, so I'm aware of the character, and her significance in the comics. She's still not welcome in this movie. She's just not needed, and she introduces too many questions to be anything other than a sop to comic fans. If they'd established who she really was earlier, then maybe she would have worked. As it is, she's nothing more than the cliched hero's confidant who betrays him at a critical moment. We've seen this lame plot twist a million times. This is the kind of thing that passes muster in a movie like Turner & Hooch. Am I watching Turner & Hooch? No, I am not.

That's two lame, completely superfluous characters that, between the two of them, eat up about an hour of the movie. They could, and should, have been ditched entirely. It would be awfully hard to argue that the film would have been worse off for it. If you ask me, it would have improved significantly.

Bane... I don't want to hate on Bane too much, because he's really not bad. I'm not familiar with the character, but I doubt the impression I've gotten of him before this movie (which is essentially a big, mean dude that smashes people without there being too much more to him) is too far off the mark. It feels like they tried to inject too much pathos and complex motivation into the character. He breaks necks, but he doesn't relish it. He's not flippant or psychotic enough to be the next Joker, and he can't ape Ra's Al Ghul for measured viciousness. He comes off like a weak amalgamation of what's come before. He works, but only because he's physically a match for Batman.

Writing Gordon out of most of the script was bad. Writing Alfred out was damn near criminal. Michael Caine aces the scene where he and Bruce part ways because he's a great actor, but it's still bullshit. That's your emotional anchor for this film, and you tossed him right out. Lucius Fox gets similarly shabby treatment.

That's just where the movie fails on a character basis. There's still the question of why Gotham City would want to repeal the one piece of legislation that's seemingly kept it from being a huge shithole like in the last two films, or why any of the stock deals that took place immediately following Bane's heist wouldn't be at least heavily scrutinized, or how nobody at Wayne industries noticed an entire army operating one fucking foot below their top secret R&D department. Hell, for that matter, if Ra's Al Ghul's little gal is in the picture, why would they need Bruce Wayne's arsenal at all? What happens when the next strong wind blows all of that nuclear fallout from the bomb over Gotham city? On and on it can go.

Yeah, I know it's a Batman movie, and I shouldn't be thinking about all that. That's the problem; the film does not have enough to keep me engaged for three hours to stop me from thinking about that kind of thing. I'm not scared for Batman after he gets stabbed, and Bane is ready to hang him, because the movie's already telegraphed the fact that Catwoman will show back up and save the day. I don't need to see thirty minutes of Bruce Wayne trying to climb out of a dark pit. We know he's going to do it. The more time you spend on it, the more I'm going to be thinking "What fucking difference would it make if he had a rope tied to him or not when making this jump? Why doesn't anyone try getting a bit of a running start first? Why would his cellmate bother telling him about the child who escaped's special friend in the prison unless the film is setting me up for some big reveal here?"

And that's really the big issue with the movie. Too many times I just wanted to say "can we please just get to it!?" There are certain things we know we're going to see, and you're taking fucking forever to get around to showing them. There's nothing new you're going to show us with this Batman character. He's not that complex in the first place. Yes, he's fucked in the head. We got the point two movies ago. Does Bane do anything essentially different than Ra's Al Ghul or the Joker already did in the other two? No? OK then, can we please just watch Batman suit up, punch him in the fucking face, and get this over with? I've got a lot of internet shooting my mouth off to do here, and time's a wastin'.

P. S. If you haven't watched the movie, REALLY don't read this.

mjl1783 wrote:
First of all, this is a BAT_MAN movie, yes? So, one could reasonably expect to see BATMAN doing BATMAN stuff for a good portion of the film's running length, couldn't one? Well, what do we get here? We start the film with a crippled, broken Bruce Wayne that's going broke. He's not physically or psychologically capable of donning the cape and cowl. He needs a lot of work to be Batman again. Cool. That's all dramatic and whatnot, and it's fitting after what happened in the last film. So, for an hour and a half, we get to watch him work his way back to that point.

And what happens immediately after that? Bane steals all his money, beats the fuck out of him, and tosses him in a hole in the ground. He's once again broke, crippled, and ruined. So, I watched the exact same character arc twice in one movie. That's bullshit. Plus, it's goddamn Batman. Can we please go half, not even the entire thing, but just half of one picture watching him battle bad guys and not his personal demons?

I disagree on a couple of points. First off, we don't see the same character arc twice. We see it with this character in multiple mini-character arcs (and even bigger arcs than that) CONSTANTLY throughout the movie. Batman is the superhero equivalent of Rocky. He gets emotionally betrayed, scarred and abandoned by EVERYONE he meets except for "Robin". Batman is doing Batman things by getting emotionally and physically beaten down and getting back up SOMEHOW. I don't buy that Batman is dead. Because shit, even a nuclear device can't stop this guy? REALLY? Why? Because he's BATMAN. How many people fought out of a hole in this movie only to get their head shot off? THAT is NOT Batman. He simply just doesn't die. He may be physically and emotionally crippled, which brings his character back down to Earth, but also makes him special.

Where is Gordon in this picture? He spends half of it in a hospital bed. Why? To make room for fucking Jay Gordon-Levitt, that's why.

Nah, that's not why. To me, Batman has two sides: the Ra's Al's Ghul's side and the Gotham side. Bane is one half of the mirror. Commissioner Gordon is the other side. All three characters endure abandonment, betrayal and so forth. It is the path they all take that makes the movie. You could argue that for "Robin" also, but I agree he just pops out of nowhere sometimes, like Joseph Gordon Levitt lobbied for more screen time. (My wife constantly broke my balls for calling him Josh, so I had to pay it forward). Oh, yeah, it does sound like Bane is the school teacher from Charlie Brown's classroom at times. And while we are at the "logic gripes", Commissioner Gordon doesn't makes the connection that Batman and Bruce Wayne disappears and reappears at the same time? Commissioner Gordon is SHOCKED at the revelation? I know Gotham cops are historically dumb, but DAMN.

There is one other tiny detail that bothered me about the movie (and I know it is nitpicking, but I can't help it). The movie comments and criticizes the overpriviliged entitled masses. I thought it odd that there was a giant product placement for Sak's Fifth Avenue during one of the long action scenes.

Are you talking bad about Turner and Hooch?

Space Ghost wrote: Are you talking bad about Turner and Hooch?

Nah, only the sequel where it turns out after eight years Hooch is actually alive, living in a kennel with four leg braces on.

So, one could reasonably expect to see BATMAN doing BATMAN stuff for a good portion of the film's running length, couldn't one?

I suppose if your looking for Batman to run around the city socking villains and using gadgets to climb up the side of buildings, you might be disappointed. But you shouldn't go into this movie expecting a modern version of the Tim Burton movies which had Batman doing Batman stuff all the way through. Different movies, different directors, different tone. This movie, and Nolan's in general, are more adult movies (I know that's a bit of a silly thing to say considering it's a super hero movie) and as such focus more on the human element than the flashy stuff.

So, for an hour and a half, we get to watch him work his way back to that point. And what happens immediately after that? Bane steals all his money, beats the fuck out of him, and tosses him in a hole in the ground. He's once again broke, crippled, and ruined. So, I watched the exact same character arc twice in one movie.

Next, Jay Gordon-Levitt. Fuck Jay Gordon-Levitt, or at least whoever his character was supposed to be in this thing. He takes over the entire picture, and I_don't_give_a_shit_about_him. I paid to see The Dark Knight Rises, not Some Asshole who Might Be Robin if We Ever Get Around to Making Another Movie Rises. Batman already had a "good cop" sidekick: fucking Jim Gordon. Where is Gordon in this picture? He spends half of it in a hospital bed. Why? To make room for fucking Jay Gordon-Levitt, that's why. You spent two whole films developing this character only to unceremoniously shelf him in order to introduce some worthless asshole nobody in their right mind wants to see carrying a Batman movie. That's bullshit.

One of the major themes of this movie is that evil is never truly defeated. It may be suppressed for a time but it always comes back. However humanity has to be taught this lesson over and over again as they grow lax in the glow of victory.

This is why Batman is defeated by Bane initially. He is woefully unprepared. The first building arc you are talking about is Wayne going to the Batcave and donning his suit. Going into the sewers and getting his ass kicked. Bane says "Victory has defeated you." and he's right. It is only when he goes to the prison and starts from scratch that he actually becomes Batman again.

This is also why Gordon is shelved for the first 2/3 of the movie. The war is over we are told and he was a war leader. The fight is won and Gotham has no more use for soldiers. I was reminded of Churchill after World War 2.

The proto-Robin cop character, however, knows that evil will come again. He knows the city still needs heroes. He believes in Batman. And the commissioner, at least until he learns of the lie of Harvey Dent. He is a counter point to the Deputy Chief.

The other character that needed to go was Ra's Al Ghul's daughter (I don't remember her name). I read Batman: Son of the Demon, so I'm aware of the character, and her significance in the comics. She's still not welcome in this movie.

Reflections and mirrors. All the way through this movie. She is the reflection of Catwoman. Seemingly good but evil. While Catwoman is seemingly evil but good. One with wealth and power, the other with little of either. She lends weight to Catwoman's character. She also lends humanity to the machine that is Bane. She adds to the movie. As to the trusted betrayer cliche. Perhaps you weren't taken off guard but as my only knowledge of Ra's daughter is from the video game Arkham City...and I had totally forgotten about her...I was taken by surprise.

There's still the question of why Gotham City would want to repeal the one piece of legislation that's seemingly kept it from being a huge shithole like in the last two films, or why any of the stock deals that took place immediately following Bane's heist wouldn't be at least heavily scrutinized, or how nobody at Wayne industries noticed an entire army operating one fucking foot below their top secret R&D department. Hell, for that matter, if Ra's Al Ghul's little gal is in the picture, why would they need Bruce Wayne's arsenal at all? What happens when the next strong wind blows all of that nuclear fallout from the bomb over Gotham city? On and on it can go.

Without attempting to start a political derail, why would people want to close Gitmo, repeal the patriot act, stop drone attacks...the things that some would argue have kept another terrorist attack from happening in the US? Because the war seems won and people have forgotten.

At one point it's stated that the trades will take months to straighten out. They are being looked at.

Why need Bruce Waynes arsenal. Because it's close. Because it's functional. Because it stabs another needle in the eye of the man who betrayed Ra's.

It's a fusion reactor, clean energy, there wouldn't be any fall out. At least that's my take.

repoman wrote: The auto pilot was corrected but wasn't that the unit they removed to jam the detonator signal?

I don't think so, I recall they pulled some kind of emitter...NOT the autopilot which had previously been established as broken.

I really liked the movie a lot. It's definitely a bit long for what it is, but I never felt that it buckled under that runtime. Part of that is because it spends a lot of time trying to integrate with the other two movies, and I'm fine with that. It feels like a series now, and it didn't embarrass itself getting to that point either.

I sort of see how John Blake/Robin was an unnecessary character, or at least unnecessary as Robin. I do think it's important to give Batman someone besides Gordan to be an ally on Gotham PD. He really represents that sense of hope that comes with youth, and I think that was a good move. The Robin tease at the end wasn't much more than a tease, but I'll let it slide.

There are always the comic-book leaps of logic, like how a nuke going off out over the ocean might still affect Gotham in some way. And I'm a little hazy about how Bruce actually escaped. But those leaps have never bothered me much, and they've been there since Batman Begins. The movie works very well thematically, and the characters and story all feel like they were given a proper send-off.

Color me pleased. I wasn't disappointed, and in the age of movie marketing and hype, that's a very high compliment.

daveroswell wrote: Batman is doing Batman things by getting emotionally and physically beaten down and getting back up SOMEHOW. I don't buy that Batman is dead. Because shit, even a nuclear device can't stop this guy? REALLY? Why? Because he's BATMAN.

You just highlighted why I HATE the setup to this film, Dave. This element of Batman is crucial and the first two films established it very well. Even Alfred doesn't give up. In this latest installment BOTH men are neutered! Criminal character assassinations all around. Alfred gives up on Bruce? Uhh, no. That's stupid. And Batman calls it quits because Rachel dies? Say what? Isn't the death of loved ones the only reason he took up the cowl to begin with. Holy hell that eight year absence was ridiculous and soured the whole damn film for me.

And the whole faux death is even more strained. Why was that even necessary to begin with? He didn't fake his death to cover his eight year absence so why do it now? Because he's retiring? Then why the hell did he hand the cave over to Robin??? And for the love of Pete, why did Alfred break down at a funeral when he knows Bruce isn't dead? <commence rolling of eyes>

repoman wrote: Reflections and mirrors. All the way through this movie. She is the reflection of Catwoman. Seemingly good but evil. While Catwoman is seemingly evil but good. One with wealth and power, the other with little of either. She lends weight to Catwoman's character. She also lends humanity to the machine that is Bane. She adds to the movie. As to the trusted betrayer cliche. Perhaps you weren't taken off guard but as my only knowledge of Ra's daughter is from the video game Arkham City...and I had totally forgotten about her...I was taken by surprise.

I agree with your reflection point here, Repo. My gripe with Miranda/Talia was that she was forced down the audiences throat without any proper buildup or explanation. The moment Wayne starts thinking of how to save his company and immediately goes to a character we've never heard of I called what was about to happen. And like you I had little knowledge of Talia except from the Batman animnated series. What is Wayne thinking handing when he hands over the controlling interest of his company to a little known board member?

Hmm, she supports clean energy. Cool. I had that program mothballed for fear of a weapon falling into the wrong hands, but gee, let's give full access to this woman because she's purty.

Bruce sure got over Rachel in a hurry and developed a gargantuan case of stupid. When this plot point was forced on me I knew without a doubt this woman worked for the League in some manner. Why else would Nolan stretch any credibility in Wayne's intelligence but to set him up for failure later?

Alfred broke down because he didn't know yet.

I'll talk about the movie in this week's column, but all I got to say is--f'n excellent film, and a satisfying wrap-up to the trilogy. Not quite the greatness of Dark Knight, but slightly above Batman Begins (also excellent...the only reason we don't talk about it as much anymore is because of TDK overshadowing it.)

At the conclusion of the movie, I applauded, as did a sizable portion of the audience. Packed house, felt good.