The only thing I disliked about Bane was how he got rid off. Everything else was perfect for me.

Bane was more developed than The Joker or Scarecrow for that matter. He's the best written villain after Ra's al Ghul.

The only multi-dimensional villain is Ra's al Ghul so for you guys to complain about Bane being one-dimensional is really silly.

Whatever suits you tho.

aaron wrote:Just re-watched a cam version online, did anyone else notice Bane crocheting during Stryver's trial?!

Where can you watch it??

RIFA wrote:The only thing I disliked about Bane was how he got rid off. Everything else was perfect for me.

Bane was more developed than The Joker or Scarecrow for that matter. He's the best written villain after Ra's al Ghul.

The only multi-dimensional villain is Ra's al Ghul so for you guys to complain about Bane being one-dimensional is really silly.

Whatever suits you tho.

The way I saw it, it was a bit of a nice surprise for Selina to just pop in and blast him like that. Also it showed how far she was willing to go compared to Batman.

What did those monsters do to the prologue voice? I seriously thought they were trolling those who were initially bitching about the voice. I hope they leave it as an option in the Dvd/Blu-Ray/itunes release

I'm a bit surprised to see so many deprecations uttered against Bane as portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises. I understand that art is really a subjective realm, and my opinions are just as valid as the next person's, but I fail to see where Bane was a one-note character. He was single-eyed, yes, and ferociously dedicated, but that does not denote dimensionally-deficient character-building. He felt obligated to complete the directive of the League of Shadows, he honestly despised Gotham City, and he loved Talia (who wouldn't? ...wait, did I say that out loud?).

Perhaps I am critically blind in terms of cinematic evaluation, but the Joker seemed no more clearly defined in terms of motivation, either. He was a pure chaotic force, a symbol more than a man, a mortal metaphor. He had no aims save to destroy, and he played the part, but there was little else to his character. Likewise, Bane is a metaphor for fanaticism, for philosophical extremism. Perhaps the fact that the Joker is so obviously an intellectual question incarnate makes him more acceptable, because we take him on his own terms. He is a living statement, and when he expounds his ideologies (or lack thereof) we don't balk at his wordiness. Bane is a more human character, and in some eyes this may detract from the villainous experience.

At the end of the day, I am most pleased with the work Goyer, the Nolans, and especially Tom Hardy did in realizing the character of Bane. I've only seen the film once, so perhaps on repeated viewings I'll notice the shortcomings so many seem sure of, but for now I am one happy cineaste!

Christopher Nolan wrote: i made the film, so i know that he's a pawn..

You know, that's a fair enough response.

Some positive reviews from supposedly 'important' people:-) I dont hav ea lo tof time to comment on some messages that I just read. But I would like to say to those who feel he is underdeveloped..what is that you would have liked to have seen and known about him? Ill comment more later:-) I have to say though he never reminded me of Darth Vader..

“And no one is darker than Bane (Tom Hardy), a battering ram of a villain, his face covered by a grille that feeds him medicine to alleviate pain he’s suffered from childhood. Hardy’s face is covered for 99.9 percent of the film, but his physical and vocal performance is riveting.”

-Peter Travers, Rolling Stone


“But it’s Bane who steals the show. After Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning turn as the Joker in the last film, it was a masterstroke to feature a villain who’s the polar-opposite of the maniacal criminal. With Hardy putting on 30lbs of muscle, the character comes across as less flesh-and-blood and more like an unstoppable juggernaut. His character’s back story provides one of the film’s series of neat twists at the end.

-David Edwards, Mirror.co.uk


“If it’s at all possible, Bane is even more nihilistic than Heath Ledger’s Joker from The Dark Knight. And while it would be almost impossible to top the late Ledger’s incendiary performance, which won him a posthumous Best Supporting Actor Oscar, Hardy’s Bane comes awfully close. He’s mesmerizing on the screen, recalling Darth Vader in the original Star Wars.”

- Peter Howell, Toronto Star


TDKR may not top the year’s earlier megahit, The Avengers, at the box office, but who cares? The Avengers was kid stuff. This is for grownups, with bold, nuanced performances (expect Oscar nominations for Bale, Hardy and—as Bruce’s devoted butler, Alfred—Michael Caine) and apocalyptic import. For once, a comic-book movie comes within hailing distance of the Greek myths or a Jonathan Swift satire. The Dark Knight Rises is that big, that bitter—a film of grand ambitions and epic achievement.

- Richard Corliss, Time

actually the guy is depicted as mercenary who works for money. Then after while we learn that money is not that important. But the fact is that he still is a mercenary. It's just that what he had to do with Gotham is more important.

A pawn? they are not in love. he is not the servant of her lover. It's a brotherhood love and so revenge is also something he want to accomplish. It does not make him weak.


He's more extreme than Ra's Al Ghul. So you take take Ra's personnality and push to the extreme level of it.

BigIslandYU2 wrote:I'm a bit surprised to see so many deprecations uttered against Bane as portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises. I understand that art is really a subjective realm, and my opinions are just as valid as the next person's, but I fail to see where Bane was a one-note character. He was single-eyed, yes, and ferociously dedicated, but that does not denote dimensionally-deficient character-building. He felt obligated to complete the directive of the League of Shadows, he honestly despised Gotham City, and he loved Talia (who wouldn't? ...wait, did I say that out loud?).

Perhaps I am critically blind in terms of cinematic evaluation, but the Joker seemed no more clearly defined in terms of motivation, either. He was a pure chaotic force, a symbol more than a man, a mortal metaphor. He had no aims save to destroy, and he played the part, but there was little else to his character. Likewise, Bane is a metaphor for fanaticism, for philosophical extremism. Perhaps the fact that the Joker is so obviously an intellectual question incarnate makes him more acceptable, because we take him on his own terms. He is a living statement, and when he expounds his ideologies (or lack thereof) we don't balk at his wordiness. Bane is a more human character, and in some eyes this may detract from the villainous experience.

At the end of the day, I am most pleased with the work Goyer, the Nolans, and especially Tom Hardy did in realizing the character of Bane. I've only seen the film once, so perhaps on repeated viewings I'll notice the shortcomings so many seem sure of, but for now I am one happy cineaste!

You're right, a lot of the criticism of Bane comes from his representation. To me, I didn't feel the sense of urgency that something unpredictable would happen when Bane was on the screen. I also wasn't as involved during the fight scenes because fight scenes are so conventional that they've become such a commonality in films that it doesn't make me feel a sense of urgency as compared to the moral and ethical dilemmas posed by the Joker.

I just feel as though the Joker had more character and more personality than Bane, and thus Bane comes across as a villain whose face is covered and strictly wants to retread the Ras philosophy. He's suppose to be too extreme for the LOS, but apparently that wasn't the reason if you listen to Talia at the end of the film as to why Ras didn't want Bane present. I've spoken to numerous people who've seen the film and none have said Bane was a great villain, they just thought he was pretty good, and fair or not, I do think a lot of that has to do with his presentation (voice/mask).

Skyab23 wrote: I just feel as though the Joker had more character and more personality than Bane, and thus Bane comes across as a villain whose face is covered and strictly wants to retread the Ras philosophy. He's suppose to be too extreme for the LOS, but apparently that wasn't the reason if you listen to Talia at the end of the film as to why Ras didn't want Bane present. I've spoken to numerous people who've seen the film and none have said Bane was a great villain, they just thought he was pretty good, and fair or not, I do think a lot of that has to do with his presentation (voice/mask).

To me, the joker was always gonna more of a character, but I really thought Bane would be the ultimate badass, the pure villain, the devil's biceps with a brain. That's how he was introduced to us anyways. As Alfred said, if someone is too extreme for Ra's, watch out.

What makes Bane pretty good and not more is that that at the end of the day, I thought making Bane And when