Firstly, let me make it clear that The Dark Knight Rises is a good film. Unfortunately for it, however, it's a follow-up to one of the greatest movies ever made, The Dark Knight, and comparisons are inevitable. As it happens, the majority of critics and fanboys have fallen over themselves in praise of this one too, so that side of the argument is pretty easy to find out there. I beg to differ. I was disappointed. My expectations were not met. What follows is my attempt to articulate this.
Some have called The Dark Knight Rises ambitious, but for me it's a case of more is less. Overcomplicating something does not make it intelligent, nor more interesting. Quite the opposite. Scene after scene is perfunctory. It gets you from A to Z, but every letter that's spelled out is more for accuracy or exposition than for excitement or entertainment. There's too much going on for, you know, fun stuff. There's taking it seriously, and then there's sucking the life out of it.
It is, by far, the worst of the trilogy. It's flabby, and a bit of a mess with unnecessary characters aplenty, twists for the sake of twists, fights for the sake of fights, and long periods of tedium. It actually reminded me a lot of Die Hard With A Vengeance- but without the fun first half-hour.
Tom Hardy's Bane is awful, in so many ways. Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon spends far too much of the film in a hospital bed. Michael Caine's Alfred may manage to emote, but I can't say I felt it too. If a character has lost the cartilage in both knees and broken their back, don't insult us all by having them up and fitter than ever by the end of the film. A lot of lines of dialogue are delivered with the wrong intonation. There are at least three or four new characters here whose absence would actually improve the film (don't get me started on Marion Cotillard). Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle can steal and kick as much ass as she likes, but there is never an excuse for littering. I could go on.
On second viewing, I came to the realisation that I simply don't find this one interesting. It's the actual plot/story that just doesn't grab me enough. Examples;
It's a bomb! Gotham's going to be blown up! In FIVE MONTHS' TIME.
Oh...
Something about corporate financial assistance!
O...kay...
Let's lock Batman up in a weird jail-type scenario for bloody ages, failing to escape! Lots! With pseudo-psychology from old men speaking foreign for no reason!
OH DO SOMETHING INTERESTING OR JUST GET ON WITH IT!!!
Ironically, the set-up IS pretty interesting. We're told it's time for Gotham's reckoning. Organised crime is gone, yet the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. (See what they did there?) Time for things to be set right, right? Well, no. We'll take that interesting, relevant premise and just use it as the catalyst for a generic, shockingly dull, well-organised form of anarchy.
However, it's far from all bad, though. The action has definitely been ramped up, as has the spectacle. Not a single penny of the budget has been wasted. Some of the new additions to the cast are welcome, as they light up the screen. Anne Hathaway is surprisingly good, though after the first hour or so even they seem to realise she's ultimately pretty superfluous (as is her young partner in crime, who appears to vanish into thin air). Joseph Gordon Levitt is a welcome addition too, although his gung-ho enthusiasm has little to do. Once we get the big reveal of his character, it's doubly frustrating, but at least you know you haven't wasted your time watching him.
However, the film does build to a decent climax, wraps things up neatly, and works effectively as an ending to the trilogy, as well as a beginning for a potential new chapter.
If they decide to continue, I'll still be there, as excited as ever. Just maybe with slightly lower expectations.
Posts
