Mumble mumble growl I am Batman growl mumble
Neil Gaiman was totally correct about this film:
I think I preferred The Dark Knight movie, because it had Heath Ledger's Joker and a plot I found hard to predict. Dark Knight Rises doesn't have those things: once the set-up is done you have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen and when (even if you've worked hard to keep yourself spoiler free, as I had), but how it happens is the delight. I preferred the last movie, but this is a better Batman movie, and, I suspect, a better film.
To go into more detail, now, a spoiler cut:
I enjoy TDK because the acting is fantastic from Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart (who doesn't get enough recognition for his part, honestly) and the plot is very unpredictable, and each individual component is very well done. But it never really resolves into a cohesive whole; it's really just a series of interesting set pieces, but there is no larger plot. Character development, yes, but plot not so much. It is a character-based movie and the Joker's role was mostly to create chaos.
TDKR is a plot-based movie where the characters come second. Sure, there's an arc for Bruce/Batman, who's been stuck in a rut since Rachel died (Alfred, you were stupid for burning that letter) but for the most part the characters are secondary to Bane's plot and Gotham as a whole finding an identity. Gotham City is a character in this movie. Too bad it was played by too many different actors, and the transitions were not smooth - first it's New York, then it's Chicago, then it's Pittsburgh. The "feel" of Gotham that they developed in the first two films was very much lost, and it was very obvious and distracting when they were in New York, because they didn't cover it up very well. There's a thing called CGI, people; use it to change some of the buildings at least.
The film very much has an act 1, act 2, act 3 structure. This was good because it kept the movie from feeling too long, unlike its predecessor which had like three points where it could have ended but didn't (like The Return of the King which had six). I never checked my watch and that's a good thing.
The drawback to the structure is that it was far more predictable; the movie telegraphed quite a few of its major plot points so that even if you hadn't of already figured it out, when it happened you were like, "of course." This includes a few of the character reveals.
I had heard the rumors that Marion Cotillard would be playing Talia, even though the filmmakers denied it repeatedly, but when I watched the film I forgot it was only supposed to be a "rumor" and that thought sat in my head the whole time. It turns out the Internet wasn't wrong, because it was obvious, even to people who hadn't heard the rumors or ever read the comics (quean_of_swords said it was obvious she was a bad guy because she had an accent). I think giving her a bland name and not really giving her more of a (false) back story hurt the surprise. I thought it was still well done, but it bothered me that she was pretty much an out-and-out villain, when in other media she's always been portrayed as being sort of grey. Her central conflict was that she loves her father, but she also loves Bruce, and making one happy always means betraying the other, so she has done both good and evil things over the years. The Talia I know wouldn't have blown up Gotham with a nuclear bomb, basically, and I found that disturbing. Especially since I read that Christopher Nolan changed the names of the Montoya and Bullock analogs in previous movies because the movie versions were corrupt cops and he didn't want to screw up the integrity of the original characters.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, John Blake, wasn't annoying or superfluous at all, which is what usually happens when you introduce a completely new character into an established universe. I liked his role as Gordon's sidekick, and I liked the "every man" feel he lent to a story populated with masked heroes and villains. Though in the end, he isn't the "every man," he's the successor. That was another rumor that was thrown around pre-release, and the movie just hammered it in by revealing his middle name to be "Robin." Throughout the film I was getting a Robin vibe from him anyway.
I always said that if they did Robin in the Nolan films, it would have to be Tim Drake. The circus background that they gave Dick Grayson was a little weird and cartoony for Nolan's universe, but also because Tim was a lot smarter and his origin fit in better with the more realistic "rules" of Nolan's Batman universe. Tim deserved to be in the Nolan films, because he was the kid who figured out who Batman was and confronted him... which is exactly what John Blake does in this film. I don't think it's a coincidence that Blake rhymes with Drake. John Blake was a guy who figured out a)who Batman was, and b) what Batman means to the city and what his absence could do/did. Exactly like Tim Drake.
However, my favorite part of the film, which was the only unpredictable part, was the re-appearance of Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. He's a great actor playing a rather fun character, and I would not have called it in a million years that he would appear, especially in that role (but it makes perfect sense). At that point I basically decided that the rest of the movie could suck but I would walk out happy.
Not a spoiler so much as a warning: Batman and Bane are really hard to understand sometimes.
I think I preferred The Dark Knight movie, because it had Heath Ledger's Joker and a plot I found hard to predict. Dark Knight Rises doesn't have those things: once the set-up is done you have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen and when (even if you've worked hard to keep yourself spoiler free, as I had), but how it happens is the delight. I preferred the last movie, but this is a better Batman movie, and, I suspect, a better film.
To go into more detail, now, a spoiler cut:
I enjoy TDK because the acting is fantastic from Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart (who doesn't get enough recognition for his part, honestly) and the plot is very unpredictable, and each individual component is very well done. But it never really resolves into a cohesive whole; it's really just a series of interesting set pieces, but there is no larger plot. Character development, yes, but plot not so much. It is a character-based movie and the Joker's role was mostly to create chaos.
TDKR is a plot-based movie where the characters come second. Sure, there's an arc for Bruce/Batman, who's been stuck in a rut since Rachel died (Alfred, you were stupid for burning that letter) but for the most part the characters are secondary to Bane's plot and Gotham as a whole finding an identity. Gotham City is a character in this movie. Too bad it was played by too many different actors, and the transitions were not smooth - first it's New York, then it's Chicago, then it's Pittsburgh. The "feel" of Gotham that they developed in the first two films was very much lost, and it was very obvious and distracting when they were in New York, because they didn't cover it up very well. There's a thing called CGI, people; use it to change some of the buildings at least.
The film very much has an act 1, act 2, act 3 structure. This was good because it kept the movie from feeling too long, unlike its predecessor which had like three points where it could have ended but didn't (like The Return of the King which had six). I never checked my watch and that's a good thing.
The drawback to the structure is that it was far more predictable; the movie telegraphed quite a few of its major plot points so that even if you hadn't of already figured it out, when it happened you were like, "of course." This includes a few of the character reveals.
I had heard the rumors that Marion Cotillard would be playing Talia, even though the filmmakers denied it repeatedly, but when I watched the film I forgot it was only supposed to be a "rumor" and that thought sat in my head the whole time. It turns out the Internet wasn't wrong, because it was obvious, even to people who hadn't heard the rumors or ever read the comics (quean_of_swords said it was obvious she was a bad guy because she had an accent). I think giving her a bland name and not really giving her more of a (false) back story hurt the surprise. I thought it was still well done, but it bothered me that she was pretty much an out-and-out villain, when in other media she's always been portrayed as being sort of grey. Her central conflict was that she loves her father, but she also loves Bruce, and making one happy always means betraying the other, so she has done both good and evil things over the years. The Talia I know wouldn't have blown up Gotham with a nuclear bomb, basically, and I found that disturbing. Especially since I read that Christopher Nolan changed the names of the Montoya and Bullock analogs in previous movies because the movie versions were corrupt cops and he didn't want to screw up the integrity of the original characters.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, John Blake, wasn't annoying or superfluous at all, which is what usually happens when you introduce a completely new character into an established universe. I liked his role as Gordon's sidekick, and I liked the "every man" feel he lent to a story populated with masked heroes and villains. Though in the end, he isn't the "every man," he's the successor. That was another rumor that was thrown around pre-release, and the movie just hammered it in by revealing his middle name to be "Robin." Throughout the film I was getting a Robin vibe from him anyway.
I always said that if they did Robin in the Nolan films, it would have to be Tim Drake. The circus background that they gave Dick Grayson was a little weird and cartoony for Nolan's universe, but also because Tim was a lot smarter and his origin fit in better with the more realistic "rules" of Nolan's Batman universe. Tim deserved to be in the Nolan films, because he was the kid who figured out who Batman was and confronted him... which is exactly what John Blake does in this film. I don't think it's a coincidence that Blake rhymes with Drake. John Blake was a guy who figured out a)who Batman was, and b) what Batman means to the city and what his absence could do/did. Exactly like Tim Drake.
However, my favorite part of the film, which was the only unpredictable part, was the re-appearance of Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. He's a great actor playing a rather fun character, and I would not have called it in a million years that he would appear, especially in that role (but it makes perfect sense). At that point I basically decided that the rest of the movie could suck but I would walk out happy.
Not a spoiler so much as a warning: Batman and Bane are really hard to understand sometimes.