The Dark Knight Rises: reviewed

It was a classic case of being set up for failure: I had been nursing a cold all week long; I had coached my son's soccer team in some humid weather earlier in the evening; and to top it all off, I had not been getting great sleep all week, thanks to a five week-old baby and a six year-old who still wakes up 2-3 times a night. In short, committing myself to seeing The Dark Knight Rises at its midnight premier seemed destined to be a disaster.  Even Ehren, my co-pilot for the evening, confessed on the drive up to Shoppingtown Mall that he hadn't gotten a great night's sleep the night before, and that he feared he might doze off during part of the movie.   The two of us laughed at how ridiculous we would look if we found ourselves unable to answer people's questions about the film due to our dozing off!


As it turns out, our fears were unfounded.  I don't care how tired the two of us were: there was no way in hell we were going to doze off once the lights went down and the main feature started.  The Dark Knight Rises is an exciting, jaw-dropping, and emotionally resounding finale to Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of the caped crusader, and it just may be enough to solidify this as the greatest trilogy in film history.  More on that in a bit.  


Your plot summary (spoiler free!) goes something like this: It has been eight years since Bruce Wayne/Batman defeated the Joker and Harvey Dent.  In that span, Batman has become public enemy number one, while Harvey Dent's death has given the Gotham City Police the leverage it needs to really take down organized crime.  Never mind that Harvey Dent died as a bad guy - only Batman and Commissioner Gordon know that, and they're not talking!   With Bruce Wayne and his alter ego Batman in hiding, and with Gotham using some questionable tactics to detain and incarcerate criminals, Gotham City has never been safer . . . except there is a storm coming that will shake Gotham to the core, literally.  Led by the masked brute known only as Bane, an army is about to make Gotham its battleground, and it is up to the recently-retired Batman to safe his beloved city once again.


Let me begin the critique portion by explaining my philosophy: if I enjoy watching a movie, then in my eyes, the movie is a success. Deep down inside, the people who make movies want to please you.  They want to make money, too, but think of how hard it is to break into the acting business.  Way more people fail than make it, so I have to believe that the people who work on these movies do so because they love their work. Therefore, I try to give movies the benefit of the doubt.  A film may not be perfect, because few films are, but as long as it entertains me and makes me feel as if my movie was well spent, the movie has accomplished its goal.  In those cases, I prefer to write a movie review that is almost entirely positive.  I don't enjoy criticism just for the sake of criticism, and there's nothing worse than reading a movie review that claims the movie was good, but then goes on to focus on far more negatives than positives. There's a movie review over at GeekTyrant.com, in which the author keeps writing "L liked the film," but then points out no less than nine flaws or missed opportunities.  Tough love. If you can discuss the bad more than you can discuss the good, you either didn't like the movie, or you are just a pompous asshole and think you can do everything better than everyone.  Now, if the movie made me wish I hadn't spent my hard-earned money on it, then game on!  I still to this day despise Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and my movie review tried to slice that piece of crap to shreds.   My philosophy may not appeal to everyone, but it is what it is, so take it or leave it.  


My analysis (some spoilers alluded to): The first thing that impressed me about TDKR is the sheer, oppressive scope of the story.  Gotham City has seen itself threatened before, but where Ra's al Ghul and the Joker failed, Bane succeeds: he literally takes control of Gotham City, cutting it off from the rest of the world.  This is nothing less than war, folks, and what makes it even worse is that the bad guys are armed with the very technology that has made Batman so successful.  When Bane's plan was fully revealed and carried out, it was stunning.  For the first time in this franchise, I felt as if the bad guys could win, and that Batman would lose.  The odds were stacked against Batman, Jim Gordon, and all of Gotham City, all of which added up to a nearly unbearable amount of tension.  It was exhilarating, watching a movie in which the stakes were high and you actually believed the good guys would lose.


In my opinion, another aspect of  the movie that was a brilliant move on Nolan's part was having Batman stripped of nearly everything but his training, and his will.  Bruce Wayne's nearly limitless resources have always given Batman an edge in fighting crime, but the question always loomed: how effective would Batman be without his gadgets?  By presenting Bruce Wayne with his most resourceful villain yet, while simultaneously depriving him of his own resources, Nolan is able to stir your emotions when you realize just how far Batman needs to rise in order to save his city one last time.  I know many people will complain that Batman is not on screen in this film as much as he was in The Dark Knight, but ignore that bullshit: Bruce Wayne is Batman, you dumbasses, so just because he's not wearing the suit doesn't mean Batman is not in the movie.  This film focuses on Bruce Wayne far more than The Dark Knight did, and even though I loved Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker (and who didn't?), this is Bruce Wayne's story, and TDKR does a great job of letting us see the guilt, doubt, and ultimate goodness inside of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  This is exactly how this trilogy needed to end!


It should go without saying that the cast of this movie is excellent.  Christian Bale has made Bruce Wayne/Batman his own, which is no mean feat, since I felt that Michael Keaton really nailed the role in the original two Batman films directed by Tim Burton.  Those old pros Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are superb, as one would expect, with Caine's character, Alfred, contributing some of the film's most memorable, heart-felt moments.  Thomas Hardy is terrifying as Bane, despite the fact that his face is covered with a mask for 99.99% of the movie, sometimes rendering his dialogue indecipherable.  Anne Hathaway surprised me as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes me wish the franchise wasn't dead yet - that's all I will say about that.


Are there some flaws in the film?  Yes, there are.  However, like I said before, I was not trying to actively search out plot holes, shaky director cuts, individual bits of dialogue that just didn't sound perfect, or any of the other little things that some of the Internet wanna-be directors have been pointing out.  It's not a perfect film, and it's hard to make the argument that it is the best of the three Nolan Batman films; honestly, I would rank it below both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  Even so, it's a fitting, entertaining, fun way to close the trilogy, and I fully plan on seeing it in the theater at least once again.


Now: back to my early, audacious claim that the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy could be considered the greatest trilogy in cinematic history.  It's the sort of claim I usually avoid, because there's no way of proving that any work of art is "the best ever," due to the highly subjective nature of art.  When it comes to this collection of films, however, I believe a legitimate argument for "best trilogy ever" can be made.  For starters, this trilogy reaffirmed Batman as a serious, dramatic character, as opposed to the buffoon he had become in movies such as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.   As Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Batman Begins, "I said this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for; more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for, because I didn't realize that more emphasis on story and character and less emphasis on high-tech action was just what was needed."  Christopher Nolan proved that characters that originated in comic books could be taken seriously, and be explored realistically.  This was something that other comic book movies had done with varying degrees of success - the X-Men films, for example - but none to the degree that Nolan took it.  


Another reason why I feel Nolan's Batman trilogy could be considered the greatest of all time is that, for three movies that have such distinctive tones, themes, styles, and pacing of plot, there is almost no drop-off in quality as you move from one film to the next.  The Dark Knight Rises is never going to be considered the best of the trilogy, but it's certainly not the disappointment so many idiots would have you believe.  TDKR had two things going against it from the start: it didn't have Heath Ledger in it, and it was the end of the trilogy.  With expectations that high, it was bound to generate complaints along the lines of, "Bane is no Joker," and "I expected more from it."  I think in a year's time, people will be a little more forgiving.  If I had to give all three movies in the trilogy a five star rating, my judges scorecard would go 5, 5, 4.5.  How many other trilogies score consistently high across the board?  Let's take a look, starting with some comic book trilogies:


The Blade Trilogy: not even close.  Blade was okay; Blade II was very good; Blade Trinity was an unholy mess that should have never been released.  


The Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy: no.  Again, the second movie is far better than the first, and the closing installment, Spider-man 3, is terrible, due to too many villains and too much of Peter Parker being flat-out unlikable.


The X-Men Trilogy: same problem.  I like all of the movies, and there is not a huge gap because the first and the second, but the third is definitely a step backwards for the franchise.  Besides, even the best film in this franchise cannot touch the weakest film in the Batman trilogy.


The Matrix trilogy: perfect example of how to ruin a good story and a good universe by not knowing when to stop.  The Matrix is a pitch-perfect film; it truly changed the way people filmed action movies (although to be fair, it also lifted from foreign martial arts flicks, so I cannot give it all the credit), and it was just one hell of a ride.  The Matrix Reloaded had some killer scenes, but some filler, too, and a few CGI moments that were godawful.  The Matrix Revolutions . . . so disappointing.  This series should have been a one-and-done, and The Matrix should go down as one of the best sci-fi movies ever, but as a trilogy it is nothing but one letdown after another.  


The Godfather trilogy: close, but no cigar.  Look: if we're talking about the importance of individual movies, The Godfather I and II will always rank higher than the Batman movies,  These are two of cinemas finest works ever.  However, it's not my fault Coppola decided to tack on a third and final installment, nor is it my fault that The Godfather III is clearly not in the same league as the first two movies.  Two studs and a (semi) dud do not earn the title of "the best trilogy ever." 


The Terminator Trilogy: another close but no cigar, although this one actually comes closer than the Godfather.  Again, none of these movies would beat the first or second Godfather flicks head-to-head, but as a whole this trilogy is a little more consistent.  Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines gets mad credit for actually ending this trilogy on a bleak note, too.  


The Back to the Future trilogy: an awful lot of people forget about these films, but they deserve to be in this conversation because they were all entertaining and fairly ground-breaking at the time of their release.  These movies should also get credit or attempting to be stylistically different from film to film: the first is set in the past, the second heads to the future, and the third goes all the way back to the days of the wild west.  Very ambitious!   However, just because the three movies have different settings does not mean they actually have a different feel to them.  All three movies are fast-paced, fun, and full of action, and never stray too far from the formula.  I don't know if I could ever call this trilogy the best ever, but it sure is enjoyable, especially on Blu-ray!


The Toy Story Trilogy: Hmmm.  Clearly the best animated trilogy, for whatever that's worth.  I personally didn't find Toy Story 3 to be necessary, but it was still a good movie.  The voice acting in these movies are absolutely perfect, too.  Not to be a movie snob though, and I don't mean to make it sound like animation is easy by any means, but compared to the set pieces and stunts of live-action movies like the Batman films, the action and adventures that are on display in this trilogy are not as impressive.  As a director, coordinating scenes such as the Joker's barreling through the streets of Gotham in a tractor trailer, or the final all-out war with Bane toward the end of TDKR has to be way more complicated when you are using live actors and relying on good old-fashioned stunts, which is what Nolan prefers. So many extras, angles to consider, cameras to position - these scenes require way more directing than if you simply animated all of your wild action.  Sorry, Toy Story, but as good as you are I have to give live-action movies the nod. 


The Lord of the Rings trilogy: This is where we could debate endlessly about which is the better trio of movies.  I love this trilogy, and it's truly an example of movie making at its finest.  The cast is phenomenal, the story is stirring, the scope is truly epic - what's not to love?  Well, the trilogy's dependence on CGI, for one. I know, I know: it's fantasy, and it would have been impossible to make these movies without CGI.  I'm just a little concerned with how well the graphics will hold up down the road.  This trilogy tends to be a little too heavy on the bro-mance, too, and The Return of the King has about four endings too many.  Still, any complaints I have about this series are minor, just as with the Batman trilogy.  


I'm sure there are other trilogies out there that I either have not seen - the Dollars spaghetti Westerns, for example, and some foreign films that I honestly find pretentious and not worth my time - or did not mention because they would never even enter our discussion, either because they are not comic book-based or because they are nowhere good enough to enter this argument.  Then there are some movies that people want to lump into the heading of trilogies when they are not.  The Bourne movies, for example, would have been another contender for this title . . . but now they have gone and added a fourth, so it's no longer a trilogy; it's a franchise.  Same thing with the Mission Impossible flicks, the Alien movies, the Scream movies - unless the fourth movie was a prequel, these trilogies all became franchises when movie number four came along.  And then there's Star Wars, which people seem to want to break down into two trilogies: Episodes 4-6, and Episodes 1-3.  Just because they were made in groups of three does not mean they are trilogies.  Hello: the first three movies were parts 4, 5, and 6, so you know Lucas always intended these to be a six-chapter story.  You don;t see people trying to arrange the eight Harry Potter movies into two trilogies and a duo, do you?  Don't be dumb - Star Wars doesn't belong in this conversation.


Whether or not you want to drink the "Batman trilogy is one of the best ever" Kool-aid, The Dark Knight Rises is a hell of a movie.  Don't dismiss it because it doesn't have Heath Ledger; don't piss and moan because you would have ended it differently; just go to the movie theaters and do what you are supposed to do: have fun for about three hours.  If you have an open-mind, you won't be disappointed.