The Dark Knight Rises movie (spoilers)

[Hammerskjold]

I watched the IMAX version, and I'd say it's worth the extra ducats.

So I'm going to ramble and discuss the movie a bit here, and for anyone else who saw the movie please chime in.


SPOILERS ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


I'm still of the opinion that one of the greatest Batman story is Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'. And I also believe that it is close to impossible to do it in live action. The closest would be an animated feature or maybe animated HBO style miniseries.

And again IMO, for one of the best and faithful rendition of the DC universe is still, the Paul Dini & Bruce Timm DC-Animated Universe.

Having said all that, Nolan's Batman comes as close as possible to an ideal live action version for me.

So let's jump right in then. Frankly I never thought Bane was interesting in the comics. He was done ok in the DC-AU. But in TDK Rises, I'm impressed.

There's trace elements of Frank Miller's Mutant Leader in him, but also various other influences that somehow just clicks right for me. Kudos to Tom Hardy's performance, Bane in TDKRises is a worthy villain. (And this is coming from someone who still thinks Bane in 'Knightfall' comic was overrated at best, and lame and boring at worst.)

I know someone will probably say 'what about Heath Ledger's Joker etc etc'. I'd personally say, apples vs moon rock. Yes Ledger's performance was amazing. But where Ledger's Joker was a text book definition of chaotic evil, Hardy's Bane is a different kind of anarchy. In any case, for me it's enough to say Hardy's performance is excellent.

Ditto for Anne Hathaway. She sold it lock and stock with the way she can switch demeanor on a dime.

Michael Caine's Alfred and Oldman's Gordon, great again. Alfred's heartbreaking scene was, well heartbreaking. And Oldman had a scene that I personally thought was awesome, where the strain of the 'war' and it's toll on the spirit is almost too much.

On to the general plotz. Fans of the graphic novels will probably recognize elements from Knightfall, TDKReturns, No Mans Land, and other various Batman mythos.

In general I think Nolan does a good job of tying everything together and adding his own spin making it the 'Nolanverse'. Yes we can all play bat-fanatics and innernet crickets and point out some flaws. But on the whole, I'm impressed at some of his interpretation.

The (Lazarus) Pit and Ra's ah ghoul scene for instance. Brilliant spin. Making it more a metaphorical 'resurrection' than an overly literal one, is a great move. Batman stories always have room for some arcane\magic aspect, but in the Batman Nolanverse literal magic would not work as well. Making it more psychological\metaphorical just fits better.

The ending, the more I thought about it the more deceptively subversive I think it is. For me this was the first movie that even seriously tried to address the Bruce Wayne\Batman ego split. It was kind of explicitly addressed in the Alfred leaving scene, that Batman is not necessarily a good thing for Bruce Wayne, the man. Necessary, yes. Good, very questionable.

I've also read some fans thought it was a letdown ending, bordering maybe on cliche'd. I personally disagree, a cliche'd ending would be Bruce Wayne Batman rising triumphantly over Gotham with the Bat Signal overhead. Ready and able to fight the next evil. Cue end score.

On the 'omg batman movie is supporting (insert political leaning here) agenda and here's the proof' subject. I'm almost tempted not to give this any attention, but I guess it's somewhat unavoidable.

IMO, it's a spaghetti on a wall\roscharch blot. There's enough 'proof' in the film for anyone and any side to claim see, Batman movie supports \ condemns my side bla bla bla.

It's a closer bet that it follows more the film makers do not neccessarily want to condemn\claim one side, because doing so would exclude the other's monies. It's show -business- folks. Emphasis on the latter for the most part. Yes I think Nolan and Co are great creative people. But it'd be idiotic to think that Batman = Conservative LiberTard Ayn Randians only, or Batman = Liberal raw rawr Powah 2 the People Occupy Starbucks only.

There's some chattering that OMG Batman is supporting\condemning Occupy movement, or big banks. I'd personally say it's more Nolanverse Batman version of 'Tale of two cities'. I'd be more inclined to say neither side walks away clean. (Edited addition: If I am going to talk politics in this Batman movie...I'm just going to say Senator Patrick Leahy makes another cameo in a Wayne Corp scene iirc. And as a fellow Batfan, I praise his performance.)

Though I did get a chuckle at the stock exchange scene where one broker\trader told Bane something like, 'this is a stock exchange, there is no money to steal here.' Bane: 'Then what are -you- doing here?'

Overall, I enjoyed it very much. I might even go see it again on a regular screen. Nolan & Co IMO gave a good enough end to a trilogy, and surprisingly gave quite a respectful shoutouts to various Batman Mythos. Something that a Batman fan like me honestly appreciates.*

*2 moments,

1) During the stock exchange car chase scene the cop said to the rookie cop something like, 'you're in for a show tonight kid', I had a slight nerdgasm since this seems like a nod to 'TDK-Returns' graphic novel scene. Could be coincidence, but since TDKRises has elements from TDKReturns, I can't believe it's just simple co-inky dank.

2) When I heard the last name of the bad guy CEO is Dagget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Daggett , my DCAU nerd side squee'd a little. )

[Occhidiangela]

Having to duck all of those bullets was a bit of a drag.

[smegged]

I too greatly enjoyed the new Batman movie. I liked all of the nods to the other characters in the batman universe while keeping the "feel" of the series.

Bane was incredible.

Spoilers below.

The first movie was a coming of age/conquering fears movie. It was about growing up and carrying on the best of your teacher/parents legacies.
The second movie was a psychological deconstruction of the Batman character. It was about batman being psychologically tested to see if he could be corrupted.
The third movie was a physical deconstruction of the Batman character. It was about seeing Batman physically broken and overcoming that.

The best thing about Bane was that he gave Batman a real, credible threat. For the first time Batman had to deal with someone that he could not physically control. The Joker's threat was psychological in nature - if he was going to win, Batman had to kill. But Batman never did. This meant that the only thing that could truly threaten Batman was a physical adversary. So Bane worked quite well.

The Catwoman character was better done than I thought she could be given the context. I was very happy with the amount of screen time she got. And the creation of Robin was very good. Yellow tights wouldn't have worked in Nolan's universe, so I'm glad you never saw him don them.

[shoju]

I absolutely loved the movie. The changes to Bane fit the "nolanverse". I was a little torn on Catwoman, if only because I never really cared for the character in the comics to begin with.

The movie really did a fantastic job of creating a mood. There was this incredible sense of loss, and sadness through most of the movie, and the twists, and plotting that Bane and Miranda had were fantastic.

The end, while in some ways could be seen as cheesy, was great. I agree that by having Batman... "end" really was an interesting move to make. Instead of ending with him standing on some rooftop, cape flowing in the air, It wrapped up Nolan's view of Batman in a way that I wish more movie franchises would. It tied all the movies together, even with the purposeful silence about The Joker, and it was full of nice nods, and tips of the hat to various Batman storylines, and ideas from the books.

[Jester]

Spoilers, no surprises...















I think I was less taken with this movie than some others were. While I enjoyed it, I also thought they tried far too hard to push too many different angles, and ended up treating them each rather superficially. Specifically, I thought the "tale of two cities" angle was very forced. The Terror was not terrifying because some random super-villain artificially creates anarchy by popping open the insane asylum and planting a nuclear bomb. The Terror is about the mob, about the price of changing the world. Bane wasn't a social villain. He didn't offer any hope of any meaningful kind. Even the Joker had a more convincing kind of anarchy than Bane did. We're not privy to why Gotham wanted to go mad in the first place, so it's not clear why a villain who lets them is popular...

The "pit" element stands as an entire other mythological arc, and doesn't play well with the whole Bane/Gotham thing. I think Nolan should have picked one or the other, and developed it better.

-Jester

[vor_lord]

I found the following article on the trilogy interesting:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8180...an-trilogy

While I thought the author tries a bit too hard, I enjoyed his viewpoints. As someone who does not read comic books (my only exposure to Batman is through the various movies and the excellent TV cartoon of the 90s), this trilogy is by far my favorite of the glut of superhero movies out there.

An excerpt.

One interesting byproduct of the superhero film becoming the default blockbuster format of this century is that we've now seen directors do these films pretty much every way they can be done. We've watched generic blow-'em-up blockbusters camouflaged in capes and camp B-movies that used their source material as an excuse to light Nic Cage's head on fire. Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man was basically a romantic comedy. Joss Whedon's The Avengers was a Joss Whedon film wearing a brand-extension fright mask. Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class was a sleek period adventure — a spy movie without the spies. Martin Campbell's Green Lantern was a failed effects carnival. Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's Sin City was an attempt to bring the actual frame-by-frame noir aesthetics of Miller's comic books to the screen. Zack Snyder's Watchmen was a disastrous exercise in giving hard-core devotees of the medium exactly the kind of grim, slavish fidelity they said they wanted. Somewhere in there, Warner Bros. even let Seth Rogen and Michel Gondry make one, which is how we found out that Seth Rogen in a Zorro mask is the exact point past which audiences Just Will Not Go.

Christopher Nolan's Batman movies are different. They are not genre exercises disguised as superhero films. They are not even really "about" the exploits of the well-known international brand that is Batman. Nolan makes superhero films that think hard about what superheroes actually are: symbols, mostly; moral quandaries come to life; fallible individuals in masks and suits who police certain arbitrary codes of behavior and who are regularly called upon to debate those codes with villains who have alternate, and perhaps equally valid, codes.